The Talon Of Horus

[Phoebus]

Fact is Chaos is the punching bag for loyalists in lore, for almost... like.. ever.

Wait, hold on.

Now, admittedly, I'm not a tabletop 40k gamer. I love the 40k universe, but I'm vested only in the published fiction and various computer/video games set in it. That having been said...

I do own the rulebooks going back about three editions, and a whole slew of the Codices - to include those associated with all the Space Marine factions and Chaos. And I'm sorry, but your above statement just seems off.

For almost... like... ever, the same timeline has defined this setting: The Chaos Space Marines fight the (literally) Long War. Though ostensibly divided (and for good reason), they harry the crumbling Imperium, which also has to deal with many other insidious threats. Eventually, Abaddon the Despoiler accumulates the power he needs to launch the Thirteenth Black Crusade, which breaks the Cadian Gate open and heralds the coming of the Crimson Path.

If I collate across the Chaos resources for such epic moments when hundreds of loyalist marines died and that it was not in the HH era... well I think I would struggle to fill a page or two.

Really?

Storm of Iron (eBook)

Iron Warrior (eBook)

Dark Apostle (eBook)

Dark Disciple (eBook)

Dark Creed (eBook)

Lord of the Night

Throne of Lies (Audio drama)

Soul Hunter (eBook)

Blood Reaver (eBook)

Void Stalker (eBook)

Pandorax (Premium Paperback)

Truth is my Weapon (eBook)

Tales From The Archive: We Are One (eBook)

There you go: a few thousand pages' worth of the victories you were looking for, for your consuming pleasure. And those are just the titles I've read.

Also, let's all bear in mind that the disparity between the number of Adeptus Astartes-centric (or Imperial Guard-centric, etc.) titles versus Chaos Space Marine-centric ones comes down to the fact that the former are what pass for "heroes" in this dystopian setting. While Chaos Space Marines are eminently interesting and destined to be the victors since, oh, a decade and a half ago (or so), telling the stories from their point of view (and thus telling stories about their victories) is much like telling the story from Cobra's perspective, or from the Decepticons, etc.

Dark Concil for everyone ?

Abaddon doesn't lead everyone and everything. He leads the Black Legion and those willing to have him lead them. Many warbands don't care about Abaddon, or hate him with a burning passion for X or Y, or for the sake of it.

No, Abaddon isn't omnipresent, but he is the one who actually get's things done, that is what I take umbrage with.

With respect, and at the risk of sounding exceedingly obvious, what you take umbrage with is one of the central aspects of the setting itself. More importantly, it's not just a matter of Abaddon being the Big Bad, but the very context that defines Chaos as a whole/as a faction.

That is, saying "I'd rather have a council of powerful Chaos Lords (or what have you) setting up the demise of the Imperium instead of Abaddon" ignores the fact that Chaos is fractious, and that its minions reflect that fundamental aspect. That aspect informs why the Traitor Primarchs were having trouble getting along before they even got to besieging Terra, and why their Legions tore each other apart after they arrived at the Eye of Terror. Asking for a council of warlords who jointly orchestrate the Crimson Path (or whatever) in a way that ensures no one of the nine Traitor Legions is left out is like asking for the last ten thousand years of lore to be more or less thrown out. It's asking for the minions of Slaanesh and Khorne to put aside their differences, or for the minions of Nurgle and Tzeentch to ignore the fact that they represent fundamentally opposing tenets of existence. Abaddon is able to get things done because he chooses to rise above the very influences that make the Emperor's Children what they are, the Death Guard what they are, etc.

Ultimately, isn't resenting the fact that Abaddon "gets things done" in this setting ultimately a bit like resenting the fact that Arthur is the one destined to draw Excalibur?

[Tenebris]

Fact is Chaos is the punching bag for loyalists in lore, for almost... like.. ever.

Wait, hold on.

Now, admittedly, I'm not a tabletop 40k gamer. I love the 40k universe, but I'm vested only in the published fiction and various computer/video games set in it. That having been said...

I do own the rulebooks going back about three editions, and a whole slew of the Codices - to include those associated with all the Space Marine factions and Chaos. And I'm sorry, but your above statement just seems off.

For almost... like... ever, the same timeline has defined this setting: The Chaos Space Marines fight the (literally) Long War. Though ostensibly divided (and for good reason), they harry the crumbling Imperium, which also has to deal with many other insidious threats. Eventually, Abaddon the Despoiler accumulates the power he needs to launch the Thirteenth Black Crusade, which breaks the Cadian Gate open and heralds the coming of the Crimson Path.

If I collate across the Chaos resources for such epic moments when hundreds of loyalist marines died and that it was not in the HH era... well I think I would struggle to fill a page or two.

Really?

Storm of Iron (eBook)

Iron Warrior (eBook)

Dark Apostle (eBook)

Dark Disciple (eBook)

Dark Creed (eBook)

Lord of the Night

Throne of Lies (Audio drama)

Soul Hunter (eBook)

Blood Reaver (eBook)

Void Stalker (eBook)

Pandorax (Premium Paperback)

Truth is my Weapon (eBook)

Tales From The Archive: We Are One (eBook)

There you go: a few thousand pages' worth of the victories you were looking for, for your consuming pleasure. And those are just the titles I've read.

Also, let's all bear in mind that the disparity between the number of Adeptus Astartes-centric (or Imperial Guard-centric, etc.) titles versus Chaos Space Marine-centric ones comes down to the fact that the former are what pass for "heroes" in this dystopian setting. While Chaos Space Marines are eminently interesting and destined to be the victors since, oh, a decade and a half ago (or so), telling the stories from their point of view (and thus telling stories about their victories) is much like telling the story from Cobra's perspective, or from the Decepticons, etc.

I have read all of those, some of them (Pandorax) a few times over, same for the audio dramas and audiobooks. But fact is that compared to the rest of the fiction, the CSM never seem to be achieving a lasting victory (for example the last book of the Word Bearers, where the Necrons were used to bail them out from the system) and never seem to kill something worth a named character, an important person and not just dummy space marine captains and chapter master from the thin-blooded chapters of x origin.

Fact is that my statement stays, and that even the victory achieved by the players in the global campaign was swept under the rug. That is why I greet the series and can't wait to read about the demise of Sigismund... All in all what we of Chaos ask is a simple and honest victory against a major loyalist faction and not just some background battle on a world who no one cares and against a chapter no one cares. I want to see more clashes like the one of Khârn and Azrael, more blood spilled, skulls worthy of the skull throne, to say.

Until then, Chaos is indeed a punching bag and we struggle to stay credible as the archnemesis of the 40k universe. Especially when they feed our blades with "lesser" beings.

As for the rest I agree with your other statements.

[Loesh]

 

 

With respect, and at the risk of sounding exceedingly obvious, what you take umbrage with is one of the central aspects of the setting itself.  More importantly, it's not just a matter of Abaddon being the Big Bad, but the very context that defines Chaos as a whole/as a faction.

 

That is, saying "I'd rather have a council of powerful Chaos Lords (or what have you) setting up the demise of the Imperium instead of Abaddon" ignores the fact that Chaos is fractious, and that its minions reflect that fundamental aspect.  That aspect informs why the Traitor Primarchs were having trouble getting along before they even got to besieging Terra, and why their Legions tore each other apart after they arrived at the Eye of Terror.  Asking for a council of warlords who jointly orchestrate the Crimson Path (or whatever) in a way that ensures no one of the nine Traitor Legions is left out is like asking for the last ten thousand years of lore to be more or less thrown out.  It's asking for the minions of Slaanesh and Khorne to put aside their differences, or for the minions of Nurgle and Tzeentch to ignore the fact that they represent fundamentally opposing tenets of existence.  Abaddon is able to get things done because he chooses to rise above the very influences that make the Emperor's Children what they are, the Death Guard what they are, etc.

 

Ultimately, isn't resenting the fact that Abaddon "gets things done" in this setting ultimately a bit like resenting the fact that Arthur is the one destined to draw Excalibur?

 

 

 

That ignores that one of the key aspects of the Black Legion is that minions of Slaanesh and Khorne work together in tandem within it's ranks, and that this happens in other parts of the galaxy with Emperors Children and World Eaters fighting shoulder to shoulder anyways. Also: The last ten thousand years of lore is barely explored even after so many years(How could it be? it's been ten thousand years.) and is why the setting is so wide open.

 

Furthermore I don't reject the idea of him being the one to get things done, I reject the idea of him being the only one to get things done which...actually isn't true to the setting, so i'm not terribly bitter over that, so much as tired from arguing with Tenebris for the better part of a day.

 

That said: Yes, but then again I liked Arthur a lot more then I like Abaddon.

[Phoebus]

I have read all of those, some of them (Pandorax) a few times over, same for the audio dramas and audiobooks. But fact is that compared to the rest of the fiction, the CSM never seem to be achieving a lasting victory (for example the last book of the Word Bearers, where the Necrons were used to bail them out from the system) and never seem to kill something worth a named character, an important person and not just dummy space marine captains and chapter master from the thin-blooded chapters of x origin.

 

The lasting victory you're looking for is the destruction of the Imperium, the final act of which is happening as of the current time of this setting.  Until that is achieved, however, there is the stated and implied whittling-down of the Imperium that occurs over ten millennia of long, hard-fought war:  the raids, the rebellions, the worlds burned.  You should not ignore these.

 

It's ironic that you bring up Pandorax while raising the complaint Chaos never kills a named character.  The only casualties Chaos suffers are the "dummy" Chaos Space Marine types that you knew you were never going to survive this story.  I bring this up because the fact of the matter is that the Adeptus Astartes rarely, if ever, kill a named character.  The nearest example that I can think of that involves a crushing defeat of a major named character is the culmination of the rivalry between Honsou and Uriel Ventris.  Abaddon, Lucius, Eidolon (assuming he really is alive), Khan, Typhus, Ahriman, Huron, etc., have never been in real danger.  

 

In essence, what you're asking that Chaos Space Marines gets a treatment that the Adeptus Astartes don't get.  I don't think that's particularly fair.

 

That ignores that one of the key aspects of the Black Legion is that minions of Slaanesh and Khorne work together in tandem within it's ranks, and that this happens in other parts of the galaxy with Emperors Children and World Eaters fighting shoulder to shoulder anyways. Also: The last ten thousand years of lore is barely explored even after so many years(How could it be? it's been ten thousand years.) and is why the setting is so wide open.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I think it's fair and accurate to say that the rule involves minions of Slaanesh and Khorne being at odds with one another.

 

Furthermore I don't reject the idea of him being the one to get things done, I reject the idea of him being the only one to get things done which...actually isn't true to the setting, ...

 

I would offer - as I did to Tenebris - that there are plenty of examples within the published fiction and the gaming material of characters other than Abaddon who do things that matter within the 40k setting.  And then there is the stated intent of the game itself, which is that you forge the narrative of the setting by way of your characters, warbands, etc.  Chaos Lords, for instance, are defined as "conquerors of worlds" who have been "marked for greatness by the gods themselves."  It's understood that they "get things done", and that goes double for those who have become Daemon Princes:  you don't earn the boon of immortality from the Ruinous Powers themselves without having done something amazing first.

[Loesh]

 

 

That ignores that one of the key aspects of the Black Legion is that minions of Slaanesh and Khorne work together in tandem within it's ranks, and that this happens in other parts of the galaxy with Emperors Children and World Eaters fighting shoulder to shoulder anyways. Also: The last ten thousand years of lore is barely explored even after so many years(How could it be? it's been ten thousand years.) and is why the setting is so wide open.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I think it's fair and accurate to say that the rule involves minions of Slaanesh and Khorne being at odds with one another.

 

Furthermore I don't reject the idea of him being the one to get things done, I reject the idea of him being the only one to get things done which...actually isn't true to the setting, ...

 

I would offer - as I did to Tenebris - that there are plenty of examples within the published fiction and the gaming material of characters other than Abaddon who do things that matter within the 40k setting.  And then there is the stated intent of the game itself, which is that you forge the narrative of the setting by way of your characters, warbands, etc.  Chaos Lords, for instance, are defined as "conquerors of worlds" who have been "marked for greatness by the gods themselves."  It's understood that they "get things done", and that goes double for those who have become Daemon Princes:  you don't earn the boon of immortality from the Ruinous Powers themselves without having done something amazing first.

 

 

Of course and I agree, the Brazen Host(A Daemonic Warband composed of Slaanesh and Khorne Daemons working together.) isn't particularly common, nor would I ever expect it to be. But is a thing that happens during the blue moons when their objectives align.

 

As for Abaddon, that's what i'm saying, is that there are Chaos factions who impact the setting in big ways(Like the Alpha Legion and Night Lords instigating a massive ork invasion.) but what Tenebris was saying was that the other eight legions are just background information and largely irrelevant to the setting, an attitude that I find neither healthy for the setting itself or for getting other aspects of the fandom to warm up to the Black Legion as a group finally getting lore and taking the helm of Chaos. The idea that the Black Legion is the only organization actually hurting the Imperium and the other Chaos factions are merely mechanics that happened to have lore slapped on them is pure poison to the setting and immediately starting things off on the wrong foot.

 

With all respect, there was no way to phrase it that could of been more inflammatory, and I had to go out of my way to exercise control when replying.

[Phoebus]

As for Abaddon, that's what i'm saying, is that there are Chaos factions who impact the setting in big ways(Like the Alpha Legion and Night Lords instigating a massive ork invasion.) but what Tenebris was saying was that the other eight legions are just background information and largely irrelevant to the setting, an attitude that I find neither healthy for the setting itself or for getting other aspects of the fandom to warm up to the Black Legion as a group finally getting lore and taking the helm of Chaos. The idea that the Black Legion is the only organization actually hurting the Imperium and the other Chaos factions are merely mechanics that happened to have lore slapped on them is pure poison to the setting and immediately starting things off on the wrong foot.

 

With all respect, there was no way to phrase it that could of been more inflammatory, and I had to go out of my way to exercise control when replying.

 

I agree with your above sentiment wholeheartedly.

[mc warhammer]

 

ADB, point taken about Space Wolves and the writer's choice to define and contextualise the concept in the best way he can.

 

But I think it's unfair to wave away the resdership's attempt to rationalize the differences as a progression over 10, 000 years. The way you talk about the license and the property sounds like a writer's dream and it plays to the strength of the creator (which is ultimately to the audience's benefit ), but readers tend toward creating some form if cohesion between stories for their own sake of comfort and suspension of disbelief.

 

Which is what I thought 40k more or less encouraged in its resdership. Their rationalisation for the SW's different depictions is no sillier than the concept of the Space Wolves in and of itself.

 

Absolutely. And I don't handwave it away, by any means. That's not what I meant - I've discussed the merits and angles on that exact thing a lot. I've gone record X-hundred times saying "Yep, the differences with the Wolves are because of 10,000 years" like loads of other people.

 

But that's the thing: We always talk about the usual angle, and what people expect and assume in most licenses, and the in-universe reasons for things. That's been done to death, in various ways. It's true, but it's obvious, and it's been talked about a lot. This is a case where there's really more to it than, well, most other licenses. It's a "Yes, but behind the curtain, it functions like this..." moment.

 

 

no doubt, but i can only comment on what i've seen.

 

you have your work cut out for you spreading the good word though, precisely because it does function so differently to other licenses (and arguably counter-intuitive to how audiences naturally tend to think). if it wasn't for seeking out this message board i would have had no idea that was the ethos and policy for license.

[b1soul]

 

I mean, head down into the Black Templars subforum, and you'll see complaints that Abaddon is mary sue simply on the principle that he kills Sigismund. Abaddon is mary sue, because he isn't letting Sigismund be mary sue.

 

It's laughable, and I have just grown used to ignoring it.

 

I totally saw that! This happens very, very rarely, but I was embarrassed on behalf of those posters. 

 

 

I object to Abby offing Siggy on the ground that if I were the writer, I wouldn't choose to have Siggy offed this way

 

However, I'm not the writer and someone isn't an idiot for having taste/an opinion different from mine

[A D-B]

 

 

I mean, head down into the Black Templars subforum, and you'll see complaints that Abaddon is mary sue simply on the principle that he kills Sigismund. Abaddon is mary sue, because he isn't letting Sigismund be mary sue.

 

It's laughable, and I have just grown used to ignoring it.

 

I totally saw that! This happens very, very rarely, but I was embarrassed on behalf of those posters. 

 

 

I object to Abby offing Siggy on the ground that if I were the writer, I wouldn't choose to have Siggy offed this way

 

However, I'm not the writer and someone isn't an idiot for having taste/an opinion different from mine

 

 

I welcome different opinions. If you read any of my posts there and took it as me thinking someone was an idiot at all, let alone for having a different opinion, I recommend a healthy re-read.

 

Look at the objections, and the grounds they're based on. Look at how they're presented. "I don't want to know how a character dies" is one thing. A great and worthy opinion. "I know this death won't do justice to the character" is raw nonsense when you've not read the scene and know nothing about the context. That shouldn't need explaining. And equally nonsensical is "LOSING doesn't ever make anyone look bad-ass, lol" (exact words). The trope of sacrifice shouldn't even need to be explained, but the raised point becomes doubly nonsense when taken against the many examples of historical and mythological battle sacrifices we have available, like, say... Thermopylae. 

 

I wasn't objecting to the two posters' opinions. I was pointing out they were wrong about several facts, which was agreed with after I explained how.

[fluxdeluxe]

What I'm slightly puzzled by is what would constitute a more worthy death than being slain by the Warmaster of Chaos? Surely this is right up there with Greater Daemon/Daemon Prince?

 

I'm struggling to think of a more 'worthy' way to go barring one of the Daemon Primarchs...

[Loesh]

What I'm slightly puzzled by is what would constitute a more worthy death than being slain by the Warmaster of Chaos? Surely this is right up there with Greater Daemon/Daemon Prince?

 

I'm struggling to think of a more 'worthy' way to go barring one of the Daemon Primarchs...

 

The gods of Chaos coming down from on high to personally kick your arse? I think that might be the only way some people would be happy with Sigismund dying...if even.

[Conn Eremon]

If they didn't do it to the Emperor, they ain't doing it to nobody.

[Loesh]

If they didn't do it to the Emperor, they ain't doing it to nobody.

 

What about the Marines Malevolent? I know that if I was a deity, regardless of morality I would come down off my throne just to punch those guys in the mouth.

[Volt]

Honestly, the most interesting thing about Talon of Horus is the Imperial Daemons created by the GEOM/Astronomicon that scour the outer worlds of the Eye of Terror.

[Loesh]

Honestly, the most interesting thing about Talon of Horus is the Imperial Daemons created by the GEOM/Astronomicon that scour the outer worlds of the Eye of Terror.

 

Different strokes for different folks, I didn't spare it a second glance. For me what was most interesting were things like the Ragged Knight and seeing the Burning of Prospero through Khayons eyes.

[SteelPaladin]

Honestly, the most interesting thing about Talon of Horus is the Imperial Daemons created by the GEOM/Astronomicon that scour the outer worlds of the Eye of Terror.

This was probably the coolest part of the book for me, and since the book was chock-full of insanely cool stuff, that's saying something. 

[Haywire]

With all this arguing over the death of Sigismund, I can't help but wonder. Would these same people prefer Sigismund to die on some backwater planet to some nameless nobody? That is, really, the flipside to him not being killed by Abaddon. Speaking for myself, I have faith that ADB won't treat Sigismund like random redshirt marine #3472376 who exists to shout, "FOR THE EMPEROR" before being torn into several pieces. Heck, who's to say that Abaddon actually walks away from his victory as opposed to... oh, I don't know, having what's left of him being quickly and hurriedly picked up and carried off by the Justaerin for some emergency healing?

 

Winning a duel doesn't mean you curbstomp your opponent. There's no narrative tension in that when two major named characters are concerned. Even if the outcome is pre-ordained, there's nothing to say that, when reading it, it can actually look like it will go very very differently. Sometimes we just need to forget that we know what happens, and put ourselves into the 'here and now' to get our dramatic tension.

 

I still stand by my remark on the other topic that it'd be hilarious if, before he dies, Sigismund renders Abaddon armless in both the lore and on the tabletop.

[Loesh]

Spoilers: Sigismund wants to fight Abaddon but it turns out he dies to a warband of Rainbow Warriors.

[b1soul]

I welcome different opinions. If you read any of my posts there and took it as me thinking someone was an idiot at all, let alone for having a different opinion, I recommend a healthy re-read.

 

Look at the objections, and the grounds they're based on. Look at how they're presented. "I don't want to know how a character dies" is one thing. A great and worthy opinion. "I know this death won't do justice to the character" is raw nonsense when you've not read the scene and know nothing about the context. That shouldn't need explaining. And equally nonsensical is "LOSING doesn't ever make anyone look bad-ass, lol" (exact words). The trope of sacrifice shouldn't even need to be explained, but the raised point becomes doubly nonsense when taken against the many examples of historical and mythological battle sacrifices we have available, like, say... Thermopylae. 

 

I wasn't objecting to the two posters' opinions. I was pointing out they were wrong about several facts, which was agreed with after I explained how.

 

 

I agree that pre-maturely claiming your treatment of the subject matter wouldn't do it justice is nonsensical. 

 

What I mean by my previous post is that I have a different opinion from you (a purely subjective opinion based on personal preference) and I don't think you're an idiot for wanting to write about events your way. A writer isn't someone I order around to satisfy my own personal taste.

 

Furthermore, I might even enjoy your treatment of Abaddon vs. Sigismund because even though I wouldn't personally choose to have Sigismund fall in this manner, I know that you're a good writer. Who am I to say that you wouldn't do it justice? I have very little doubt that you will...it's just that my ideal justice is somewhat different from yours

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, my personal preference is that I personally wouldn't want the greatest Emperor's Champion of all time to die by losing a duel. I know you disagree. That is totally fine.  

[A D-B]

 

I welcome different opinions. If you read any of my posts there and took it as me thinking someone was an idiot at all, let alone for having a different opinion, I recommend a healthy re-read.

 

Look at the objections, and the grounds they're based on. Look at how they're presented. "I don't want to know how a character dies" is one thing. A great and worthy opinion. "I know this death won't do justice to the character" is raw nonsense when you've not read the scene and know nothing about the context. That shouldn't need explaining. And equally nonsensical is "LOSING doesn't ever make anyone look bad-ass, lol" (exact words). The trope of sacrifice shouldn't even need to be explained, but the raised point becomes doubly nonsense when taken against the many examples of historical and mythological battle sacrifices we have available, like, say... Thermopylae. 

 

I wasn't objecting to the two posters' opinions. I was pointing out they were wrong about several facts, which was agreed with after I explained how.

 

 

I agree that pre-maturely claiming your treatment of the subject matter wouldn't do it justice is nonsensical. 

 

What I mean by my previous post is that I have a different opinion from you (a purely subjective opinion based on personal preference) and I don't think you're an idiot for wanting to write about events your way. A writer isn't someone I order around to satisfy my own personal taste.

 

Furthermore, I might even enjoy your treatment of Abaddon vs. Sigismund because even though I wouldn't personally choose to have Sigismund fall in this manner, I know that you're a good writer. Who am I to say that you wouldn't do it justice? I have very little doubt that you will...it's just that my ideal justice is somewhat different from yours

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, my personal preference is that I personally wouldn't want the greatest Emperor's Champion of all time to die by losing a duel. I know you disagree. That is totally fine.  

 

 

My bad. Sorry, I assumed it was a reply about the 'other' conversation. I was miles wide of the mark, there.

 

And... I think we agree way more than it seems on the surface.

[b1soul]

 

My bad. Sorry, I assumed it was a reply about the 'other' conversation. I was miles wide of the mark, there.

 

And... I think we agree way more than it seems on the surface.

 

Yeah...some would argue that dying in a glorious duel would be a highly appropriate way for Sigismund to go. Totally valid view

 

Personally, I'd have him emerge victorious from all of his duels but fall in some other heroic manner.

 

Perhaps holding off multiple enemy elites (daemons perhaps) so that other Templars might survive (perhaps younger marines in whom he sees great promise). Then you'd have to explain why these Templars actually leave Sigismund to fight alone. Perhaps Sigismund gives them a direct ironclad order earlier.

 

 

 

Sigismund: You are the future of our lineage. Your lives will not be wasted here. Go now.        

Young Templar 1: We  will not leave you...

Sigismund: This is my time. My final glory. Yours will come when the Emperor decides. Mine should have come centuries ago, but the enemy's weakness would not allow it. Now, it is I who am weak. Return to the chapter. Go swiftly.   

Young Templar 2: Lord, we cannot...

Sigismund: Obey your Lord's final command! Or do you defy me even now?  

Young Templar 1: My Lord...may the Emperor be with you

Sigismund: He is. Now go, Templars 

*Young Templars leave, minutes pass. The temperature in the passageway drops abruptly. Frost starts to form on surfaces. The stink of the Warp seeps into the air*

Sigismund (whisper): For the Emperor and for Dorn

  

Evidently, my ideas are far from perfect but that's the gist of it (holy sh*t writing is hard)

 

I'm sure every fan has his own vision of the ideal way for Sigismund to make his final exit  

[Haywire]

 

Personally, I'd have him emerge victorious from all of his duels but fall in some other heroic manner.

 

Perhaps holding off multiple enemy elites so that other Templars might survive (perhaps younger marines in whom he sees great promise). Then you'd have to explain why these Templars actually leave Sigismund to fight alone. Perhaps Sigismund gives them a direct ironclad order earlier. Evidently, my ideas are not perfect but that's the gist of it.

 

I'm sure every fan has his own vision of the ideal way for Sigismund to make his final exit  

 

 

Or perhaps, in his duel, he messes Abaddon enough as to incapacitate him from future leadership of the First Black Crusade. Yes, Abaddon got what he came for, but the lack of singular leadership means the lesser lords start bickering among themselves over how to carry on the fight, and this lack of unity allows the Imperium to push them back into the Eye before they can gain a proper foothold in Imperial space. Especially if said pushback is delivered by a wave of very angry Black-armoured ragemonsters who have just seen their Chapter Master and hero of the Great Crusade fall.

[b1soul]

 

 

Personally, I'd have him emerge victorious from all of his duels but fall in some other heroic manner.

 

Perhaps holding off multiple enemy elites so that other Templars might survive (perhaps younger marines in whom he sees great promise). Then you'd have to explain why these Templars actually leave Sigismund to fight alone. Perhaps Sigismund gives them a direct ironclad order earlier. Evidently, my ideas are not perfect but that's the gist of it.

 

I'm sure every fan has his own vision of the ideal way for Sigismund to make his final exit  

 

 

Or perhaps, in his duel, he messes Abaddon enough as to incapacitate him from future leadership of the First Black Crusade. Yes, Abaddon got what he came for, but the lack of singular leadership means the lesser lords start bickering among themselves over how to carry on the fight, and this lack of unity allows the Imperium to push them back into the Eye before they can gain a proper foothold in Imperial space. Especially if said pushback is delivered by a wave of very angry Black-armoured ragemonsters who have just seen their Chapter Master and hero of the Great Crusade fall.

 

 

Sure...everyone has a vision. I don't think ADB's vision will let us down. I mean...he's going in a balls-y direction, that's for sure. In a way, I like that

[Haywire]

Yeah. I think that this might actually be the first time a novel actually details the death of a major lore figure, too. Correct me if I'm wrong on that count, but in the background, Sigismund has always been reckoned to be head-and-shoulders above most other marines from the era - even before the HH novel series. No other novel that I know of deals with killing off a figure of that renown... always made-up characters for the book/series.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong in assuming this is the first time a major character from the background and setting dies in a novel.

[Vesper]

The tease about that fight, near the end of Talon, was thrilling.

So, where's Black Legion in your super secret schedules of "I write cool stuff", dearest AD-B ?