gogmagog Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I suppose you are right. But its the interaction between marines I find difficult, Rafen being referred to as Sir by the Librarian and so on, it just doesnt sit well, I cant quite put my finger on it. Yet 'Flight of the Eisenstein ' is superb. I think the whole problem at the moment with Blood Angel fluff is that they are being smacked into a corner with thirst/rage thing, everything is attacking them, and they will all be wiped out. Which, of course, is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igotsmeakabob!! Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I find it difficult to believe that the author of the Garro et al stories is the same person who did the Blood Angel ones. In truth I really struggled with them! I think it's just artistic growth. There was a long period between the Deus series and Swallow's HH books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlandMoonGuy Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It really is a matter of expectations. Can't say I would agree with you here CD. The notion of a space marine has been interpreted in many ways but this story represents a distinct deviation from most others. Of course, BA enthusiasts are miffed off because it messes with their favorite flavor of marines. Yet, this story really attacks the inherent character of marines in general. It's not unique in that sense. There are other equally poor examples among BL publications. The Soul Drinkers certainly had some issues that run contrary to my understanding of marine character and, like the Deus novels, seems to blatantly ignore the inevitable consequences that would come as a result. But beyond the specific criticisms that can be ascribed to the Deus books, the topic at hand deals with their relevance as canon. To that end, I don't know of a credible source that has said one way or the other and the fluff inconsistencies is an issue that can't be readily dismissed. But still, these books are published under the GW banner and there is no other source for official anything when it comes to 40K no matter what. So again, it's up to the gamer to use his/her own judgement when it comes to this question. And since it is just a question of fluff there's no real right or wrong answer anyway. Cheers, -OMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dropsik Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I think that problem with Swallows series being not considered as canon lies in fact, that the books are much disliked by BA players and fans. It doesn't matter it was published under GW wings. Something that will be considered as a bad story, would struggle to be considered as canon because most of people would discard it just as a mistake. All in all, opinions about books are still opinions, so maybe when Swallow presented his books to GW's BL publisher the guy liked it. I don't have problems with solutions and choices that Swallow did in his books. The story of Arkio, and then hunt for Fabius - cool. BA fans and players always have some quirk of hope that their primarch would reincarnate, and hunting Fabius is awesome in itself. I could easily consider such story a canon as long as it would be written well enough. It isn't. Still reading it though :lol: cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I never had a problem with the story of the 3rd and 4th book, with the exception of why the council was called (they could have made it about something else). My beef is the first one. However, I wouldn't have a problem with the first two if the codex made mention of them. It does not, and that was pretty major. Therefore, novels =/= fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.