Abaddon vs Sigismund

[Marshal Rohr]

Being honorable doesn't mean being chivalrous. The World Eaters were honorable.

[Aegnor]

Not in the sense anyone sane would agree with. Saying that you are something doesn't make it so.

[Xenith]

I don't know much about sparring and people who still use live steel today, but I can imagine in a duel you would never go 100% because that would mean killing and dismembering blows not until the other yields

 

Of course people give 100% in sparring and duels. Look at fencing. You can't accuse fencers of not giving it their all.

 

What you need to define is the victory conditions. Sparring is not a fight to the death, unless you're world eaters, and only then if you decide it to be. 

 

You win within a given framework of rules, breaking them would be like bringing a bicycle to a marathon. 

 

Fighting within that strict framework, both Sigismund and Sevatar were equally matched. Sevatar became frustrated and impatient, and couldnt abide by the rules. Siggy could carry on and never give up, and is fully capable of working within a strict ruleset. Both traits of their Legions.

 

Kill the opponent, no holds barred - the one that uses every tool at their disposal wins.

Kill the opponent, strict ruleset - the first cheater lives.

 

Surprise and betrayal are the biggest weapons of the traitors.

At the start of the heresy, Sevvy would kill sigismund, as Sig would expect Sev to fight by a moral code of conduct.

By the end, siggy would not trust sevatar, and fight underhandedly, probably winning.

 

Look at the Lion and Curze on Tsagualsa. The Lion is the first one to cheat and stick Kurze and almost kills him.

 

I have to say, I'm enjoying this thread!

[depthcharge12]

 

I don't know much about sparring and people who still use live steel today, but I can imagine in a duel you would never go 100% because that would mean killing and dismembering blows not until the other yields

 

Of course people give 100% in sparring and duels. Look at fencing. You can't accuse fencers of not giving it their all.

 

What you need to define is the victory conditions. Sparring is not a fight to the death, unless you're world eaters, and only then if you decide it to be. 

 

You win within a given framework of rules, breaking them would be like bringing a bicycle to a marathon. 

 

Fighting within that strict framework, both Sigismund and Sevatar were equally matched. Sevatar became frustrated and impatient, and couldnt abide by the rules. Siggy could carry on and never give up, and is fully capable of working within a strict ruleset. Both traits of their Legions.

 

Kill the opponent, no holds barred - the one that uses every tool at their disposal wins.

Kill the opponent, strict ruleset - the first cheater lives.

 

Surprise and betrayal are the biggest weapons of the traitors.

At the start of the heresy, Sevvy would kill sigismund, as Sig would expect Sev to fight by a moral code of conduct.

By the end, siggy would not trust sevatar, and fight underhandedly, probably winning.

 

Look at the Lion and Curze on Tsagualsa. The Lion is the first one to cheat and stick Kurze and almost kills him.

 

I have to say, I'm enjoying this thread!

 

I would like to respectfully disagree. Fencing has no physical dismemberment, gouging, or flesh wounds of any sort. So if you wanted to push your opponent on the floor and repeatedly hit him with the épée, he won't be hurt other than a possible welt.

 

 

There is on the other hand a martial arts form that uses live steel, I can't remember the name but I believe they use Katanas, and they have to train for years on end and be very careful because they use sharpened blades that can kill.

 

Now we don't know really if Siggy and Sev used whetted steel, but I think it would be safe to assume that from the other duels we've seen.

 

 

You would never make chops or slices with the intent to kill your opponent, and you would always hold back. The purpose of the duel is not to put the guy in a wheelchair for the rest of his life (unless you are doing In Extremis).

 

 

So I might make blows to disarm you or put your balance off, but never with the intent to slice you into a basket case.

[Conn Eremon]

 

 

 

 

I don't know much about sparring and people who still use live steel today, but I can imagine in a duel you would never go 100% because that would mean killing and dismembering blows not until the other yields

Of course people give 100% in sparring and duels. Look at fencing. You can't accuse fencers of not giving it their all.

 

What you need to define is the victory conditions. Sparring is not a fight to the death, unless you're world eaters, and only then if you decide it to be.

 

You win within a given framework of rules, breaking them would be like bringing a bicycle to a marathon.

 

Fighting within that strict framework, both Sigismund and Sevatar were equally matched. Sevatar became frustrated and impatient, and couldnt abide by the rules. Siggy could carry on and never give up, and is fully capable of working within a strict ruleset. Both traits of their Legions.

 

Kill the opponent, no holds barred - the one that uses every tool at their disposal wins.

Kill the opponent, strict ruleset - the first cheater lives.

 

Surprise and betrayal are the biggest weapons of the traitors.

At the start of the heresy, Sevvy would kill sigismund, as Sig would expect Sev to fight by a moral code of conduct.

By the end, siggy would not trust sevatar, and fight underhandedly, probably winning.

 

Look at the Lion and Curze on Tsagualsa. The Lion is the first one to cheat and stick Kurze and almost kills him.

 

I have to say, I'm enjoying this thread!

I would like to respectfully disagree. Fencing has no physical dismemberment, gouging, or flesh wounds of any sort. So if you wanted to push your opponent on the floor and repeatedly hit him with the épée, he won't be hurt other than a possible welt.

 

 

There is on the other hand a martial arts form that uses live steel, I can't remember the name but I believe they use Katanas, and they have to train for years on end and be very careful because they use sharpened blades that can kill.

 

Now we don't know really if Siggy and Sev used whetted steel, but I think it would be safe to assume that from the other duels we've seen.

 

 

You would never make chops or slices with the intent to kill your opponent, and you would always hold back. The purpose of the duel is not to put the guy in a wheelchair for the rest of his life (unless you are doing In Extremis).

 

 

So I might make blows to disarm you or put your balance off, but never with the intent to slice you into a basket case.

I think the point he was trying to make is that there is a difference in whether one gives a hundred percent in battle or in duels, because of the victory conditions. You are right that in a duel they are not going to be swinging with the intent to maim or kill, which would be giving it the full hundred in combat.

 

In other words, you give it your all within the framework of the fight, which can change. In a duel, you are not trying to maim or kill, but you are still giving it your all within the framework of a duel.

[depthcharge12]

@cormac

 

I see yes. I was just trying to play devils advocate because quite a few people seem to think that if Sevatar faces the black knight in real combat, not a duel, that he would win because of XY dirty tricks. I think that Sigismund hasn't displayed his full prowess either because of the duel as well, like he said, different winning conditions.

 

I think it will be a fair match up IF they fight again and have a feeling that neither would win because other things would intervene or distract them. For all we know, Sevatar could call out a challenge but takes a vindicator shot to the face...

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

 

I don't know much about sparring and people who still use live steel today, but I can imagine in a duel you would never go 100% because that would mean killing and dismembering blows not until the other yields

Of course people give 100% in sparring and duels. Look at fencing. You can't accuse fencers of not giving it their all.

 

What you need to define is the victory conditions. Sparring is not a fight to the death, unless you're world eaters, and only then if you decide it to be.

 

You win within a given framework of rules, breaking them would be like bringing a bicycle to a marathon.

 

Fighting within that strict framework, both Sigismund and Sevatar were equally matched. Sevatar became frustrated and impatient, and couldnt abide by the rules. Siggy could carry on and never give up, and is fully capable of working within a strict ruleset. Both traits of their Legions.

 

Kill the opponent, no holds barred - the one that uses every tool at their disposal wins.

Kill the opponent, strict ruleset - the first cheater lives.

 

Surprise and betrayal are the biggest weapons of the traitors.

At the start of the heresy, Sevvy would kill sigismund, as Sig would expect Sev to fight by a moral code of conduct.

By the end, siggy would not trust sevatar, and fight underhandedly, probably winning.

 

Look at the Lion and Curze on Tsagualsa. The Lion is the first one to cheat and stick Kurze and almost kills him.

 

I have to say, I'm enjoying this thread!

You and Savage Weapons seem to recount that fight very differently.

 

@cormac

 

I see yes. I was just trying to play devils advocate because quite a few people seem to think that if Sevatar faces the black knight in real combat, not a duel, that he would win because of XY dirty tricks. I think that Sigismund hasn't displayed his full prowess either because of the duel as well, like he said, different winning conditions.

 

I think it will be a fair match up IF they fight again and have a feeling that neither would win because other things would intervene or distract them. For all we know, Sevatar could call out a challenge but takes a vindicator shot to the face...

Honestly, I don't know who would win. As with any fight, context is needed. Is Sigismund fighting by a warrior's code or somesuch? Did Sevatar slip on a pebble? Did a stray bolt round graze Sigismund's helm and temporarily blind him? These are things we must know.

[Wade Garrett]

Sevatar would win, because he never insisted the serfs weld golden palm fronds to his helmet.

 

Sorry; but that one detail just kills the Sigismund artwork for me.

 

And Kol, obviously Lion was breaking Curze's hands with his rippling neck muscles before Corswain got in the way...

[depthcharge12]

Sevatar would win, because he never insisted the serfs weld golden palm fronds to his helmet.

 

Sigismund, because he never welds silly little bat ears to his helmet.

 

 

Come at me bromander

[Marshal Rohr]

Lol this debate should really be whose helmet is cooler. 

[Hyaenidae]

 

I don't know much about sparring and people who still use live steel today, but I can imagine in a duel you would never go 100% because that would mean killing and dismembering blows not until the other yields

 

Of course people give 100% in sparring and duels. Look at fencing. You can't accuse fencers of not giving it their all.

 

What you need to define is the victory conditions. Sparring is not a fight to the death, unless you're world eaters, and only then if you decide it to be. 

 

You win within a given framework of rules, breaking them would be like bringing a bicycle to a marathon. 

 

Fighting within that strict framework, both Sigismund and Sevatar were equally matched. Sevatar became frustrated and impatient, and couldnt abide by the rules. Siggy could carry on and never give up, and is fully capable of working within a strict ruleset. Both traits of their Legions.

 

Kill the opponent, no holds barred - the one that uses every tool at their disposal wins.

Kill the opponent, strict ruleset - the first cheater lives.

 

Surprise and betrayal are the biggest weapons of the traitors.

At the start of the heresy, Sevvy would kill sigismund, as Sig would expect Sev to fight by a moral code of conduct.

By the end, siggy would not trust sevatar, and fight underhandedly, probably winning.

 

Look at the Lion and Curze on Tsagualsa. The Lion is the first one to cheat and stick Kurze and almost kills him.

 

I have to say, I'm enjoying this thread!

 

Good sir, with all due respect,  I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Profusely. You can lie to yourself all day long that you gave 100% in training, but until you are in a life and death situation, where someone is going to kill you if you don't kill them first, then you have no concept of what 100% means.

[Memento Of Prospero]

Agreed Heathens!

[Conn Eremon]

 

 

 

I don't know much about sparring and people who still use live steel today, but I can imagine in a duel you would never go 100% because that would mean killing and dismembering blows not until the other yields

Of course people give 100% in sparring and duels. Look at fencing. You can't accuse fencers of not giving it their all.

 

What you need to define is the victory conditions. Sparring is not a fight to the death, unless you're world eaters, and only then if you decide it to be.

 

You win within a given framework of rules, breaking them would be like bringing a bicycle to a marathon.

 

Fighting within that strict framework, both Sigismund and Sevatar were equally matched. Sevatar became frustrated and impatient, and couldnt abide by the rules. Siggy could carry on and never give up, and is fully capable of working within a strict ruleset. Both traits of their Legions.

 

Kill the opponent, no holds barred - the one that uses every tool at their disposal wins.

Kill the opponent, strict ruleset - the first cheater lives.

 

Surprise and betrayal are the biggest weapons of the traitors.

At the start of the heresy, Sevvy would kill sigismund, as Sig would expect Sev to fight by a moral code of conduct.

By the end, siggy would not trust sevatar, and fight underhandedly, probably winning.

 

Look at the Lion and Curze on Tsagualsa. The Lion is the first one to cheat and stick Kurze and almost kills him.

 

I have to say, I'm enjoying this thread!

Good sir, with all due respect, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Profusely. You can lie to yourself all day long that you gave 100% in training, but until you are in a life and death situation, where someone is going to kill you if you don't kill them first, then you have no concept of what 100% means.

I have no concept of that kind of 100%. And I hope that I never do.

 

But I don't believe it is the only 100%. Probably the highest, sure. Death is a great motivator, whether your own or someone else's. But to say that because you are taking death out of the equation, everything is simply less just sounds . . . insulting, though I feel I know you well enough to know that no insult was intended.

 

But, I mean . . . Well, especially when death has little to do with it, and is nowhere on the line. A practice duel is more like a bike race than a fight to the death. It may use similar skillsets, but one is there to show off skill, prowess and athletic ability, and the other is a struggle to kill or to live. One is there to give the idea of how one would fare in the other, but the fact that it is an obvious truth that combat is nothing like practice highlights the differences right there.

 

Practice is not a fight to the death, and going all out in practice, giving a hundred percent, is not the same thing as giving it a hundred percent in combat. Going with the bike race example, Sigismund's duel against Sevatar was a race. They were both giving it a hundred percent, as in heads down, legs pumping, each doing their utmost to outpace the other. And then Sevatar was disqualified for reaching over and giving Sigismund's handlebars a jerk. That doesn't mean that because Sevatar did something extra right there, therefore they were giving it less than a hundred percent before. It means that somewhere along the way, Sevatar decided to give less than his all, and in a way that made him lose right then and there.

 

When you are doing a competitive activity defined by its own rules, then giving it your all, giving it a hundred percent, means doing your utmost to beat the competition within the framework of those rules. Giving less than a hundred means either not trying hard enough, like just not pedaling as fast as I know I could, or by going outside the framework of those rules, like jerking the other guy's handlebars.

 

That is the context of the practice duel, though it would vary of course. It would less apply to the World Eaters, for instance, though it would still apply. And is shown to apply, as that is where the distinction between Khârn and . . . Delvarus? comes from.

 

Actual battle is not like that, just like being a professional runner isn't like running for your life. Completely different framework within which the hundred percent would apply. But I would agree, even though I have no experience in the matter, that giving it your all in a true life or death situation, will likely be a lot more than in a non life-threatening situation. But in the way that a hundred percent of 3 mL is less than a hundred percent of 6 mL.

 

Now, I am not saying that because Sevatar decided to give less than his all at some point that he is therefore less than Sigismund. What we have are two very capable fighters dueling each other, and one just has the mentality that rules are meant to be broken, especially if it gives you the edge. This doesn't mean that he would have lost if things had continued. Anymore than it would mean that if it was Neil Armstrong jerking my handlebars, then he would have lost if the race had continued. Or Tito Ortiz stopping after swinging a single punch (though that would probably be all he needs if it was me in the Octagon with him).

[Augustus]

Hmm. Like Wade I do find it a bit strange (at this point in time) that Abaddon would despise Horus so much but emulate him in different ways.

 

For me the biggest issue is his recycling of the title Warmaster. That title (even if he calls himself the Warmaster of Chaos) is still connected to the Emperor and Horus. I do understand that at this time it is probably too entrenched in Lore to change. But I'm hoping for an AD-B miracle. :D

[Kol Saresk]

Maybe. But what else would you call a Champion of Champions?

[Molokai]

Bromaster

[helterskelter]

Skeletor?

[Augustus]

Overlord of Evil

[A D-B]

Hmm. Like Wade I do find it a bit strange (at this point in time) that Abaddon would despise Horus so much but emulate him in different ways.

For me the biggest issue is his recycling of the title Warmaster. That title (even if he calls himself the Warmaster of Chaos) is still connected to the Emperor and Horus. I do understand that at this time it is probably too entrenched in Lore to change. But I'm hoping for an AD-B miracle.

There are a few warmasters, as it's just an Imperial title. There's only one Warmaster, though. One of my very first emails to Dan Abnett was about 4-5 years ago, when I was originally planning this arc and trying to work out how far I wanted to take it. And I asked if he was committed to calling Gaunt's Ghosts Book #X "Warmaster" as I really wanted to call one of the Abaddon novels by that name.

In the end, I went with these names for the opening trilogy: The Talon of Horus, The Black Legion, Chaos Ascendant.

Not that they're set in stone, but those are in my notes. That'd bring us from the prologue of everyone meeting up, to the claiming of Drach'nyen in the First Black Crusade.

Note, also, that it may not be a title he took himself. There's nothing less kingly than having to insist you're a king.

[Greyall]

Why would it be so strange for someone to depise his parent and ending up emulating him - perhaps without even noticing (Abby did worship Horus, at one point), perhaps aiming to be better than the old man at everything. I'm actually curious to see this covered in the Black Legion novels, how a mention of Horus (I assume there'll be plenty in the early days of the story) stings Abaddon.

 

It's a character flaw, and a plausible one at that, no mistake from the authors there.

 

Plus, you don't throw away a super weapon like Horus' Claw because 'I despise the previous wearer, who is now a dried husk'. For those not of the omnipotent kind, pragmatism is essential to win.

[A D-B]

I was already interested in the friction Abaddon would feel over Horus's memory - not so much in the very first days when they're all coming together (as they've all got various agendas and backstories beyond daddy issues, and are concerned with survival, not ruling anything), but once they all begin to take the Black and the Black Legion starts its first campaigns. Like, I imagined it'd be one of the main personal themes of Book II, when you have the young king brooding on his throne over how the kingdom was once ruled by his father. The mistakes Horus made which aren't to be repeated at any cost. The victories Horus achieved which should be studied and learned from.

 

But this thread has ignited that interest tenfold.

[Greyall]

One thing I continuously notice in the HH novels is how childlike both Marines and Primarchs can behave, at times. These aren't boss/employee relationships, Primarchs do stirr a Legionnaire's blood (almost literaly, in some instances) and mess with their physiology. Same thing for Primarchs and the Emperor.

 

This is true for the majority of Marines and Primarchs, save for the most coldly rational/detached/Emperor-loyal ones.

 

So this means their relationships are incredibly close and intense, whether good or bad. Cue Abaddon not finding it easy to detach from his genefather's practices and teachings, nor from the habits of his glory days. He may become more pragmatic than Horus (which isn't that easy), but he saw how being a political animal and having a certain grandeur attracted followers. And it's probably even more effective the more Chaosy those potential followers are - Chaos is deliberately theatrical, which makes sense when your deity is a raw emotion given form.

 

It's not easy to depart from your household and leave your old habits and quirks there. It's also not easy to try and take a separate route from a father who was hugely successful in your same area of expertise without finding yourself emulating him more often than not.

 

Like you say, ADB, it's the key mistakes that'll make a difference - but would Abaddon not have done them if Horus hadn't shown them to be mistakes first?  I'm sure it'd make sense for some snide types (even among the Ezekaryon) to sometimes compare Abby and Horus' performance, even if just instinctively.

[Wade Garrett]

There's nothing less kingly than having to insist you're a king.

 

Only the true Warmaster denies his mastery of war?

 

;)

[Balthamal]

The most interesting angle on that, for me at least, is how Abaddon goes through the process of emerging from Horus' shadow. It's a lot more complex and underlying than simply having a lightbulb moment and thinking "Wow. Turns out Horus was just as much of a fool as I saw the Emperor being. Best not make that mistake again!"

 

No matter that Astartes are forged into weapons, underneath it all they're still men, despite how far apart they're set from mankind. 

 

How does he deal with Horus' death? Initially it overwhelms everything. He's totally gutted. Firstly because of the genuine affection he probably feels. Next because of the respect and loyalty. Finally because it means the vision of the future he sees himself in is taken away. What comes next? Anger, blinding all consuming anger, anger at the father he idolised not living up to what he imagined he would, anger at the trust he put in him being so sorely misplaced, anger that the wreckage of the Legion and it's rebellion has fallen on his shoulders because the other Primarchs are too self absorbed with whatever slights and ambitions they have to think of the bigger picture.

 

As greyall said, Astartes can act like children frighteningly often. Abaddon was loyal to the Emperor remember, he used to be as devoted to him and to the concept of the Imperium as Horus. When he believes that his adoration and loyalty is wasted on the Emperor he falls in line behind Horus because he trusts him to do what is required only to see that trust repaid with failure. That's where the anger burns and over time becomes disdain, contempt, hatred.

 

How much does his inherent humanity play upon him? Subconsciously all humans desire the approval and support of their parents, but in Abaddon's case his "grandfather" and "father" failed him in the most complete way imaginable. Does he shake off that impulse? Or is it something he has to wrestle with continuously. He's building a Legion from the ground up, as he's going along does he catch himself thinking "Horus would approve of it being done this way" or does he bury it beneath his contempt and go all out "I will prove I am better than my father".

 

Finally there is the other impulse, that under pressure, and Abaddon would be under the most incredible pressure possible: He's the highest ranking surviving officer of the leaders of a rebellion that's failed and that half of the followers never believed in to the same extent, to default to what you know. All Abaddon has known for centuries is Horus' Way of doing things. How does he purge himself of the urge to go the same way and make the same mistakes. How does he bring himself to place his trust in someone again after he's been burned almost to ash from misplacing it twice previously. And most importantly, how does he accept brotherhood when he is so far apart from everyone in terms of his psyche

[Kol Saresk]

Well honestly, the Astartes are children. Their growth, their maturity, it's all stunted. It never developed. One minute they went from being kids to being walking, talking, breathing weapons that weren't supposed to think beyond completing their objectives. Recall, back to Lord of the Night, when Mita Ashyn gets inside Sahaal's head. She described as literally being the mind of a child trapped within a gene-enhanced body. The Newborn, his very attitude, the neverending curiosity, again it is an example of showing that these are children. Even Lucius with his temper tantrums that everyone thinks is poor writing, are indicative of what most of us would see in a spoiled brat who is used to having everything go his way. In a way, comparing them to men isn't a good comparison not because they are post-human, but because they are still boys.

 

So in all honesty, it really shouldn't be a surprise when they act like a child.