Talon of Horus

[karden00]

 

 

I don't understand the whole "primarchs bowing to Abby" schtick. Why would they even care? One of the biggest gripes I have had in BL lore for, well, many years is that the demon primarchs still exist and yet do absolutely nothing. You have one Angron appearance and apparently 100 grey knights can handle that. But nothing from the rest of them.

 

I appreciate ADB for many reasons but the most important is that he is a fan who became a writer. Not all writers are created equally. Some do not care or give any thought to canon or continuity or any kind of interior logic to explain a setting. This is the first book that I can remember where at least A reason is given for why the demon primarchs do nothing when logically speaking they would be the ones leading Crusades to wipe out a prmarch less Imperium. The reason? They just don't care about the material plane aka real space aka Imperium because all of them are caught up in the Great Game of Chaos. 

 

So I have to assume that the primarchs kneeling to Abby is ADB giving other fans who also have had this question of lazy demon primarchs bugging them for years a reason WHY they are lazy. They just don't care and Abby makes it "official" by removing their ability to rally CSM and mortal troops on future Crusades to win the Long War. Abby doesn't care about them or their Great Game and they don't care about Abby or his Crusades.

 

I'm sure ADB will blow this apart if he sees it but it at least gives me some kind of balm to this long running grudge of why logically a vastly superior demon primarchs Crusade never happened against a no loyal primarch left Imperium.

 

That's a really interesting point. There's got to be (in my mind, at least) a balance between several aspects.

 

Most obviously (though not most importantly), the Daemon Primarchs are still involved in incursions into realspace. Very, very infrequent incursaions, but incursions nonetheless. They used to have models in Epic, and there was Angron's deal at the First War for Armageddon, and so on. In the latter example there was no evidence of anything remotely mortal about him: he was an avatar of rage and violence, sent by the Warp to a place where there'd be an immense amount of - you guessed it - rage and violence. (As an aside, I have a cool story idea where there would be certain former-primarch and self-control elements to him, in how and why the First War happens, though I'll likely never write it. But I digress.)

 

Then there's just what becoming a Daemon Prince really is. What it involves, what you gain, and most importantly, what you lose. The Daemon Primarchs are supremely powerful beings, far above the level of your average Daemon Prince, and arguably significantly closer to Chaos' whims and their gods' wills. They've evolved past mortal concerns (or ascended beyond them, if you prefer) and are now major players in the Great Game. They couldn't be further from the beings they were in the Heresy. They don't see the universe the way they saw things as mortal beings. They don't perceive the Imperium the same way. They exist as facets of Chaos, with the complexities and myriad impossibilities of perception that comes with such a state. They don't think in terms of holding territory or conquering land. They likely don't think much at all in terms humans can understand them.

 

They're as much instruments of the Divine now, as individual beings. Tools and weapons - but tools and weapons that work best inside the Eye and the Warp itself, and are fighting on different battlefields, on a different plane of existence, 99% of the time. Not in incursions into realspace, which is likely why such incursions are rare. Put more simply: Chaos didn't promote them to conquer the Imperium, because by ascending they became almost useless for that task.

 

Which ties into the Gods wanting Abaddon, but he resists ascension. No matter how powerful it would make him, it would limit him in the same way. He doesn't care about the Great Game or the whims of divine beings. He cares about mortal matters. He cares about conquering the Imperium. 

 

I know that we all know this, but it's good to reiterate for context in discussions as multi-layered as this.

 

Perhaps most importantly, Khayon had a certain turn of phrase about the primarchs kneeling, but there are two other factors in that. 

 

As much as I love to keep factions balanced and I'm against the idea of one Legion being "better" than the other, there's the plain fact that every character has flaws, and some primarchs were raised and shaped in significantly worse circumstances than others. Flaws are what make characters interesting a lot of the time, and for every time Lorgar or Horus insist that Chaos chose them, there's an equal argument for the idea that Chaos just found the most misguided and the most arrogant primarchs to be the easiest two to dupe. For every argument that Angron was such a perfect incarnation of fury that Khorne would have preferred no other, there's the possibility that he was simply so lost that claiming his soul was child's play; and, more intriguingly, that Khorne favours Khârn more, because Khârn is the immortal one out there in the galaxy, apparently(?) brought back from the dead, and actually taking skulls for the Skull Throne.

 

So you've got to keep the idea of Legion/Primarch balance, present several possibilities of imbalance as almost equally credible, and on top of that you've got to bear in mind that, well, some primarchs really may have just been 'broken' or 'better' and take the plunge in presenting that outlook, while keeping it in line with the above possibilities. Writing for 40K isn't exactly easy. I don't say that to engender sympathy (this is the best job in the world), but just to illustrate the nuance that can go on at times. 

 

The second aspect about Khayon's turn of phrase I mentioned is that it's just that: a turn of phrase. When he actually talks in detail about the Daemon Primarchs, he doesn't say they all physically kneel before Abaddon. He says that one in particular does, but doesn't say how, and (no spoilers) he says that there are dealings with others that take certain courses. This is the Twelve Tasks of Hercules, or the Odyssey. It'll never be as straight-cut as them all being 'beaten' in the same way, or even beaten at all in the obvious way. Some Daemon Primarchs might recognise Abaddon as Chaos' perfect mortal instrument - they'd be wise enough to respect him for sensing he'll do what their brother Horus couldn't. Some might hate him. Others might be largely indifferent to him, until he gets their attention in some way... and then they might go back to being largely indifferent again, until the next summons or cycle comes around. Others might specifically want to work with him, or through him, or serve as ambassadors for their god in later years. Others will seek to use him to further their own gods' aims, or their own schemes. Over X-thousand years, a primarch might go from thinking A to B to C to D, from being a mentor to being a rival to not giving a damn to being almost destroyed to being a prisoner to being a mentor again. There's a lot of possibility.

 

So it'll be far from simple. Khayon's turn of phrase was a generalisation about an eventuality. One he clarified immediately, and not a reference to the entire story or process of dealing with the Daemon Primarchs over the entirety of time in the Empire of the Eye.

 

 

I sincerely appreciate the response. It has always bothered me that if Chaos wanted to take over real space, I mean really wanted to do this then the simple solution would be to spit the Demon Primarchs back out of the Eye with all the bells and whistles we've come to see from Black Crusades. The Imperium in 40k hasn't had a live or non stasis frozen loyal Primarch in millennia.  It should be relatively easy then for six rampaging Demon Primarchs to trample over the opposition and give the last call bum rush to the Big E and boot him off the Golden Throne.

 

But that has never happened nor has it really been explained why it has not happened or could ever happen. Taking into account your well crafted response it sorta boggles the suspension of disbelief that this has not been directly addressed previously to ToH. Even the old "warp creatures can only exist for "X" amount of time outside the warp while in real space" argument would not be a satisfactory answer. There certainly are enough worlds to sacrifice to extend a Demon Primarch's material existence and frankly speaking the only one world that truly matters to the Imperium is Holy Terra. If all six of the Demon Primarchs led a Crusade directly to Earth and attacked the I'm not quite dead yet Emperor then they would be unstoppable in that goal.

 

We at least have now some explanation the reason why this McGuffin was never used seriously before. A brief appearance here or there hardly qualifies as a serious incursion. If the reason why the six remaining primarchs don't show up is because they simply don't care because their greater fight and prize will always be inside the Eye/Warp then it gives Abby a free hand to worry about the mortal real space. I like it. Abby can have their blessing/support as needed or forced while the DPs simply shrug their shoulders and tut tut about mortals and their mortal concerns while they are grappling with the dying of stars and galaxies and all that other cosmic/spiritual war that the Pantheon is engaged in.

 

I don't know if this would count as asking for spoilers but I do have to ask: we can safely assume that four of the Demon Primarchs (DP) are working directly for the Pantheon god they are identified with. Lorgar has always been about Chaos Undivided but that leaves one of my personal favorites completely unaccounted for: the Lord of Iron. What god does the DP Perturabo serve? Is he also serving Chaos Undivided or does he serve one of the Pantheon? Or something else for that matter? His Legion is one of the few who see Chaos as simply a tool to be used or discarded at will so it would at least make some sense that they are following their primarch in this line of thought.

 

Forgetting about Alpharius, are we? ;)

[Bulwyf]

Not at all. :P  I do believe at least one of the twins is still alive and well in 40k timeline but I don't think they were ever changed to a Demon Primarch.

[TheOtherSide]

 

Had the same though actually. There was a discussion about it on Warseer but... well, you know.

 

I'd say Horus Clone.

 

 

In the battle at the end of the book, Abaddon doesn't use the Talon at all until he plunges it into the HC's chest, like he was saving it just for that purpose

 

 

So I'd say yes, Sanguinius and Horus Clone. The only other possibility would be that they expand on Dorn's death and have Abbadon kill/execute him.

 

 

Can you imagine the wailing if Abaddon personally kills both Dorn and Sigismund in the 1st Black Crusade?

 

 

Behold, from a little thread about a year ago:

 

 

Thousands planets, systems, put to the sword, right ?

Yeah, that's something GW rarely built upon, when you think about it. And that's a shame.

Could be awesomely cool if Abaddon was involved in the death of Rogal Dorn. I mean, that would kinda scream "Hey folks, I'm about to end everything you've ever cherished".

 

I tried that, actually. They were firming up the dates and I said "I want the Black Crusade where Rogal Dorn dies. Could be Book 4 or 5 in the series."

 

But the studio had locked it down in a lesser Black Crusade already.

 

 

Plus, a little of this from earlier in the year:

 

 

So, both Dorn and Sigismund die during the first Black Crusade?

 

I thought that's where Dorn went down originally, but nope. Dorn dies aboard the Sword of Sacrilege in "a Black Crusade" between the First and Second (apparently not even one of Abaddon's, according to the Lore Peeps). I've got the actual date in my notes, but I'm on my iPad on my break. Early M32, I think. A couple of hundred years after the First Black Crusade, either way. (This all came from one of the meetings/documents where we had to plan out just what actual dates the primarchs all went down.)

 

Which is annoying, as I had this whole theme idea of it being the moment the Imperium finally has to accept that the tides have changed, and so on. But we had a bunch of talks about this, and Dorn was off the cards for anything like that. Someone wanted to do something with him elsewhere at some point, so it was vetoed by virtue of them asking first. No biggie, though. Ideas are free. Always more where they came from, and I prefer the resonance and symmetry of it being Sigismund. Someone else can tell Dorn's tale.

 

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

 

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

 

 

That only makes sense if Sigismund defeats (not kills, but defeats) Abaddon at the Imperial palace. Sigismund would then be the only person to defeat Abaddon in a life-and-death situation, as far as I know. Talk about a personal vendetta/revenge etc for Abaddon.

[TheOtherSide]

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

I think this is why I always liked Lucius better then Fulgrim. Fulgrim functions good as someone to idealize, but Lucius is a more human-ish character being corrupted by Slaanesh, entirely capable of losing...indeed, when he loses it's a big part of his character. Beating Gaviel Loken in his rematch wouldn't of meant as much if he didn't lose to him the first round, nor would beating Sanakhet if he hadn't been 'killed' by Sharrowkyn, it shows that the character is growing, and that's compelling in it's own right.

Exactly how I feel regarding Sigismund vs Abaddon. These two kinda symbolize the best, the first captain among first captains, for each respective side. I really hope they meet during the final siege. Otherwise, what will be the point of Abaddon beating Sigismund during the first crusade? Oh, he just happened to be in the way, or what?

Abaddon during the heresy was a very powerful Astartes, someone who almost can go toe to toe with "Death's Champion". However, once he breaks out of Horus's shadow he becomes something greater entirely. Now, the tables have turned and Abaddon is the stronger one. Character growth (from a power perspective)!

[A D-B]

 

 

Had the same though actually. There was a discussion about it on Warseer but... well, you know.

 

I'd say Horus Clone.

 

 

In the battle at the end of the book, Abaddon doesn't use the Talon at all until he plunges it into the HC's chest, like he was saving it just for that purpose

 

 

So I'd say yes, Sanguinius and Horus Clone. The only other possibility would be that they expand on Dorn's death and have Abbadon kill/execute him.

 

 

Can you imagine the wailing if Abaddon personally kills both Dorn and Sigismund in the 1st Black Crusade?

 

 

Behold, from a little thread about a year ago:

 

 

Thousands planets, systems, put to the sword, right ?

Yeah, that's something GW rarely built upon, when you think about it. And that's a shame.

Could be awesomely cool if Abaddon was involved in the death of Rogal Dorn. I mean, that would kinda scream "Hey folks, I'm about to end everything you've ever cherished".

 

I tried that, actually. They were firming up the dates and I said "I want the Black Crusade where Rogal Dorn dies. Could be Book 4 or 5 in the series."

 

But the studio had locked it down in a lesser Black Crusade already.

 

 

Plus, a little of this from earlier in the year:

 

 

So, both Dorn and Sigismund die during the first Black Crusade?

 

I thought that's where Dorn went down originally, but nope. Dorn dies aboard the Sword of Sacrilege in "a Black Crusade" between the First and Second (apparently not even one of Abaddon's, according to the Lore Peeps). I've got the actual date in my notes, but I'm on my iPad on my break. Early M32, I think. A couple of hundred years after the First Black Crusade, either way. (This all came from one of the meetings/documents where we had to plan out just what actual dates the primarchs all went down.)

 

Which is annoying, as I had this whole theme idea of it being the moment the Imperium finally has to accept that the tides have changed, and so on. But we had a bunch of talks about this, and Dorn was off the cards for anything like that. Someone wanted to do something with him elsewhere at some point, so it was vetoed by virtue of them asking first. No biggie, though. Ideas are free. Always more where they came from, and I prefer the resonance and symmetry of it being Sigismund. Someone else can tell Dorn's tale.

 

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

 

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

 

 

That only makes sense if Sigismund defeats (not kills, but defeats) Abaddon at the Imperial palace. Sigismund would then be the only person to defeat Abaddon in a life-and-death situation, as far as I know. Talk about a personal vendetta/revenge etc for Abaddon.

 

 

No, that's just one way of making it rich in pathos. It's not even close to the only way that makes sense, though. I don't think it's even the best way (and if it was, I'd probably just make that happen instead). Simple steps in character development can be fun, but Abadddon (and Chaos Marines in general) are hardly short on longstanding grudges over the course of a series like this. There's more to symbolism in a duel between Abaddon and Sigismund than just the obvious, easy character development of "They met before".

 

Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obvious (sometimes a good thing), and I'm just not sure it's worth pursuing. Sometimes meeting before The Last Meeting adds resonance and significance. Star Wars did that well. But sometimes it does the opposite. And in this case, it's less about the two characters meeting again, than it's about they represent. It's less about "You beat me last time, I'll beat you now" (which, arguably, cheapens it) and more about two avatars of opposing ideologies embodying their entire armies. The fact they never got the chance to face each other properly until The Last Meeting is the principal source of the pathos. It's a battle that's been waiting a long, long time, and for reasons more thematic and tragic than because one guy lost in the past. 

 

Luke and Vader fighting once, then fighting again - that rocked. But so did Achilles and Hector fighting in the Trojan War - both champions of their armies, being separated by fate... until, on that final day, they met at last. And everything changed.

[Vesper]

I do agree.

To use your example about Achille and Hector, that was definetly the :cuss. Achille's wrath, actions of the gods, everything led to that single moment that would doom Troy once and for all.

That was such a great, memorable moment. A moment that shaped Western culture for thousands of years.

[TheOtherSide]

 

 

 

Had the same though actually. There was a discussion about it on Warseer but... well, you know.

 

I'd say Horus Clone.

 

 

In the battle at the end of the book, Abaddon doesn't use the Talon at all until he plunges it into the HC's chest, like he was saving it just for that purpose

 

 

So I'd say yes, Sanguinius and Horus Clone. The only other possibility would be that they expand on Dorn's death and have Abbadon kill/execute him.

 

 

Can you imagine the wailing if Abaddon personally kills both Dorn and Sigismund in the 1st Black Crusade?

 

 

Behold, from a little thread about a year ago:

 

 

Thousands planets, systems, put to the sword, right ?

Yeah, that's something GW rarely built upon, when you think about it. And that's a shame.

Could be awesomely cool if Abaddon was involved in the death of Rogal Dorn. I mean, that would kinda scream "Hey folks, I'm about to end everything you've ever cherished".

 

I tried that, actually. They were firming up the dates and I said "I want the Black Crusade where Rogal Dorn dies. Could be Book 4 or 5 in the series."

 

But the studio had locked it down in a lesser Black Crusade already.

 

 

Plus, a little of this from earlier in the year:

 

 

So, both Dorn and Sigismund die during the first Black Crusade?

 

I thought that's where Dorn went down originally, but nope. Dorn dies aboard the Sword of Sacrilege in "a Black Crusade" between the First and Second (apparently not even one of Abaddon's, according to the Lore Peeps). I've got the actual date in my notes, but I'm on my iPad on my break. Early M32, I think. A couple of hundred years after the First Black Crusade, either way. (This all came from one of the meetings/documents where we had to plan out just what actual dates the primarchs all went down.)

 

Which is annoying, as I had this whole theme idea of it being the moment the Imperium finally has to accept that the tides have changed, and so on. But we had a bunch of talks about this, and Dorn was off the cards for anything like that. Someone wanted to do something with him elsewhere at some point, so it was vetoed by virtue of them asking first. No biggie, though. Ideas are free. Always more where they came from, and I prefer the resonance and symmetry of it being Sigismund. Someone else can tell Dorn's tale.

 

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

 

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

 

 

That only makes sense if Sigismund defeats (not kills, but defeats) Abaddon at the Imperial palace. Sigismund would then be the only person to defeat Abaddon in a life-and-death situation, as far as I know. Talk about a personal vendetta/revenge etc for Abaddon.

 

 

No, that's one way of making it rich in pathos. It's not even close to the only way that makes sense, though. I don't think it's even the best way (and if it was, I'd probably just make that happen instead). Simple steps in character development can be fun, but Abadddon (and Chaos Marines in general) are hardly short on longstanding grudges over the course of a series like this. There's more to symbolism in a duel between Abaddon and Sigismund than just the obvious, easy character development of "They met before".

 

Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obvious (sometimes a good thing), and I'm just not sure it's worth pursuing. Sometimes meeting before The Last Meeting adds resonance and significance. Star Wars did that well. But sometimes it does the opposite. And in this case, it's less about the two characters meeting again, than it's about they represent. It's less about "You beat me last time, I'll beat you know" (which, arguably, cheapens it) and more about two avatars of opposing ideologies embodying their entire armies. The fact they never got the chance to face each other properly until The Last Meeting is the principal source of the pathos. It's a battle that's been waiting a long, long time, and for reasons more thematic and tragic than because one guy lost in the past. 

 

Luke and Vader fighting once, then fighting again - that rocked. But so did Achilles and Hector fighting in the Trojan War - both champions of their armies, being separated by fate... until, on that final day, they met at last. And everything changed.

 

Ah, but that's really the issue, isn't it? What they represent. As long as Dorn is around, he's the top dog. Sigismund may be vigilant, but he's not the loyalist no 1. Heck, he's not even the no 1 IF/BT/CF.  "When I'm finished with you, I'll get started on your father..." Ehh, ok.

 

If Sigismund and Abaddon fight it out for the first time during the 1st crusade, I don't see how that fight is special for Abaddon. And quite frankly, neither for Sigismund, except in order to stop the current biggest threat. Then it wouldn't be personal, but simply duty.

 

To use your example. Achilles fighting Hector wasn't a big deal in the myth. Before that fight Hector had fought Ajax (inconclusive), and after their fight the siege still went on for another few years. The reason why most of us think of this fight as the big one, might have to do with Achilles' personal vendetta against Hector for killing Patroclus, making it... that's right, personal. 

 

To the average human Space Marines are one-dimensional (kinda like the heroes of old Greece). It's when the authors make them "more human" that the exiting things start to happen.  

[A D-B]

 

 

 

 

Had the same though actually. There was a discussion about it on Warseer but... well, you know.

 

I'd say Horus Clone.

 

 

In the battle at the end of the book, Abaddon doesn't use the Talon at all until he plunges it into the HC's chest, like he was saving it just for that purpose

 

 

So I'd say yes, Sanguinius and Horus Clone. The only other possibility would be that they expand on Dorn's death and have Abbadon kill/execute him.

 

 

Can you imagine the wailing if Abaddon personally kills both Dorn and Sigismund in the 1st Black Crusade?

 

 

Behold, from a little thread about a year ago:

 

 

Thousands planets, systems, put to the sword, right ?

Yeah, that's something GW rarely built upon, when you think about it. And that's a shame.

Could be awesomely cool if Abaddon was involved in the death of Rogal Dorn. I mean, that would kinda scream "Hey folks, I'm about to end everything you've ever cherished".

 

I tried that, actually. They were firming up the dates and I said "I want the Black Crusade where Rogal Dorn dies. Could be Book 4 or 5 in the series."

 

But the studio had locked it down in a lesser Black Crusade already.

 

 

Plus, a little of this from earlier in the year:

 

 

So, both Dorn and Sigismund die during the first Black Crusade?

 

I thought that's where Dorn went down originally, but nope. Dorn dies aboard the Sword of Sacrilege in "a Black Crusade" between the First and Second (apparently not even one of Abaddon's, according to the Lore Peeps). I've got the actual date in my notes, but I'm on my iPad on my break. Early M32, I think. A couple of hundred years after the First Black Crusade, either way. (This all came from one of the meetings/documents where we had to plan out just what actual dates the primarchs all went down.)

 

Which is annoying, as I had this whole theme idea of it being the moment the Imperium finally has to accept that the tides have changed, and so on. But we had a bunch of talks about this, and Dorn was off the cards for anything like that. Someone wanted to do something with him elsewhere at some point, so it was vetoed by virtue of them asking first. No biggie, though. Ideas are free. Always more where they came from, and I prefer the resonance and symmetry of it being Sigismund. Someone else can tell Dorn's tale.

 

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

 

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

 

 

That only makes sense if Sigismund defeats (not kills, but defeats) Abaddon at the Imperial palace. Sigismund would then be the only person to defeat Abaddon in a life-and-death situation, as far as I know. Talk about a personal vendetta/revenge etc for Abaddon.

 

 

No, that's one way of making it rich in pathos. It's not even close to the only way that makes sense, though. I don't think it's even the best way (and if it was, I'd probably just make that happen instead). Simple steps in character development can be fun, but Abadddon (and Chaos Marines in general) are hardly short on longstanding grudges over the course of a series like this. There's more to symbolism in a duel between Abaddon and Sigismund than just the obvious, easy character development of "They met before".

 

Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obvious (sometimes a good thing), and I'm just not sure it's worth pursuing. Sometimes meeting before The Last Meeting adds resonance and significance. Star Wars did that well. But sometimes it does the opposite. And in this case, it's less about the two characters meeting again, than it's about they represent. It's less about "You beat me last time, I'll beat you know" (which, arguably, cheapens it) and more about two avatars of opposing ideologies embodying their entire armies. The fact they never got the chance to face each other properly until The Last Meeting is the principal source of the pathos. It's a battle that's been waiting a long, long time, and for reasons more thematic and tragic than because one guy lost in the past. 

 

Luke and Vader fighting once, then fighting again - that rocked. But so did Achilles and Hector fighting in the Trojan War - both champions of their armies, being separated by fate... until, on that final day, they met at last. And everything changed.

 

Ah, but that's really the issue, isn't it? What they represent. As long as Dorn is around, he's the top dog. Sigismund may be vigilant, but he's not the loyalist no 1. Heck, he's not even the no 1 IF/BT/CF.  "When I'm finished with you, I'll get started on your father..." Ehh, ok.

 

If Sigismund and Abaddon fight it out for the first time during the 1st crusade, I don't see how that fight is special for Abaddon. And quite frankly, neither for Sigismund, except in order to stop the current biggest threat. Then it wouldn't be personal, but simply duty.

 

 

There're several reasons it works really well as Sigismund. Don't let Primarch Factor blind you to Sigismund's importance as a Space Marine in the Imperium, just because Dorn is still alive elsewhere. I've discussed it elsewhere and I've already spent 2 hours on the forum this morning, but it's probably searchable if you're curious. 

 

 

To use your example. Achilles fighting Hector wasn't a big deal in the myth. Before that fight Hector had fought Ajax (inconclusive), and after their fight the siege still went on for another few years. The reason why most of us think of this fight as the big one, might have to do with Achilles' personal vendetta against Hector for killing Patroclus, making it... that's right, personal.

 

 

You're defeating your point with that example, which is why I used it. There's a reason that fight is so significantly remembered, even if it was largely glossed over in the myth, or fought for reasons variously confusing, unclear, or invented after the fact to give context. It's because there was much, much more to it on a global and mythological level than something as simple as revenge over a boyfriend getting killed.

 

What matters is that, at last, they meet. Not just why one person starts the fight (Patroclus' death being only one reason), but why another person agrees to it, and how it plays out, and when it happens, and what the stakes were. 

 

The gods themselves walked the world back then, just like Dorn was still alive when Abaddon and Sigismund came face to face, but it was what the mortals did that mattered most. 

[Vesper]

 

The gods themselves walked the world back then, just like Dorn was still alive when Abaddon and Sigismund came face to face, but it was what the mortals did that mattered most. 

Isn't Dorn already dead by then ? Sword of Sacrilege and stuff happened before the 1st Black Crusade, isn't it ?

[A D-B]

 

 

The gods themselves walked the world back then, just like Dorn was still alive when Abaddon and Sigismund came face to face, but it was what the mortals did that mattered most. 

Isn't Dorn already dead by then ? Sword of Sacrilege and stuff happened before the 1st Black Crusade, isn't it ?

 

 

Bad Vesper. Bad. You were in that thread, and it's on Page 1 of this very thread we're in.

 

Tsk, I say.

[TheOtherSide]

Had the same though actually. There was a discussion about it on Warseer but... well, you know.

I'd say Horus Clone.

In the battle at the end of the book, Abaddon doesn't use the Talon at all until he plunges it into the HC's chest, like he was saving it just for that purpose

So I'd say yes, Sanguinius and Horus Clone. The only other possibility would be that they expand on Dorn's death and have Abbadon kill/execute him.

Can you imagine the wailing if Abaddon personally kills both Dorn and Sigismund in the 1st Black Crusade?

Behold, from a little thread about a year ago:

Thousands planets, systems, put to the sword, right ?

Yeah, that's something GW rarely built upon, when you think about it. And that's a shame.

Could be awesomely cool if Abaddon was involved in the death of Rogal Dorn. I mean, that would kinda scream "Hey folks, I'm about to end everything you've ever cherished".

I tried that, actually. They were firming up the dates and I said "I want the Black Crusade where Rogal Dorn dies. Could be Book 4 or 5 in the series."

But the studio had locked it down in a lesser Black Crusade already.

Plus, a little of this from earlier in the year:

So, both Dorn and Sigismund die during the first Black Crusade?

I thought that's where Dorn went down originally, but nope. Dorn dies aboard the Sword of Sacrilege in "a Black Crusade" between the First and Second (apparently not even one of Abaddon's, according to the Lore Peeps). I've got the actual date in my notes, but I'm on my iPad on my break. Early M32, I think. A couple of hundred years after the First Black Crusade, either way. (This all came from one of the meetings/documents where we had to plan out just what actual dates the primarchs all went down.)

Which is annoying, as I had this whole theme idea of it being the moment the Imperium finally has to accept that the tides have changed, and so on. But we had a bunch of talks about this, and Dorn was off the cards for anything like that. Someone wanted to do something with him elsewhere at some point, so it was vetoed by virtue of them asking first. No biggie, though. Ideas are free. Always more where they came from, and I prefer the resonance and symmetry of it being Sigismund. Someone else can tell Dorn's tale.

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

That only makes sense if Sigismund defeats (not kills, but defeats) Abaddon at the Imperial palace. Sigismund would then be the only person to defeat Abaddon in a life-and-death situation, as far as I know. Talk about a personal vendetta/revenge etc for Abaddon.

No, that's one way of making it rich in pathos. It's not even close to the only way that makes sense, though. I don't think it's even the best way (and if it was, I'd probably just make that happen instead). Simple steps in character development can be fun, but Abadddon (and Chaos Marines in general) are hardly short on longstanding grudges over the course of a series like this. There's more to symbolism in a duel between Abaddon and Sigismund than just the obvious, easy character development of "They met before".

Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obvious (sometimes a good thing), and I'm just not sure it's worth pursuing. Sometimes meeting before The Last Meeting adds resonance and significance. Star Wars did that well. But sometimes it does the opposite. And in this case, it's less about the two characters meeting again, than it's about they represent. It's less about "You beat me last time, I'll beat you know" (which, arguably, cheapens it) and more about two avatars of opposing ideologies embodying their entire armies. The fact they never got the chance to face each other properly until The Last Meeting is the principal source of the pathos. It's a battle that's been waiting a long, long time, and for reasons more thematic and tragic than because one guy lost in the past.

Luke and Vader fighting once, then fighting again - that rocked. But so did Achilles and Hector fighting in the Trojan War - both champions of their armies, being separated by fate... until, on that final day, they met at last. And everything changed.

Ah, but that's really the issue, isn't it? What they represent. As long as Dorn is around, he's the top dog. Sigismund may be vigilant, but he's not the loyalist no 1. Heck, he's not even the no 1 IF/BT/CF. "When I'm finished with you, I'll get started on your father..." Ehh, ok.

If Sigismund and Abaddon fight it out for the first time during the 1st crusade, I don't see how that fight is special for Abaddon. And quite frankly, neither for Sigismund, except in order to stop the current biggest threat. Then it wouldn't be personal, but simply duty.

There're several reasons it works really well as Sigismund. Don't let Primarch Factor blind you to Sigismund's importance as a Space Marine in the Imperium, just because Dorn is still alive elsewhere. I've discussed it elsewhere and I've already spent 2 hours on the forum this morning, but it's probably searchable if you're curious.

To use your example. Achilles fighting Hector wasn't a big deal in the myth. Before that fight Hector had fought Ajax (inconclusive), and after their fight the siege still went on for another few years. The reason why most of us think of this fight as the big one, might have to do with Achilles' personal vendetta against Hector for killing Patroclus, making it... that's right, personal.

You're defeating your point with that example, which is why I used it. There's a reason that fight is so significantly remembered, even if it was largely glossed over in the myth, or fought for reasons variously confusing, unclear, or invented after the fact to give context. It's because there was much, much more to it on a global and mythological level than something as simple as revenge over a boyfriend getting killed.

What matters is that, at last, they meet. Not just why one person starts the fight (Patroclus' death being only one reason), but why another person agrees to it, and how it plays out, and when it happens, and what the stakes were.

The gods themselves walked the world back then, just like Dorn was still alive when Abaddon and Sigismund came face to face, but it was what the mortals did that mattered most.

Of course Sigismund is important as a Space Marine... However, I was under impression Abaddon no longer measured himself against Marines, but rather against the best the loyalists have to offer, i.e. Primarchs. After his ascension to Chaos no.1, there is no Marine that can touch him. Even before his ascension there was no Marine who could best him. After, there is no contest at all really, or...?

Nope! You're reading too much into that fight. As I said, the fight was great, but afterwards things went back to normal. Patroclus was THE reason. After all, Achilles had been fighting in almost all major campaigns for what, 8-9 years prior to this incident. Yet, this is the one time Achilles deliberately seeks out Hector.

Why would it matter more what mortals did? The Horus Heresy was all about the Primarchs, with the Astartes champions having their own little sideshows/games etc. As I stated above, I just assumed that once Abaddon broke out of Horus's shadow, he kinda saw himself head and shoulders above "ordinary Astartes". But heck, you tell me, you're the author

[Vesper]

 

 

 

The gods themselves walked the world back then, just like Dorn was still alive when Abaddon and Sigismund came face to face, but it was what the mortals did that mattered most. 

Isn't Dorn already dead by then ? Sword of Sacrilege and stuff happened before the 1st Black Crusade, isn't it ?

 

 

Bad Vesper. Bad. You were in that thread, and it's on Page 1 of this very thread we're in.

 

Tsk, I say.

 

I could've sworn...

Let's blame it all on the fact I'm painting Sons of Sek.

Either way, I hope we'll hear about Dorn's death in the Black Legion series. That's the kind of thing that may be talked about in the Eye.

[A D-B]

Had the same though actually. There was a discussion about it on Warseer but... well, you know.

I'd say Horus Clone.

In the battle at the end of the book, Abaddon doesn't use the Talon at all until he plunges it into the HC's chest, like he was saving it just for that purpose

So I'd say yes, Sanguinius and Horus Clone. The only other possibility would be that they expand on Dorn's death and have Abbadon kill/execute him.

Can you imagine the wailing if Abaddon personally kills both Dorn and Sigismund in the 1st Black Crusade?

Behold, from a little thread about a year ago:

Thousands planets, systems, put to the sword, right ?

Yeah, that's something GW rarely built upon, when you think about it. And that's a shame.

Could be awesomely cool if Abaddon was involved in the death of Rogal Dorn. I mean, that would kinda scream "Hey folks, I'm about to end everything you've ever cherished".

I tried that, actually. They were firming up the dates and I said "I want the Black Crusade where Rogal Dorn dies. Could be Book 4 or 5 in the series."

But the studio had locked it down in a lesser Black Crusade already.

Plus, a little of this from earlier in the year:

So, both Dorn and Sigismund die during the first Black Crusade?

I thought that's where Dorn went down originally, but nope. Dorn dies aboard the Sword of Sacrilege in "a Black Crusade" between the First and Second (apparently not even one of Abaddon's, according to the Lore Peeps). I've got the actual date in my notes, but I'm on my iPad on my break. Early M32, I think. A couple of hundred years after the First Black Crusade, either way. (This all came from one of the meetings/documents where we had to plan out just what actual dates the primarchs all went down.)

Which is annoying, as I had this whole theme idea of it being the moment the Imperium finally has to accept that the tides have changed, and so on. But we had a bunch of talks about this, and Dorn was off the cards for anything like that. Someone wanted to do something with him elsewhere at some point, so it was vetoed by virtue of them asking first. No biggie, though. Ideas are free. Always more where they came from, and I prefer the resonance and symmetry of it being Sigismund. Someone else can tell Dorn's tale.

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

That only makes sense if Sigismund defeats (not kills, but defeats) Abaddon at the Imperial palace. Sigismund would then be the only person to defeat Abaddon in a life-and-death situation, as far as I know. Talk about a personal vendetta/revenge etc for Abaddon.

No, that's one way of making it rich in pathos. It's not even close to the only way that makes sense, though. I don't think it's even the best way (and if it was, I'd probably just make that happen instead). Simple steps in character development can be fun, but Abadddon (and Chaos Marines in general) are hardly short on longstanding grudges over the course of a series like this. There's more to symbolism in a duel between Abaddon and Sigismund than just the obvious, easy character development of "They met before".

Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obvious (sometimes a good thing), and I'm just not sure it's worth pursuing. Sometimes meeting before The Last Meeting adds resonance and significance. Star Wars did that well. But sometimes it does the opposite. And in this case, it's less about the two characters meeting again, than it's about they represent. It's less about "You beat me last time, I'll beat you know" (which, arguably, cheapens it) and more about two avatars of opposing ideologies embodying their entire armies. The fact they never got the chance to face each other properly until The Last Meeting is the principal source of the pathos. It's a battle that's been waiting a long, long time, and for reasons more thematic and tragic than because one guy lost in the past.

Luke and Vader fighting once, then fighting again - that rocked. But so did Achilles and Hector fighting in the Trojan War - both champions of their armies, being separated by fate... until, on that final day, they met at last. And everything changed.

Ah, but that's really the issue, isn't it? What they represent. As long as Dorn is around, he's the top dog. Sigismund may be vigilant, but he's not the loyalist no 1. Heck, he's not even the no 1 IF/BT/CF. "When I'm finished with you, I'll get started on your father..." Ehh, ok.

If Sigismund and Abaddon fight it out for the first time during the 1st crusade, I don't see how that fight is special for Abaddon. And quite frankly, neither for Sigismund, except in order to stop the current biggest threat. Then it wouldn't be personal, but simply duty.

There're several reasons it works really well as Sigismund. Don't let Primarch Factor blind you to Sigismund's importance as a Space Marine in the Imperium, just because Dorn is still alive elsewhere. I've discussed it elsewhere and I've already spent 2 hours on the forum this morning, but it's probably searchable if you're curious.

To use your example. Achilles fighting Hector wasn't a big deal in the myth. Before that fight Hector had fought Ajax (inconclusive), and after their fight the siege still went on for another few years. The reason why most of us think of this fight as the big one, might have to do with Achilles' personal vendetta against Hector for killing Patroclus, making it... that's right, personal.

You're defeating your point with that example, which is why I used it. There's a reason that fight is so significantly remembered, even if it was largely glossed over in the myth, or fought for reasons variously confusing, unclear, or invented after the fact to give context. It's because there was much, much more to it on a global and mythological level than something as simple as revenge over a boyfriend getting killed.

What matters is that, at last, they meet. Not just why one person starts the fight (Patroclus' death being only one reason), but why another person agrees to it, and how it plays out, and when it happens, and what the stakes were.

The gods themselves walked the world back then, just like Dorn was still alive when Abaddon and Sigismund came face to face, but it was what the mortals did that mattered most.

Of course Sigismund is important as a Space Marine... However, I was under impression Abaddon no longer measured himself against Marines, but rather against the best the loyalists have to offer, i.e. Primarchs. After his ascension to Chaos no.1, there is no Marine that can touch him. Even before his ascension there was no Marine who could best him. After, there is no contest at all really, or...?

Nope! You're reading too much into that fight. As I said, the fight was great, but afterwards things went back to normal. Patroclus was THE reason. After all, Achilles had been fighting in almost all major campaigns for what, 8-9 years prior to this incident. Yet, this is the one time Achilles deliberately seeks out Hector.

Why would it matter more what mortals did? The Horus Heresy was all about the Primarchs, with the Astartes champions having their own little sideshows/games etc. As I stated above, I just assumed that once Abaddon broke out of Horus's shadow, he kinda saw himself head and shoulders above "ordinary Astartes". But heck, you tell me, you're the author

You're reading too much into what primarchs are (Primarch Factor) after the Heresy; hugely simplifying Abaddon by implying he measures himself against loyalist primarchs; and not seeing the significance of Sigismund in the emergent, flawed Imperium. You're also missing the resonance of the Illiad fight, putting it entirely on Patroclus' shoulders, when that's plainly not the only lasting resonance at all - it's just Achilles' reason for wanting the fight. There's so much more nuance involved - between Hector's reasons for accepting the fight (listed and speculative), and the importance of that scrap on the war itself. Just leaving it as "For revenge!" and ignoring the buildup, the considerations of character, what it meant for history itself and the various other consequences is... well, it's a pretty shallow reading that doesn't do justice to the details. Considering the rest isn't reading too much into it: it's studying it.

These are the ultimate two Space Marines. The very first Emperor's Champion and the only one still fighting the Great Crusade, against the doom of the Imperium in the form of former "best" Space Marine returning at last, when everyone believes he's a myth. The age of gods and demigods is over, and the two greatest embodiments of the Space Marine ideal - one clinging to anachronism, one perverting it to evil - finally meet. There's so much more pathos to me in that final, inevitable meeting after being unable to fight at the Siege, than anything you're suggesting. That's the point: you're trying to make it personal and implying that's the best/only pathos. And that's the thing: this one isn't personal or founded on emotion. It's an honour duel, a thing of cold-blooded inexorable duty for one and prophetic (if melancholic) inevitability for the other. A meeting of champions fighting because they must, because Fate itself seems to have brought them together for the symbolism of the moment, not for anything as frivolous as hate or vengeance. It's not a fight for revenge. It's a clash of ideologies and eras, incarnated in the mythic forms of the two warriors that embody the Old Ways and the New Order, now that the gods are distant, dead, or increasingly irrelevant. Much more rides on what the witnesses see in that battle and the effect it has on them, than in what Abaddon and Sigismund think at the time.

There's so much personal/revenge-based stuff in the Chaos Marine mindset and their lore. This transcends it. It's an epochal shift. It's a moment too big for all of them to see it in such selfish, limited terms.

But we'll agree to disagree on this one. I respect your stance, but I reckon I've spent enough words on it for now, and I'm not going to try and convince you on a forum.

[Loesh]

I never really viewed Primarchs as 'better' then anyone else in the Imperium or the Chaos Space Marines, while they are very powerful physically they are also extremely detached from whats happening now. Everyone likes to talk about them, but really they are distant figures with very little bearing on mortal affairs anymore, what matters now is the legions they sired.

 

For Chaos, it is not Fulgrim who was in the Vanguard of the 13th Black Crusade nor was he corrupting empires in realspace and raiding thousands of worlds, that would be Lucius and Eidolen. It is not Angron who is most frequently running around and chopping peoples heads off left and right, that's Khârn. Morty arguably has the most impact refuelling the Plague Fleets but Typhus is running around turning everyone into zombies and making them sing hymns to Nurgle until they drop dead. Finally, for Magnus even though he's done some pretty awesome things since ascending it's Ahirman who's running around harvesting worlds worth of knowledge and arcane knowledge, ultimately seeking the Black Library and all the power that comes with it.

 

On the Loyalist end, most of the Primarchs are either dead or have shot themselves into the Eye of Terror on a personal crusade, and even then might be dead anyways save the Lion who is in stasis. While they were immensely powerful beings, ultimately they could not get over the Heresy, in Dorns case it was perhaps so great that he sought 'Death by Cop' launching himself into a swarm of world eaters. The Primarchs may of been giants genetically, but they were still men, and deeply flawed men at that.

 

While the Primarchs provide neat background and the setup for the Legions fall, the story isn't really about them anymore. It's about their countless sons in Warbands/Chapters coming out to fight in droves, facsimiles of these godlike entities in a way but also very much changed by the last ten thousand years. The Horus Heresy was about the battle of titans, but the End Times are about the battle of their children.

[TheOtherSide]

Had the same though actually. There was a discussion about it on Warseer but... well, you know.

I'd say Horus Clone.

In the battle at the end of the book, Abaddon doesn't use the Talon at all until he plunges it into the HC's chest, like he was saving it just for that purpose

So I'd say yes, Sanguinius and Horus Clone. The only other possibility would be that they expand on Dorn's death and have Abbadon kill/execute him.

Can you imagine the wailing if Abaddon personally kills both Dorn and Sigismund in the 1st Black Crusade?

Behold, from a little thread about a year ago:

Thousands planets, systems, put to the sword, right ?

Yeah, that's something GW rarely built upon, when you think about it. And that's a shame.

Could be awesomely cool if Abaddon was involved in the death of Rogal Dorn. I mean, that would kinda scream "Hey folks, I'm about to end everything you've ever cherished".

I tried that, actually. They were firming up the dates and I said "I want the Black Crusade where Rogal Dorn dies. Could be Book 4 or 5 in the series."

But the studio had locked it down in a lesser Black Crusade already.

Plus, a little of this from earlier in the year:

So, both Dorn and Sigismund die during the first Black Crusade?

I thought that's where Dorn went down originally, but nope. Dorn dies aboard the Sword of Sacrilege in "a Black Crusade" between the First and Second (apparently not even one of Abaddon's, according to the Lore Peeps). I've got the actual date in my notes, but I'm on my iPad on my break. Early M32, I think. A couple of hundred years after the First Black Crusade, either way. (This all came from one of the meetings/documents where we had to plan out just what actual dates the primarchs all went down.)

Which is annoying, as I had this whole theme idea of it being the moment the Imperium finally has to accept that the tides have changed, and so on. But we had a bunch of talks about this, and Dorn was off the cards for anything like that. Someone wanted to do something with him elsewhere at some point, so it was vetoed by virtue of them asking first. No biggie, though. Ideas are free. Always more where they came from, and I prefer the resonance and symmetry of it being Sigismund. Someone else can tell Dorn's tale.

It's always interesting to me how a first idea can be so easily replaced by a better second idea. The resonance and impact of it being Sigismund is so much more meaningful and personal than it being Dorn. Dorn has Primarch Factor, which (occasionally sadly) immediately puts asses in chairs, but doesn't always make for the most narratively strong or symbolic event.

So, so glad I went with Sigismund now.

That only makes sense if Sigismund defeats (not kills, but defeats) Abaddon at the Imperial palace. Sigismund would then be the only person to defeat Abaddon in a life-and-death situation, as far as I know. Talk about a personal vendetta/revenge etc for Abaddon.

No, that's one way of making it rich in pathos. It's not even close to the only way that makes sense, though. I don't think it's even the best way (and if it was, I'd probably just make that happen instead). Simple steps in character development can be fun, but Abadddon (and Chaos Marines in general) are hardly short on longstanding grudges over the course of a series like this. There's more to symbolism in a duel between Abaddon and Sigismund than just the obvious, easy character development of "They met before".

Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obvious (sometimes a good thing), and I'm just not sure it's worth pursuing. Sometimes meeting before The Last Meeting adds resonance and significance. Star Wars did that well. But sometimes it does the opposite. And in this case, it's less about the two characters meeting again, than it's about they represent. It's less about "You beat me last time, I'll beat you know" (which, arguably, cheapens it) and more about two avatars of opposing ideologies embodying their entire armies. The fact they never got the chance to face each other properly until The Last Meeting is the principal source of the pathos. It's a battle that's been waiting a long, long time, and for reasons more thematic and tragic than because one guy lost in the past.

Luke and Vader fighting once, then fighting again - that rocked. But so did Achilles and Hector fighting in the Trojan War - both champions of their armies, being separated by fate... until, on that final day, they met at last. And everything changed.

Ah, but that's really the issue, isn't it? What they represent. As long as Dorn is around, he's the top dog. Sigismund may be vigilant, but he's not the loyalist no 1. Heck, he's not even the no 1 IF/BT/CF. "When I'm finished with you, I'll get started on your father..." Ehh, ok.

If Sigismund and Abaddon fight it out for the first time during the 1st crusade, I don't see how that fight is special for Abaddon. And quite frankly, neither for Sigismund, except in order to stop the current biggest threat. Then it wouldn't be personal, but simply duty.

There're several reasons it works really well as Sigismund. Don't let Primarch Factor blind you to Sigismund's importance as a Space Marine in the Imperium, just because Dorn is still alive elsewhere. I've discussed it elsewhere and I've already spent 2 hours on the forum this morning, but it's probably searchable if you're curious.

To use your example. Achilles fighting Hector wasn't a big deal in the myth. Before that fight Hector had fought Ajax (inconclusive), and after their fight the siege still went on for another few years. The reason why most of us think of this fight as the big one, might have to do with Achilles' personal vendetta against Hector for killing Patroclus, making it... that's right, personal.

You're defeating your point with that example, which is why I used it. There's a reason that fight is so significantly remembered, even if it was largely glossed over in the myth, or fought for reasons variously confusing, unclear, or invented after the fact to give context. It's because there was much, much more to it on a global and mythological level than something as simple as revenge over a boyfriend getting killed.

What matters is that, at last, they meet. Not just why one person starts the fight (Patroclus' death being only one reason), but why another person agrees to it, and how it plays out, and when it happens, and what the stakes were.

The gods themselves walked the world back then, just like Dorn was still alive when Abaddon and Sigismund came face to face, but it was what the mortals did that mattered most.

Of course Sigismund is important as a Space Marine... However, I was under impression Abaddon no longer measured himself against Marines, but rather against the best the loyalists have to offer, i.e. Primarchs. After his ascension to Chaos no.1, there is no Marine that can touch him. Even before his ascension there was no Marine who could best him. After, there is no contest at all really, or...?

Nope! You're reading too much into that fight. As I said, the fight was great, but afterwards things went back to normal. Patroclus was THE reason. After all, Achilles had been fighting in almost all major campaigns for what, 8-9 years prior to this incident. Yet, this is the one time Achilles deliberately seeks out Hector.

Why would it matter more what mortals did? The Horus Heresy was all about the Primarchs, with the Astartes champions having their own little sideshows/games etc. As I stated above, I just assumed that once Abaddon broke out of Horus's shadow, he kinda saw himself head and shoulders above "ordinary Astartes". But heck, you tell me, you're the author

You're reading too much into what primarchs are (Primarch Factor) after the Heresy; hugely simplifying Abaddon by implying he measures himself against loyalist primarchs; and not seeing the significance of Sigismund in the emergent, flawed Imperium.

You're also missing the resonance of the Illiad fight, putting it entirely on Patroclus' shoulders, when that's plainly not the only lasting resonance at all - it's just Achilles' reason for wanting the fight. There's so much more nuance involved - between Hector's reasons for accepting the fight (listed and speculative), and the importance of that scrap on the war itself. Just leaving it as "For revenge!" and ignoring the buildup, the considerations of character, what it meant for history itself and the various other consequences is... well, it's a pretty shallow reading that doesn't do justice to the details. Considering the rest isn't reading too much into it: it's studying it.

I keep trying to tell you; that fight did NOT have a huge impact on the Trojan war. And revenge was a recurring main theme in most of the old Greek tales. Alas, as you say below.. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

These are the ultimate two Space Marines. The very first Emperor's Champion and the only one still fighting the Great Crusade, against the doom of the Imperium in the form of former "best" Space Marine returning at last, when everyone believes he's a myth. The age of gods and demigods is over, and the two greatest embodiments of the Space Marine ideal - one clinging to anachronism, one perverting it to evil - finally meet. There's so much more pathos to me in that final, inevitable meeting after being unable to fight at the Siege, than anything you're suggesting. That's the point: you're trying to make it personal and implying that's the best/only pathos. And that's the thing: this one isn't personal or founded on emotion. It's an honour duel, a thing of cold-blooded inexorable duty for one and prophetic (if melancholic) inevitability for the other. A meeting of champions fighting because they must, because Fate itself seems to have brought them together for the symbolism of the moment, not for anything as frivolous as hate or vengeance. It's not a fight for revenge. It's a clash of ideologies and eras, incarnated in the mythic forms of the two warriors that embody the Old Ways and the New Order, now that the gods are distant, dead, or increasingly irrelevant. Much more rides on what the witnesses see in that battle and the effect it has on them, than in what Abaddon and Sigismund think at the time.

There's so much personal/revenge-based stuff in the Chaos Marine mindset and their lore. This transcends it. It's an epochal shift. It's a moment too big for all of them to see it in such selfish, limited terms.

But we'll agree to disagree on this one. I respect your stance, but I reckon I've spent enough words on it for now, and I'm not going to try and convince you on a forum.

I would really like to expand on what you say in the paragraph above, mainly because a few things don't make sense to me, but I will respect your lack of time. After all, it's more important that you spend time to actually write about the encounter than to bandy words here with me.

Cheers!

[Conn Eremon]

For the love of god, people.

 

Cut your quote chains!

[Loesh]

For the love of god, people.

 

Cut your quote chains!

 

NEVER!

[TheOtherSide]

For the love of god, people.

Cut your quote chains!

Ha ha, I apologize. I am new at this and kind of a computer illiterate

I took me forever to figure out how to quote several paragraphs at once.

Cheers!

[incinerator950]

What the :cuss is going on in this topic? My phone can't handle all these Pyramids.

[Loesh]

What the is going on in this topic? My phone can't handle all these Pyramids.

We heard you like quotes, so we put quotes inside your quotes so you could quote while you quote,

[Emperors Immortals]

I've read ToH for the third time. Thank you ADB, just prior to reading this I was compiling I fluences from the illiad and you've made my day talking about it. More about the early players who shape the imperium between the first and second crusade would be great, if you need a topic lol.

 

I'll write a post about the influence this book can have on diy warbands, but for now know I am appreciating the meeting of classic literature and father/son relationships that you do so well.

 

Please have a crack at BA one day :D

[marine7312000]

Please have a crack at BA one day

^This... Please this. I would order this book the second it was even hinted at.

[DarKnight]

 

 

LMAO we all have to start somewhere, Soul

 

Perhaps you're drawing inspiration from Horus' grief in his final moment before destruction. Well, I think tears are a bit more justified in that scenario. Horus realises the depth of his treachery, how he has betrayed his own father by allowing Chaos to manipulate his pride and ambition, the irreparable damage he has done to the Imperium. That is something to be ashamed of...turning on your own father when you're his most favoured son. Horus is the Arch Traitor. It's rather appropriate for him to cry tears of shame when he finally snaps out of his Chaos-induced haze. 

 

In your scenario, Sigismund gives his all to defeat Abaddon but can't pull off the win (in part because Sigismund is really old by the time they cross blades). There's really not much for Sigismund to be ashamed of...I don't think defeat alone would justify a weepy Sigismund. He's the original Emperor's Champion. Why have him display such weakness in his final moment? You'd think crying would shame Sigismund even more in the eyes of Dorn, further reducing Dorn's opinion of him. Dorn wants his sons to be strong and resolute.  

 

In my humble opinion, I think a more powerful way of handling it would be something like this:

 

"I have failed you lord...again." Sigismund's voice is weak. He is choking on his own blood. "I am not worthy to be called a son of Rogal Dorn." The life was fast draining from the old knight. "My name is not worthy of remembrance...I deserve only oblivion." Sigismund shows no weakness. Weakness allowed Abaddon to best him. In his final moments, Sigismund banishes weakness. He bears the crushing shame of failure without flinching. He will die as an Imperial Fist, even if he failed to live as one. 

 

Dorn is kneeling beside the fallen warrior. Stony-faced, Dorn looks over Sigismund's mangled form. The primarch is about to speak, but Sigismund coughs blood, once, twice, and then no more. The life has fled from the paladin's face. The expression fixed upon it is both inspiring and heart-breaking, torn between a warrior's stoicism and a penitent's remorse.

 

I have failed you lord. Dorn reflects heavily upon these words. The primarch's own failures have haunted him for many decades. His reluctance to accept Horus' treachery. That was his first crime. His absence from the Emperor's side as his father faced the Arch Traitor alone. That was his ultimate sin.

 

The noble Angel had given his life to weaken Horus, if only every so slightly. What had he done, the Emperor's supposed Praetorian? Nothing. Dorn's expression softened almost imperceptibly. "We have all failed," Dorn whispered. "My failures have perhaps been the most unforgivable." The Primarch slowly raised himself to his full height and saluted the fallen Paladin. "But I promise this...the name of Sigismund, son of Dorn, will be remembered forever."        

 

Great way to envision it, but the avenue I was coming from was the guilt of being all but disowned by Dorn due to his staying on Terra due to the counsel of Keeler. Similar sentiment, though. And I don't think advanced age would stop Sigismund from feeling guilt about losing. Giving it the "old college try" isn't really in the Astartes mindset, no matter how old he is. Especially for a Templar in one on one combat. Especially for THE Templar in one on one combat. I do enjoy that Dorn gives Sigismund absolution after his death however.

[TheOtherSide]

 

 

LMAO we all have to start somewhere, Soul

 

Perhaps you're drawing inspiration from Horus' grief in his final moment before destruction. Well, I think tears are a bit more justified in that scenario. Horus realises the depth of his treachery, how he has betrayed his own father by allowing Chaos to manipulate his pride and ambition, the irreparable damage he has done to the Imperium. That is something to be ashamed of...turning on your own father when you're his most favoured son. Horus is the Arch Traitor. It's rather appropriate for him to cry tears of shame when he finally snaps out of his Chaos-induced haze. 

 

In your scenario, Sigismund gives his all to defeat Abaddon but can't pull off the win (in part because Sigismund is really old by the time they cross blades). There's really not much for Sigismund to be ashamed of...I don't think defeat alone would justify a weepy Sigismund. He's the original Emperor's Champion. Why have him display such weakness in his final moment? You'd think crying would shame Sigismund even more in the eyes of Dorn, further reducing Dorn's opinion of him. Dorn wants his sons to be strong and resolute.  

 

In my humble opinion, I think a more powerful way of handling it would be something like this:

 

"I have failed you lord...again." Sigismund's voice is weak. He is choking on his own blood. "I am not worthy to be called a son of Rogal Dorn." The life was fast draining from the old knight. "My name is not worthy of remembrance...I deserve only oblivion." Sigismund shows no weakness. Weakness allowed Abaddon to best him. In his final moments, Sigismund banishes weakness. He bears the crushing shame of failure without flinching. He will die as an Imperial Fist, even if he failed to live as one. 

 

Dorn is kneeling beside the fallen warrior. Stony-faced, Dorn looks over Sigismund's mangled form. The primarch is about to speak, but Sigismund coughs blood, once, twice, and then no more. The life has fled from the paladin's face. The expression fixed upon it is both inspiring and heart-breaking, torn between a warrior's stoicism and a penitent's remorse.

 

I have failed you lord. Dorn reflects heavily upon these words. The primarch's own failures have haunted him for many decades. His reluctance to accept Horus' treachery. That was his first crime. His absence from the Emperor's side as his father faced the Arch Traitor alone. That was his ultimate sin.

 

The noble Angel had given his life to weaken Horus, if only every so slightly. What had he done, the Emperor's supposed Praetorian? Nothing. Dorn's expression softened almost imperceptibly. "We have all failed," Dorn whispered. "My failures have perhaps been the most unforgivable." The Primarch slowly raised himself to his full height and saluted the fallen Paladin. "But I promise this...the name of Sigismund, son of Dorn, will be remembered forever."

 

Great way to envision it, but the avenue I was coming from was the guilt of being all but disowned by Dorn due to his staying on Terra due to the counsel of Keeler. Similar sentiment, though. And I don't think advanced age would stop Sigismund from feeling guilt about losing. Giving it the "old college try" isn't really in the Astartes mindset, no matter how old he is. Especially for a Templar in one on one combat. Especially for THE Templar in one on one combat. I do enjoy that Dorn gives Sigismund absolution after his death however.

 

Ugh... This is another piece of lore that sits really bad with me. The Blood Angels are immortal through a supposed "defect" in their gene seed, whereas all other Astartes age and grow weak. I just don't buy it.

[Legatus]

*Psst, that is because Blood Angels are vampires*

 

Though the lroe does not say that they are immortal. They just have a significantly increased life span, and reching ages of 1,000 years is not uncommon, with Dante being alleged to be older than 1,100 years.