Abaddon vs Sigismund

[Leif Bearclaw]

And yet Horus was named Warmaster, not Gulliman or the Lion.

 

In the XVI Legion, Abaddon's thing was leading the edge of the scalpel. He was the head of the vanguard of the Speartip, both in a command and a 'first man through the breach' capacity. While he could certainly command at a more straegic level, that wasn't his forte. That aspect of his character seems to have occured during the progression of Abaddon from 1st captain to Warmaster, and the Sons of Horus to the Black Legion.

 

As far as Sigismund goes, haven't read far enough into the Heresy to get to him featuring in a major capacity. But although both Sigismund and Abaddon have substantial legends of their badassitude during the heresy, I'd say advantage Sigismund, because his entire schtick is the killing of guys like Abaddon. While Abaddon was an assault leader, Sigismund's goal was the killing of enemy leaders.

 

While what A D-B has hinted in this thread sounds kinda epic. I'd sort of prefer it if Sigismund doesn't die to Abaddon. I've got a couple of reasons for this. Sigismund's story doesn't really need to cover his death imo, and if it does, then going down in a blaze of glory is the way to go, but Abaddon wins the 1st Black Crusade (getting the Daemon sword, plus as of Codex: BL, Abby never loses). So if the 1st Crusade is Sigismund's swansong then its a final failure for him, which is a sadly anticlimactic end for a character like Sigismund. Of course I'm open to having my mind changed by an awesome story.

 

I know it could be argued that that's the whole point of 40k, the 'good' guys are onto a loser whatever, but personally I've been finding the 'time of ending' tone of the recent fluff giving me some 'Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy'. One of my favourite bits of Soul Hunter was when Talos goes off on his 'we can't win the Long War' rant at Abaddon, because that's a viewpoint that we haven't seen enough of imo. Most of the time we see the Imperium is either losing, barely functioning or squaking a victory by the skin of its teeth. While these can (and do) make for epic stories, only seeing this side of the Imperium does create problems of the 'how have they lasted for 10,000 years' variety. Seeing a bit more of the Imperium triumphant, espcially in stories set in the 'past' would be nice.

 

Well, that went on a bit of a tangent.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Sigismund has, to my knowledge, been stated again and again to be the best 1on1 fighter among non primarchs during his time. We know he is killed, that much is certain. I don't see why we have to expect his death to be from a 1on1 fighter situation where he is said to excel like no other. I don't see why his death, or any other champions for that matter, absolutely has to be attributed to the actions of any one other indiviual, when there are so many ways he could have died. He could have been hit by an orbital strike, succumbed to a horde of honorless xenos, dying from being aboard a strike cruiser that explodes, hell he could have been tag teamed. Honestly? I'd prefer not knowing. And I'd rather his death not be used to inflate some other character's ego by having him lose in the way he was said to excel like no other.

 

And yes, this is most definately the opinion of biased fan boy

[Balthamal]

And yet Horus was named Warmaster, not Gulliman or the Lion.

 

In the XVI Legion, Abaddon's thing was leading the edge of the scalpel. He was the head of the vanguard of the Speartip, both in a command and a 'first man through the breach' capacity. While he could certainly command at a more straegic level, that wasn't his forte. That aspect of his character seems to have occured during the progression of Abaddon from 1st captain to Warmaster, and the Sons of Horus to the Black Legion.

 

As far as Sigismund goes, haven't read far enough into the Heresy to get to him featuring in a major capacity. But although both Sigismund and Abaddon have substantial legends of their badassitude during the heresy, I'd say advantage Sigismund, because his entire schtick is the killing of guys like Abaddon. While Abaddon was an assault leader, Sigismund's goal was the killing of enemy leaders.

 

While what A D-B has hinted in this thread sounds kinda epic. I'd sort of prefer it if Sigismund doesn't die to Abaddon. I've got a couple of reasons for this. Sigismund's story doesn't really need to cover his death imo, and if it does, then going down in a blaze of glory is the way to go, but Abaddon wins the 1st Black Crusade (getting the Daemon sword, plus as of Codex: BL, Abby never loses). So if the 1st Crusade is Sigismund's swansong then its a final failure for him, which is a sadly anticlimactic end for a character like Sigismund. Of course I'm open to having my mind changed by an awesome story.

 

I know it could be argued that that's the whole point of 40k, the 'good' guys are onto a loser whatever, but personally I've been finding the 'time of ending' tone of the recent fluff giving me some 'Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy'. One of my favourite bits of Soul Hunter was when Talos goes off on his 'we can't win the Long War' rant at Abaddon, because that's a viewpoint that we haven't seen enough of imo. Most of the time we see the Imperium is either losing, barely functioning or squaking a victory by the skin of its teeth. While these can (and do) make for epic stories, only seeing this side of the Imperium does create problems of the 'how have they lasted for 10,000 years' variety. Seeing a bit more of the Imperium triumphant, espcially in stories set in the 'past' would be nice.

 

Well, that went on a bit of a tangent.

 

I understand the sentiments but ADB was spot on with his commit earlier in the thread. To  a warrior culture, a heroic death is the ultimate expression of superiority. Just look at real world history like the Spartans to see what they were like (bat :cuss crazy comes close) and the Legiones Astartes are pretty much that magnified a thousand fold. A heroic death (and no matter what you think, dying at the hands of the Warmaster of Chaos IS heroic) would not diminish Sigismund, it would enhance him. This guy killed, no butchered, his way through the champions (champions, not bog standard legionnaires) of the Traitor Legions during the siege. If you include the retinues of said champions he probably ended with a kill tally just shy of the Primarchs themselves. It took literally one of the 20 best fighters amongst all the Legions, with the signature weapon of Horus, the most potent daemon sword ever forged and imbued with the combined blessings of the 4 powers of Chaos themselves to finally, finally, put him down after a thousand years. That says everything that ever needs saying about him. It's noted in his profile in Extermination that he rose to the pinnacle of the Legions because of one fact: He was peerless in combat. His rules reflect that. Sevatar Khârn and Abaddon aren't exactly slouches in that department but against Sigismund, with the rules they have printed, they'd lose, all of them. We know that Sigismund dies, so instead of making a cheap and nasty "vanishes into the warp to hunt traitors, yawn" fest, take him out in a blaze of glory.

 

This is 40k, it's been a tragedy from the moment Lorgar Aurelian offered his worship to Chaos, there's no happy endings through this. Take some of the greatest actions by loyalist Chapters: The Space Wolves defeating Angron's World Eater Horde, The Blood Angels routing Ghazgul at Armageddon, The Ultramarines annihilating Hive Fleet Behemoth, great displays of heroism and might by all mentioned. And what happened? Armageddon was cleansed the 1st time and Ghazgul merely came back with a bigger horde to break it the second. The Ultramarines took an almighty battering and even more Hive Fleets turned up. For the Imperium in 40k "winning" is nothing more than living to see the next thing that's likely to kill you show up. As for Talos, later on he does come to see Abaddon's viewpoint, in fact he makes a fantastic little speech about just why the Long War is still going on in Void Stalker. And he's right. Up to a point. Because when all is said and done, the Long War will end in a Chaos victory. It is utterly inevitable. The one chance there was to come out on the other side died with Horus and the Emperor at Terra.

 

That's what makes 40k so engaging. Everyone knows how it will end eventually, but it's that little bit inbetween the now and that then, when the very best and the very worst of human nature meet, that is rich in story telling potential.

[Plague Angel]

Sigismund has, to my knowledge, been stated again and again to be the best 1on1 fighter among non primarchs during his time. We know he is killed, that much is certain. I don't see why we have to expect his death to be from a 1on1 fighter situation where he is said to excel like no other. I don't see why his death, or any other champions for that matter, absolutely has to be attributed to the actions of any one other indiviual, when there are so many ways he could have died. He could have been hit by an orbital strike, succumbed to a horde of honorless xenos, dying from being aboard a strike cruiser that explodes, hell he could have been tag teamed. Honestly? I'd prefer not knowing. And I'd rather his death not be used to inflate some other character's ego by having him lose in the way he was said to excel like no other.

 

And yes, this is most definately the opinion of biased fan boy

 

 

See, to me, the idea that the guy who was the supreme 1v1 fighter met his end any other way is what feels really anticlimactic. To be the supreme duelist in a race of duelists fighting duels across the galaxy, and claw his way to the top of that, finally to meet his end by being simply crushed under the weight of 10000000000000 termagants or have an orbital missile fall on his head, or some other end that renders the titanic skill he honed over his enhanced lifetime completely worthless?

 

I don't see how that would satisfy anyone, especially Sigismund's fans.

[Kol Saresk]

Honestly, I think one way to do it, is have Abby and Siggy(sounds like a kids' cartoon; The Grimdark Adventures of Siggy and Abby) having a Rocky/Appollo moment where they rush each other. I mean, we know that Abby makes to 40K and Siggy doesn't, but sort of gives that sense of closure while at the same time leaving just enough of a "what if" to seal the deal for both sides of the fence.

 

Of course, that is just a possibility.

[Marshal Reinhard]

I never said that's the way I want him to go either. But it's not like you couldn't make his death aboard say a strike cruiser, exceedingly epic and glorious. Perhaps he completely breaks the enemy fleet by charging the cruiser into a collision with the enemy flagship? But I'm digressing. I do infact want his death, if it HAS to be detailed, being with him with his blade in hand. But it being the result of  a 1on1 fight? Don't think so. I can't let go of the notion that if he's in a 1on1 fight, he wins, period. Like I said, I'm a fanboy. But perhaps he dies, ambushed and outnumbered, against some elite close combat unit, perhaps even lead by Abby? I'd still prefer not knowing

[Kol Saresk]

Even when he's over a thousand years old? I mean, I know they're Space Marines but we do have examples of them getting old and even dying of old age in one case.

[Balthamal]

Nah I think the only way to seriously do him justice is to have him blade to blade with Abaddon. Anything less will feel anticlimactic by comparison. It was either in this thread or another I said that I really hope that Abaddon tries his hand against Sigismund at Terra and loses. Would add god knows how much more depth if they do have it out during the 1st Black Crusade. Having Abaddon crawling away from it afterwards too would be the ultimate salute to the Black Templar, the only man who ever took him within a hair's breath of defeat, one he would never come close to again. 

 

Add in ADB's word play and you've got a home made money printer

[Wade Garrett]

The Imperium isn't shown to win enough, therefore its unfair if Abaddon defeats a white haired thousand year old Sigismund?

 

Yes, those crushing defeats like Abaddon's triumphant flight from the Blood Angels at Crythe, Dark Apostle Marduk's heroic retreat at Boros, Honsou's glorious hiding from the Ultramarones in a barrel of sewage at Calth, and Huron & Abaddon's coordinated running away from the Dark Angels & Grey Knights at Pandorax need to be balanced out by some solid victories.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Balthamal: I get what you're saying, but I'm a biased fanboy that cannot accept the thought of him losing a 1on1. Is that in any way reasonable? No, not at all. Does it potentially lessen the story? Probably. But I don't quite see what's added by having him lose a fair 1on1 either. Why would Abbadon be all honorable about it anyway? Why wouldn't he 'cheat' and get help? Why is it more anticlimatic if Sigismund has to cross blades with both him and his bodyguard? Why does it need to be a 1on1 which is the one part which i cannot relent on him never losing? Geh, I need to stop before I legimately annoy Sons of Horus/BL fans.

 

Wade Garrett: Oh it's probably fair. In fact, my unreasonable fanboyism is probably demanding Abbadon be cast in an unfairly poor light. Which is probably also part of the reason I would prefer it not be known. This is the downside to finally detailing some events that have been undetailed for so long. In one way or another, one included side will be let down.

 

Anyway, enough of my rabidness

[Balthamal]

Balthamal: I get what you're saying, but I'm a biased fanboy that cannot accept the thought of him losing a 1on1. Is that in any way reasonable? No, not at all. Does it potentially lessen the story? Probably. But I don't quite see what's added by having him lose a fair 1on1 either. Why would Abbadon be all honorable about it anyway? Why wouldn't he 'cheat' and get help? Why is it more anticlimatic if Sigismund has to cross blades with both him and his bodyguard? Why does it need to be a 1on1 which is the one part which i cannot relent on him never losing? Geh, I need to stop before I legimately annoy Sons of Horus/BL fans.

 

Wade Garrett: Oh it's probably fair. In fact, my unreasonable fanboyism is probably demanding Abbadon be cast in an unfairly poor light. Which is probably also part of the reason I would prefer it not be known. This is the downside to finally detailing some events that have been undetailed for so long. In one way or another, one included side will be let down.

 

Anyway, enough of my rabidness

 

Yeah I get your point of view, I really do. Your self confessed bias makes it impossible for you to see him lose when it comes down to a mano e mano which is fair enough. I don't agree with it but I won't rip your head off for having the opinion :)

 

I'll admit I'm biased for it but in a different way: I want something real. I can't stand the thought of some half baked attempt to finally see him off like the final deaths of the loyalists at Istvaan III. The scene was set brilliantly but the execution of it was badly lacking. Would Abaddon cheat? Of course he would. Notions of honour and fair play don't apply in a battle to the death even if both fighters are honourable. I see it more of Sigismund's genius in that he forces Abaddon to face him down. And it pays to remember Abaddon in this. He isn't the Warmaster because he was appointed to it, like his First Captaincy. He has to earn it. And in the forces of Chaos you earn it through being stronger, more importantly demonstrating you're stronger, and through blood, oceans of it. Abaddon needs to make a statement, even if it's through means he wouldn't ever consider normally. Sigismund's head would be an almighty prize, albeit one he's taking crazy risks to attain. Add's even more depth again which if this does happen, 2 of the most iconic characters from the lore, deserves in spades. Anything less and it will fail. Badly.

[Augustus]

"Everyone who kept their gene sire alive through the Siege of Terra, stand up!"

 

-First Captain Sigismund addresses a gathering of the Adeptus Custodes during the Scouring.

.

 

As Dorn weeps at the front of class.

[Kais Klip]

I stand by my belief that it’s best for him to die off-page, seeing the palace fall and leading a loyalist countercharge a la Constantin 11th; have his body unable to be recovered, presumed taken by the traitors as a trophy (but claimed by more than one party) or annihilated by an Iron Warrior artillery strike, while showing notable enemy champions dead with signature marks from his blade. But then again I do think the BL Istvaan III way (or FW blurbs, like they did with Shabran Darr etc) as being the most satisfying way for characters to be killed. 

[Leif Bearclaw]

I understand the sentiments but ADB was spot on with his commit earlier in the thread. To a warrior culture, a heroic death is the ultimate expression of superiority. Just look at real world history like the Spartans to see what they were like (bat crazy comes close) and the Legiones Astartes are pretty much that magnified a thousand fold. A heroic death (and no matter what you think, dying at the hands of the Warmaster of Chaos IS heroic) would not diminish Sigismund, it would enhance him. This guy killed, no butchered, his way through the champions (champions, not bog standard legionnaires) of the Traitor Legions during the siege. If you include the retinues of said champions he probably ended with a kill tally just shy of the Primarchs themselves. It took literally one of the 20 best fighters amongst all the Legions, with the signature weapon of Horus, the most potent daemon sword ever forged and imbued with the combined blessings of the 4 powers of Chaos themselves to finally, finally, put him down after a thousand years. That says everything that ever needs saying about him. It's noted in his profile in Extermination that he rose to the pinnacle of the Legions because of one fact: He was peerless in combat. His rules reflect that. Sevatar Khârn and Abaddon aren't exactly slouches in that department but against Sigismund, with the rules they have printed, they'd lose, all of them. We know that Sigismund dies, so instead of making a cheap and nasty "vanishes into the warp to hunt traitors, yawn" fest, take him out in a blaze of glory.

This is 40k, it's been a tragedy from the moment Lorgar Aurelian offered his worship to Chaos, there's no happy endings through this. Take some of the greatest actions by loyalist Chapters: The Space Wolves defeating Angron's World Eater Horde, The Blood Angels routing Ghazgul at Armageddon, The Ultramarines annihilating Hive Fleet Behemoth, great displays of heroism and might by all mentioned. And what happened? Armageddon was cleansed the 1st time and Ghazgul merely came back with a bigger horde to break it the second. The Ultramarines took an almighty battering and even more Hive Fleets turned up. For the Imperium in 40k "winning" is nothing more than living to see the next thing that's likely to kill you show up. As for Talos, later on he does come to see Abaddon's viewpoint, in fact he makes a fantastic little speech about just why the Long War is still going on in Void Stalker. And he's right. Up to a point. Because when all is said and done, the Long War will end in a Chaos victory. It is utterly inevitable. The one chance there was to come out on the other side died with Horus and the Emperor at Terra.

That's what makes 40k so engaging. Everyone knows how it will end eventually, but it's that little bit inbetween the now and that then, when the very best and the very worst of human nature meet, that is rich in story telling potential.

You make some good points here. I think the magority of my dislike for the idea of Abbadon killing Sigismund is that I never felt that we really need to know how Sigismund dies. And having Abby kill him as part of establishing himself as the true blue 40k antichrist runs the risk of reducing his fate to a footnote in Abby's story, now odds on ADB will deliver and them some with a quality story that make me eat my words, but atm that would be my worry. I do sometimes wonder, with the stasis of the setting, if we'll eventually reach a point where there are no significant mysteries left...

As for the rest, my beef with the fluff comes from 2 chief sources, the 'time of ending' bits from the brb, and the codex fluff. I don't see the need to have the close of M41 being quite so 'seriously guys, this is the final end', a new age of war and strife for the Imperium OK, but not the worst thing to ever happen to it ever. Then the codex fluff. This seems to be going the way of merely listing how the Guard/Space Marines function, whereas Chaos/Tau/Tyranid dexes offer constant anacdotes of them massacering the Imperials. For example, we get the fall of Agrellan in Tau, The Judged in CSM, the Crimson Slaughter massacring worlds and commitng grand theft gene seed on the Dark Angels, Abaddon never having a true reversal in Black Legion, Gryphonne IV falls to the nids (I know this one's not recent, but is one of my least favourite pieces of fluff), even the big dust up against the Daemons in the nids book starts with the Imperials getting massacred before the real fight can begin.

Compare with what the Imperials have got. The closest to an example set piece in the new Guard book is the Tratican War, which has the Guard losing, then the marrative ends. The Marine codex didn't add any major new victories for the Marines examined in detail like the examplein last paragraph. We've had the Iron Hands debacle that was Codex Clan Raaukan. The Imperial Fists had their Chapter Master killied, were massacred again, and had some Iron Warrior hijack the Phalanx and strand it in the warp. I'd like to see some new Armageddons (Ghazkul lost the 3rd too remember), Corinth Crusade, or some spotlight for Imperial victories like the Crusade of Wrath.

For an example of the sort of thing I mean, Chris Wraight's battle of the Fang. The novel does a great job of portraying the post Scouring state of the Wolves and Sons, doing justice to both imo. And it ends with the new Great Wolf addressing the Chapter: "We will rebuild. The Aett will be restored and made even greater", the protagonists have faced down and prevailed against the great threat, and ends on a positive note of recovery. It's that glimmer of hope that I feel is being lost in too much of the current fluff. If that story had been written in the vein of the current codexes, it wouldv'e ended with 90% of the entire Wolves Chapter dead, and those that survived only winning because they called on the power of Tzeentch (seriously, how did they make such a mess of Clan Raukaan?) and the fang still hasn't been repaired 9000 years later (iirc the battle was in M32).

Damn I'm bad for tangents today.

[Augustus]

I read Pandorax as: I'm Abaddon. I got what I came for. I could even win this war...if I wanted to. BuhBYE!

[Balthamal]

I understand the sentiments but ADB was spot on with his commit earlier in the thread. To a warrior culture, a heroic death is the ultimate expression of superiority. Just look at real world history like the Spartans to see what they were like (bat crazy comes close) and the Legiones Astartes are pretty much that magnified a thousand fold. A heroic death (and no matter what you think, dying at the hands of the Warmaster of Chaos IS heroic) would not diminish Sigismund, it would enhance him. This guy killed, no butchered, his way through the champions (champions, not bog standard legionnaires) of the Traitor Legions during the siege. If you include the retinues of said champions he probably ended with a kill tally just shy of the Primarchs themselves. It took literally one of the 20 best fighters amongst all the Legions, with the signature weapon of Horus, the most potent daemon sword ever forged and imbued with the combined blessings of the 4 powers of Chaos themselves to finally, finally, put him down after a thousand years. That says everything that ever needs saying about him. It's noted in his profile in Extermination that he rose to the pinnacle of the Legions because of one fact: He was peerless in combat. His rules reflect that. Sevatar Khârn and Abaddon aren't exactly slouches in that department but against Sigismund, with the rules they have printed, they'd lose, all of them. We know that Sigismund dies, so instead of making a cheap and nasty "vanishes into the warp to hunt traitors, yawn" fest, take him out in a blaze of glory.

This is 40k, it's been a tragedy from the moment Lorgar Aurelian offered his worship to Chaos, there's no happy endings through this. Take some of the greatest actions by loyalist Chapters: The Space Wolves defeating Angron's World Eater Horde, The Blood Angels routing Ghazgul at Armageddon, The Ultramarines annihilating Hive Fleet Behemoth, great displays of heroism and might by all mentioned. And what happened? Armageddon was cleansed the 1st time and Ghazgul merely came back with a bigger horde to break it the second. The Ultramarines took an almighty battering and even more Hive Fleets turned up. For the Imperium in 40k "winning" is nothing more than living to see the next thing that's likely to kill you show up. As for Talos, later on he does come to see Abaddon's viewpoint, in fact he makes a fantastic little speech about just why the Long War is still going on in Void Stalker. And he's right. Up to a point. Because when all is said and done, the Long War will end in a Chaos victory. It is utterly inevitable. The one chance there was to come out on the other side died with Horus and the Emperor at Terra.

That's what makes 40k so engaging. Everyone knows how it will end eventually, but it's that little bit inbetween the now and that then, when the very best and the very worst of human nature meet, that is rich in story telling potential.

You make some good points here. I think the magority of my dislike for the idea of Abbadon killing Sigismund is that I never felt that we really need to know how Sigismund dies. And having Abby kill him as part of establishing himself as the true blue 40k antichrist runs the risk of reducing his fate to a footnote in Abby's story, now odds on ADB will deliver and them some with a quality story that make me eat my words, but atm that would be my worry. I do sometimes wonder, with the stasis of the setting, if we'll eventually reach a point where there are no significant mysteries left...

Some could say the same thing of Sanguinius in that he's remembered best for dying at Horus' hand, just to psych the Emperor up for a fight but that in no way diminishes him. Add in a tiny line about how he knew he'd die and he's elevated above and beyond everyone else. It might work for Sigismund it might not, the majority of it will rely upon who commits the scenes to print which is a bit too variable for my liking (look at the comparison between the Dark Angels in Savage Weapons and The Lion, it's almost cringe worthy)

As for the rest, well according to the 40k rulebook (the big one with all the extra fluff blurbs) the 3 millennia after the HH saw the Imperium slowly rebuild to a position of great strength although there was the odd disaster to set them back so who knows there might be so good stories to tell back then. But later? Especially the 41st millennium? Don't count on it too much, it's been hinted at in the various editions for years that this is when all the little cuts inflicted since the HH are finally starting to bleed the Imperium dry

[Leif Bearclaw]

True enough, that's a good point abut Sanguinius. Guess we just have to trust in ADB, the lord and saviour .

Personally I much prefer the 'dynamic stasis' idea of the Imperium, that its always gaining and losing territory so that while it can lose sorlds by the score in bad campaigns, they are replaced on the macro scale and the Imperium endures. Likewise, I don't find the scale of threat facing the Imperium at the close of M41 is necessarily worse than the other major bad times the Imperium has faced thoughout its history, the Heresy itself, the Age of Apostasy, the Nova Terra Interregnum. In some ways the threats circa M41 are simpler, the Imperium is as unified as it can be, the threats are coming from without, rather than within, so the full force of the Imperial military can focus on the invasions it faces, rather than the internalconflicts that have characterised previous dark ages of the Imperium. But that's just my take on it, and sadly it seems the fluff masters don't agree .

[Kol Saresk]

The Imperium of the 41st Millenium is unified? Honestly, I'm not sure that is the word I would use considering just the last century has the Badab War, Crimson Slaughter, Night Reapers and a few other internal schisms an splits. And there's still another nine centuries before that.

 

I mean, it'd be nice if the Imperium were to hit the 13th Black Crusade head on since it would be a titanic battle of epic proportions, but it has never been so and chances are, never will be. The sad truth is that while the Imperium is in a perpetual state of attack and retreat, it is still growing old. And like all things, once you hit a certain age you just can't do it quit the way you used to.

[b1soul]

 some other end that renders the titanic skill he honed over his enhanced lifetime completely worthless?

 

I don't see how that would satisfy anyone, especially Sigismund's fans.

 

 

Yes...because the greatest, undefeated duelist in 40K should die by losing at something he's supposed to be the best at? What?

 

If Sigismund reaps the heads of dozens of Traitor champions, and finally succumbs to a horde of enemies, or treachery, an explosion...how is that not fitting? It means no one was able to best him 1 on 1. They had to swarm him or stab him in the back or poison him or destroy his ship...

 

That cements his status as the ultimate loyalist champion. Having him die in a duel undermines it. His epitaph could read something along the lines of "The Emperor's mightiest champion, none could face him alone and survive."

[Kol Saresk]

But wouldn't that just be copying Dorn's death?

[Kais Klip]

Like sire like squire. Isn’t that the nature of the VII; to stand lone against the tide and be dragged down out of the light? 

 

Besides, Argel Tal didn’t die to Sanguinius, so who says Dorn has to be the golden son thats brought down by a hacking mob? 

[Marshal Reinhard]

But wouldn't that just be copying Dorn's death?

 

I don't see how it does

[Kol Saresk]

Like sire like squire. Isn’t that the nature of the VII; to stand lone against the tide and be dragged down out of the light? 

 

Besides, Argel Tal didn’t die to Sanguinius, so who says Dorn has to be the golden son thats brought down by a hacking mob?

The background that says he died to a hacking mob says he dies to a hacking mob. Besides, nowhere did it say Argel Tal would die to Sanguinius. He was told he would die under the shadow of great wings. Everyone, including Argel Tal, just assumed it would be Sanguinius after 1.)he survived being under Corax's shadow and 2.)Lorgar saw a future where Argel Tal would be at Terra.

[Leif Bearclaw]

Kol, I said the Imperium is as 'as unified as it can be'. Of course there will be strife, but it's not anywhere near Age of Apostasy levels. And that kind of giant dust up is exactly what did happen back before the clock was rolled back on the 13th Crusade. The showdown in the Cadian system between Abaddon's fleet and Admiral Quarren that resulted in Macharia being destroyed, Kasr Partox scoured by a Blackstone (which also killed all the Chaos Marines on the Planet), but the Chaos Fleet was routed, the Planet Killer crippled and lost, and Cadia still stood.

 

From BFG armada:

"Where Imperial defences had been overstretched at the outset of the war, they soon stood reinforced by dozens of neighbouring battlefleets...and soon the Imperial Navy stood as an unvreakable circle of iron around Abaddon's forces. From this strong regrouping, Admiral Quarren was more than able to launch his counter-attacks against Abaddon's chosen targets"

[Kol Saresk]

You said that there were no threats from within the Imperium. There are always threats from within the Imperium. Period. That's the setting. There is always someone breaking away. The Segmentum Obscurus stands strong against Abaadon, doesn't mean the rest of the Imperium does.