The Eternal Crusader

[Conn Eremon]

I'm free to carry on with my 'old way' Templars, but I can't ever start a topic about what kind of serf caste would be responsible for acting as intermediaries between the knights and mutants, or how the Templars would have cultural differences with chapters like the Fire Hawks during the Terran Crusade. Those used to be some of the more intellectually fulfilling hobby discussions a few years back, but now they won't happen again.

Why not? Make the topics. Do you really think there isn't enough value in them to get any attention? Do you think that you're alone in liking the old version of the Black Templars?

 

Sure, some people will respond with "But that's not how it is," because they are either ignorant of the fact that it used to be differently, in which case they might be enlightened of the old ways and prefer it themselves, or they are ignorant of the fact that it doesn't matter, in which case you can safely ignore them.

 

So seriously, what's stopping you?

[Bulwyf]

 

I'm free to carry on with my 'old way' Templars, but I can't ever start a topic about what kind of serf caste would be responsible for acting as intermediaries between the knights and mutants, or how the Templars would have cultural differences with chapters like the Fire Hawks during the Terran Crusade. Those used to be some of the more intellectually fulfilling hobby discussions a few years back, but now they won't happen again.

Why not? Make the topics. Do you really think there isn't enough value in them to get any attention? Do you think that you're alone in liking the old version of the Black Templars?

 

Sure, some people will respond with "But that's not how it is," because they are either ignorant of the fact that it used to be differently, in which case they might be enlightened of the old ways and prefer it themselves, or they are ignorant of the fact that it doesn't matter, in which case you can safely ignore them.

 

So seriously, what's stopping you?

 

 

 

Exactly how I feel. I was into the Night Lords before ADB made them (in)famous. That means I still value the POV from "Lord of the Night" as my personal view of the Night Lords and that Curze was a conflicted character who was betrayed by the Imperium that grew too unsettled with their methods of controlling worlds. Whose to say that isn't the "correct" truth?

[Wade Garrett]

Krieg Acerbus.

 

;)

[Bulwyf]

Krieg Acerbus.

:p

Never trust a demon esp. when he sees you as a threat.

[Legatus]

Well, I was into the Night Lords before Simon Spurrier wrote "Lord of the Night", and Zso Sahaals deluded fever dreams annoyed me quite a bit. Krieg Acerbus turning up at the end and setting him straight was quite the relief. Unfortunately by that point it was too late for many readers.

[Lucien Eilam]

If I may distill your argument to a catchphrase I have used on various boards and sites of the various fandoms I enjoy:

 

It is canon until they change it.

 

It's all canon, especially the bits that contradict each other.

[Lucien Eilam]

Consider what I'm saying. I'm saying that I'd like the legions to be portrayed consistently in the HH series. Why in the world is that a bad thing? 30K Wolves are the Vlka Fenryka. You're telling me other authours should be free to ignore that concept? How is that good for a series?

 

I'm telling you how it is. I've got no stake in how you or anyone else feels about it, or how it "should" be. 

 

Seriously, "X is a 'Legion-building' novel that defines how they're going to be and every other author has to work to that definition from now on" is a concept that exists nowhere but inside your head. They may be the definitive portrayals for you, but GW don't view those books that way.

 

There are posts in this topic from an author, who GW have entrusted with some of the most important characters and events in the 40k universe, literally telling you that if another author wanted to ignore what he's written, that's all cool and it won't stop BL publishing it. That's how it works.

 

Nobody is going to be forced to write Space Wolves the way Abnett writes them. If you hate that, okay, no problem, I understand. But that is how it works.

 

How is it good? If Dan Abnett and Chris Wraight had been forced to be consistent with what had come before, the Space Wolves wouldn't be the Vlka Fenryka, because Prospero Burns was inconsistent in various ways with every prior portrayal of Space Wolves. They'd have been told "go away and make them drunk and viking… -er, and definitely don't suggest our registered trademark sounds a bit silly and demeaning".

 

Maybe one day somebody will come along with a spin on Space Wolves you like even better than Dan Abnett's take. That too will only be possible because they had the freedom to ignore stuff or give another character's inconsistent perspective on it.

[incinerator950]

 

 

 

I'm free to carry on with my 'old way' Templars, but I can't ever start a topic about what kind of serf caste would be responsible for acting as intermediaries between the knights and mutants, or how the Templars would have cultural differences with chapters like the Fire Hawks during the Terran Crusade. Those used to be some of the more intellectually fulfilling hobby discussions a few years back, but now they won't happen again.

Why not? Make the topics. Do you really think there isn't enough value in them to get any attention? Do you think that you're alone in liking the old version of the Black Templars?

 

Sure, some people will respond with "But that's not how it is," because they are either ignorant of the fact that it used to be differently, in which case they might be enlightened of the old ways and prefer it themselves, or they are ignorant of the fact that it doesn't matter, in which case you can safely ignore them.

 

So seriously, what's stopping you?

Exactly how I feel. I was into the Night Lords before ADB made them (in)famous. That means I still value the POV from "Lord of the Night" as my personal view of the Night Lords and that Curze was a conflicted character who was betrayed by the Imperium that grew too unsettled with their methods of controlling worlds. Whose to say that isn't the "correct" truth?

I like it, been my line of processing from 3.5 while I mix in bits and pieces from now.

 

@Lucian: That in itself is a double edged sword. Having no consistency leaves one puddle to be dug out into a bigger pool, while the other one can be used for two years as bedrock until someone with a creative license throws it out a window or builds over it.

 

The very point of defining "ignore it because you don't like it" gets very strewn, and instead of being reinforcing viewpoints, they are considered that primary centerpiece that you cannot get away contradicting. Some are merely worse than others, the rest end up creative vomit because they decide it sounds better to quantify something. Or they're great, and fill a perspective void created by the lack of first person views in rulebooks.

 

It has good points and bad ones, I merely think the cons outweigh the pros, but then GW has a way of making it worse regardless (Chaos dexes, Raukaan supp).

[Wade Garrett]

Am I the only one who didn't see Prospero Burns as some quantum leap paradigm shift in Space Wolf lore?

 

Because aside from them swigging ale instead of mjod and of course the fact that they growl like canines instead of soggy cheetahs I am not seeing how Sven, Ragnar, and of course Mighty Haegr would be at all out of place in the VI Legion of M31.

[Bulwyf]

Well, I was into the Night Lords before Simon Spurrier wrote "Lord of the Night", and Zso Sahaals deluded fever dreams annoyed me quite a bit. Krieg Acerbus turning up at the end and setting him straight was quite the relief. Unfortunately by that point it was too late for many readers.

 

I was into the Night Lords before that novel came out. It was IIRC the first fluff Night Lord novel. You can cell them fever dreams, I say it is consistent with what was then put forth in prior articles about the Imperium endorsing the Night Lords methods until it became too barbaric for the "good guys" to support hence the attempts to kill Curze or bring them back in the line right when the Heresy was getting started. 

 

And the real charm is that we can both be right with how we choose to view that novel or the Night Lords in general.

[incinerator950]

Yes, the times of pre-legion 3.5 warbands, where Abbadon wasn't a sith lord expending his own men like toilet paper and Night Lords were Khornate.

[Legatus]

You can cell them fever dreams, I say it is consistent with what was then put forth in prior articles about the Imperium endorsing the Night Lords methods until it became too barbaric for the "good guys" to support hence the attempts to kill Curze or bring them back in the line right when the Heresy was getting started.

 

 

Both the 2nd Edition Codex Chaos and the Index Astartes of the Night Lords describe how the Emperor recalled the Night Lords to Terra to answer for their atrocities, but that the Heresy broke before could have responded. None of those sources permits attempted assassinations by order of the Emperor. The Index Astartes also explains that while their initial methods were ruthless, they only really started to go bat:cuss insane after Curze had his breakdown (and was being influenced by Chaos), which was when they started to go on a rampage through the fringes of the Imperium and the Emperor had to step in. The 2nd Edition Codex Chaos would have permitted for the atrocities to have been part of their normal modus operandi, but it too states that they were recalled to Terra.

 

Maybe you are refering to another source, one that would have permitted underhanded assassins being sent to kill Curze prior to the Horus Heresy.

[Marshal Rohr]

The assassins came after the Heresy.

[Bulwyf]

 

You can cell them fever dreams, I say it is consistent with what was then put forth in prior articles about the Imperium endorsing the Night Lords methods until it became too barbaric for the "good guys" to support hence the attempts to kill Curze or bring them back in the line right when the Heresy was getting started.

 

 

Both the 2nd Edition Codex Chaos and the Index Astartes of the Night Lords describe how the Emperor recalled the Night Lords to Terra to answer for their atrocities, but that the Heresy broke before could have responded. None of those sources permits attempted assassinations by order of the Emperor. The Index Astartes also explains that while their initial methods were ruthless, they only really started to go bat:cuss insane after Curze had his breakdown (and was being influenced by Chaos), which was when they started to go on a rampage through the fringes of the Imperium and the Emperor had to step in. The 2nd Edition Codex Chaos would have permitted for the atrocities to have been part of their normal modus operandi, but it too states that they were recalled to Terra.

 

Maybe you are refering to another source, one that would have permitted underhanded assassins being sent to kill Curze prior to the Horus Heresy.

 

 

 

I seem to remember the two of having this exact same argument years ago. If you want to go back in our posting history you'll find the articles showing that the Night Lords being somewhat vindicated in turning against the Imperium after being themselves turned against.

[Legatus]

I seem to remember the two of having this exact same argument years ago. If you want to go back in our posting history you'll find the articles showing that the Night Lords being somewhat vindicated in turning against the Imperium after being themselves turned against.

 

 

If it was this thread then the articles you referenced in support of the account of Sahaal in 'Lord of the Night' were two fan written wiki entries, both based on 'Lord of the Night'.

[b1soul]

 

 

*snip*

 

"I'm telling you how it is. I've got no stake in how you or anyone else feels about it, or how it "should" be." 

 

Obviously I know that's "how it is". I'm discussing the merits of "how it is". Do you have a relevant point? 

 

"Seriously, "X is a 'Legion-building' novel that defines how they're going to be and every other author has to work to that definition from now on" is a concept that exists nowhere but inside your head"

 

My opinion exists inside my head. Black Library isn't bound to follow my opinion. Thank you for this astonishing insight.

 

However, I'm not speaking out because I expect BL to obey my will. I'm simply expressing my personal opinion that fundamental consistency is a good thing, especially within the same series or within a short span of time.   

 

Your argument fails because Battle of the Abyss and Prospero Burns/A Thousand Sons are not incompatible. Perhaps the Space Wolf in BotA doesn't behave as you'd expect a member of Abnett's Rout to behave. That's OK. You could easily explain him as an exception to the rule.

 

Furthermore, BotA isn't a novel dedicated to the in-depth exploration of the prevailing culture, customs, and beliefs of the Wolves. Thus it's rather hard for Prospero Burns to contradict it. I'd only be opposed to a subsequent HH novel focusing on the Wolves but completely ignoring Abnett's Rout concept. Why? Because that would render Prospero Burns to be rather pointless exercise.   

 

Prospero Burns and King's Space Wolf series are not incompatibly either. 40K Wolves and 30K Wolves are separated by 10,000 in-universe years. Furthermore, King's Space Wolf series and Prospero Burns are separated by considerable period of real time.   

 

"Nobody is going to be forced to write Space Wolves the way Abnett writes them. If you hate that, okay, no problem, I understand. But that is how it works."

 

I think the problem is that you're misinterpreting my argument. 

 

1) I'm not saying that Abnett's Prospero Burns should be rigidly followed by every BL authour for all time. I've said it time and time again...absolute consistency is not what I'm advocating. I'm asking for fundamental consistency, especially within the same series or within a short span of time. For instance, fundamentally consistent legion portrayals within the HH series is a good thing. Characters who diverge from the majority are also a good thing. A minority of King-ish Wolves in Abnett's Rout would be perfectly fine by me.  

 

Do you think it would be perfectly fine for another authour writing a SW HH novel to ignore the concepts laid down by Abnett? I'm not asking you "how it is", I'm asking whether you'd object to two conflicting visions of a single legion within the same series (the HH series in this case).  

 

2) I'm not saying other authours should write "the way Abnett writes". You make it sound like I'm saying other writers should emulate Abnett's writing style. That's preposterous. You don't have to emulate Abnett's writing style to write a portrayal of 30K Wolves compatible with the foundation he's laid. I think you're conflating writing styles with concepts. An authour could employ a radically different writing style without contradicting Abnett's concept of the Rout.    

 

"How is it good? If Dan Abnett and Chris Wraight had been forced to be consistent with what had come before, the Space Wolves wouldn't be the Vlka Fenryka, because Prospero Burns was inconsistent in various ways with every prior portrayal of Space Wolves". 

 

Please tell me which potrayal of the 30K SW legion is contradicted by Prospero Burns. Are you referring to King's work? As I've said many times, it's perfectly fine for 30K Wolves and 40K Wolves to differ.  

 

You have an erroneous impression of the level of consistency I'm advocating. I'm saying that if a subsequent HH novel discards the Vlka Fenryka concept simply because another writer has a conflicting vision, I'd be opposed to that.  

 

Let me give you a concrete example. Prospero Burns introduces this basic concept: The Wolves are surprisingly sophisticated, calculating warriors who "play barbarian" to induce underestimation by their enemies. I'd be opposed to a subsequent HH novel portraying the SW legion as a bunch of brawling, drunken, guffawing barbarians-in-earnest.

 

A minority of such individuals among the Rout wouldn't be a problem. There'd only be a problem if the dominant legion culture is contradictory between the two novels. At this point, I have to add that I'm all for inconsistency in the form of improvement. I have no objection when a subsequent portrayal fixes or replaces a simplistic or flawed prior portrayal. However, as a matter of principle, I'm opposed to the idea that different authours should be free to do whatever they'd like in the communal sandbox. Encouraging authours to maintain basic consistency is not a bad thing in my opinion. Basic consistency doesn't mean rigid, absolute consistency with no room for change. What I'm advocating is balance between authourial freedom and in-universe consistency. In my opinion, BL's policy is skewed a bit too much in favour of freedom. 

 

That said, Abnett's concept of the Rout has not been ignored by other writers working on the HH series. Even his "executioners" idea has been adopted (for good or ill) by other HH authours. I simply doubt the wisdom of a policy that would allow an authour to ignore Abnett's work even if he's writing a book in the same series.  

[incinerator950]

Eh, I have no intention of reading them unless I find a bargain or free deal.

 

Plus I still have the scientific measurement of a :cusskoad to read of HP Lovecrafts works, as they're all free.

[Sincollector]

So,I read the book and long story short, it's not good.

 

Helbrecht as a character is not particularly interesting in any way. He doesn't really display any characteristics beyond those you'd think of as generic Space Marine traits: proud, aggressive, dutiful, etc...No other characters received any real development. He has no character arc. I'd say the next most developed character is the navigator of The Eternal Crusader. None of the other Templars really makes any impression.

 

The battle scenes are similarly generic and could be inserted in essentially any 40k novel. There aren't many battle scenes in any event.

 

The Templars, as presented in this book, aren't a chapter I would be particularly interested in. There appears to be a push to make them more closely resemble their historical counterparts. Templar speech throughout the book is dripping with religious obsequiousness. The Templars are practically tripping over themselves to bow, declare themselves unworthy to do this or that, and incessantly exclaim "Praise be!" That last bit becomes really grating.

 

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

 

The plot is as underdeveloped as everything else. An Emperor's Champion appears and the book makes a big deal out of how young he is, having just reached the final stage of his Neophyte training. Then he duels an unnamed Ork warlord and gets killed in the first scene where we see him in action.

 

Helbrecht is appointed as head of the space defense of Armageddon even though he's one if the youngest, least-experienced Chapter Masters present. There are several scenes in which some sort of simple space battle plan is employed and the author comes up with as many ways as he can to describe two ships shooting each other. In an off-hand comment, it's mentioned that the Templars have destroyed five hulks but that it's not enough. The Templar fleet at Armageddon then leaves to meet up with the other Templars elsewhere. Then they warp back and destroy another hulk. Then the book jumps forward a year and the war is ending.

 

I'd give this one two out of five servo-skulls.

[Legatus]

Helbrecht is appointed as head of the space defense of Armageddon even though he's one if the youngest, least-experienced Chapter Masters present.

 

 

Not to mention he is probably not all that familiar with the Codex Astartes, and he is supposed to coordinate the efforts of multiple Chapters, most of whom probably are Codex adherent.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

Helbrecht is appointed as head of the space defense of Armageddon even though he's one if the youngest, least-experienced Chapter Masters present.

 

Not to mention he is probably not all that familiar with the Codex Astartes, and he is supposed to coordinate the efforts of multiple Chapters, most of whom probably are Codex adherent.

Maybe if this was 2009, but now it appears that the Templars are largely codex adherent. Their largest divergence is the way the train recruits in their younger years, and they allow the majority of their marines to pick their own weapons.

 

The Templars no longer have any background to support the notion that they are any quirkier than the Minotaurs or Carcharodons in their preferences.

[mc warhammer]

those quirky black templars...

[Sincollector]

Maybe if this was 2009, but now it appears that the Templars are largely codex adherent. Their largest divergence is the way the train recruits in their younger years, and they allow the majority of their marines to pick their own weapons.

The Templars no longer have any background to support the notion that they are any quirkier than the Minotaurs or Carcharodons in their preferences.

Actually, that's one of the weird things. The book says that Helbrecht and the Templars don't care for the codex but there's absolutely zero elaboration on what makes them different. The Templar crusader squads are mostly referred to by the word "group". The book says that there are ten Black Swords that are ancient relics. When the Emperor's Champ falls, there's no mention of the Templars trying to retrieve the sword, the armor or his body or even thinking about it. The book doesn't mention any Neophytes in combat beside the Initiates. I can come up with reasons why they might not have retrieved the sword or why no Neophytes were at the battles but the author should have done that. These issues feel like oversights.

 

One thing nobody has commented on is that this book really cements the Templars-used-to-have-librarians thing. Helbrecht walks past the sealed Librarium on The Eternal Crusader. It mentions that Templars have lost much of their history due to the loss of librarians. It's weird feeling like I used to support the Chapter most in touch with the past and now GW is telling me that it's the Chapter least in touch with its past. I know it's all "loose canon" and I can view it how I want. That's fine for my personal fluff but it will take a lot of convincing to get me to buy any more of the current Templar canon.

[Sete]

GW does not know what to do with them. Its that simple.

Also its a small book, it feels cut short.

Hmmm maybe its the time to make my own space marine knights...

And ye stop killing the EC. Its kinda cliche now. Or they are captured , or get a spear on the throat, or get their head smashed. How about one of them actually do something worthy of a champion? Just sayin.

[Tenebris]

How do you build an army around the idea of loose canon though?

Simple enough, you play Chaos, the masters of loose canon. If you dislike something you simply make a warband which fits your ideals or use the excuse of "time in the Warp" for your benefit.

 

But really I do not get this stuff. With the advent of Clan Raukaan it is clear that all SM chapters are being streamlined for a more optimal base for future novels, books, supplements... it makes things more efficient and this will be the norm. Black Templars had some unique elements, some of which were retained when they moved them in the generic codex, but ultimately they need to be streamlined for future reference. I expect them to be even more codex as years pass, it is called evolution and I think it is for the best.

 

On the other hand I know that you secretly field librarians by the dozen, they are that useful nowadays

[Marshal Rohr]

It's really not for the best. And I've not played a game with my Templars since the new codex came out. I don't even field librarians with my HH legion