Rate what you Read, or the fight against Necromancy

[Pacific81]

Not sure if this is common knowledge or merely a coincidence.

 

Heart of Darkness is a novel by Joesph Conrad.

 

The novel inspired the Francis Ford Coppola film Apocalypse Now which starred Marlon Brando as a deranged soldier named Kurtz.

 

Heart of Darkness = Night Haunter, Night Lords

 

Conrad + Kurtz = Konrad Curze

 

The subject matter of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now also fit the legion and primarch like a glove.

 

Yes well spotted. There are quite a few references like that. 

 

Another is that there is also a poet called Lionel Johnson who wrote a poem called the Dark Angel. I won't write it here, but basically look up the poem and its connotations, and think of the old bit of background of the Lion 'holding on to a terrible secret'. 

 

I'm guessing that's probably why we haven't seen the Lion's full 'El Johnson' surname in the modern background material. What was a tongue-in-cheek literary reference and single line of text (I honestly think a lot of these names were made up in the pub between the early GW writers on a Friday evening) suddenly finds itself used in NY Times bestselling books. 

 

I had also heard that Angron comes from 'Angry Ron', but I haven't ever read who Ron was and the person (you have to assume it was a person that they knew?) that were being referenced. 

 

Separately, we know that Orks speak in the way they do because of their original portrayal as British thugs/football hooligans in the 80s. I can't remember if it was a 'mail order troll' working in the deliveries department (bearing in mind how small the company was back then) who started talking like that when playing with the Orks and the image then got used by the design team. 

 

It's quite a lot of fun digging out these old stories and reading about them :) 

[Jareddm]

 

Not sure if this is common knowledge or merely a coincidence.

 

Heart of Darkness is a novel by Joesph Conrad.

 

The novel inspired the Francis Ford Coppola film Apocalypse Now which starred Marlon Brando as a deranged soldier named Kurtz.

 

Heart of Darkness = Night Haunter, Night Lords

 

Conrad + Kurtz = Konrad Curze

 

The subject matter of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now also fit the legion and primarch like a glove.

 

Yes well spotted. There are quite a few references like that. 

 

Another is that there is also a poet called Lionel Johnson who wrote a poem called the Dark Angel. I won't write it here, but basically look up the poem and its connotations, and think of the old bit of background of the Lion 'holding on to a terrible secret'. 

 

I'm guessing that's probably why we haven't seen the Lion's full 'El Johnson' surname in the modern background material. What was a tongue-in-cheek literary reference and single line of text (I honestly think a lot of these names were made up in the pub between the early GW writers on a Friday evening) suddenly finds itself used in NY Times bestselling books. 

 

I had also heard that Angron comes from 'Angry Ron', but I haven't ever read who Ron was and the person (you have to assume it was a person that they knew?) that were being referenced. 

 

Separately, we know that Orks speak in the way they do because of their original portrayal as British thugs/football hooligans in the 80s. I can't remember if it was a 'mail order troll' working in the deliveries department (bearing in mind how small the company was back then) who started talking like that when playing with the Orks and the image then got used by the design team. 

 

It's quite a lot of fun digging out these old stories and reading about them

 

My problem with this stuff is there are very vocal and very annoying communities who push this stuff both too far and ad nauseam. 

 

"Imperial Fists are based on Prussians!? Then why don't they wear Pickelhaubes!?"

"Iron Hands are based on Scots!?  Then why don't they wear kilts and play bagpipes!?"

"Ultramarines are Roman!?  Then why aren't they speaking with Italian accents!?"

 

And as you mentioned...Dark Angels

 

There's a difference between easter egg references and people treating those easter eggs like they're integral pieces of lore.  And I've always been concerned by how often the community forgets that difference.

[Indefragable]

 

<snip>

Must Read

10/10

 

 

Fantastic write-up as always, @Roomsky, and appreciate the shoutout. My post linked here (not for egotistical reasons, but simply since it's so annoying to look things up on B&C). 

 

My hope is that people realize that Saturnine is a book that just needs to be read. I think we often lose sight of those works in a setting that just have to be read/seen/experienced. Even if you don't like them or think they're trash, they need to be experienced in order to reference certain things and be enriched for the experience of it, one way or another. It's moving things forward, even if you don't agree with the direction its being moved. 

 

 

Not sure if this is common knowledge or merely a coincidence.

 

Heart of Darkness is a novel by Joesph Conrad.

 

The novel inspired the Francis Ford Coppola film Apocalypse Now which starred Marlon Brando as a deranged soldier named Kurtz.

 

Heart of Darkness = Night Haunter, Night Lords

 

Conrad + Kurtz = Konrad Curze

 

The subject matter of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now also fit the legion and primarch like a glove.

 

Yes well spotted. There are quite a few references like that. 

 

Another is that there is also a poet called Lionel Johnson who wrote a poem called the Dark Angel. I won't write it here, but basically look up the poem and its connotations, and think of the old bit of background of the Lion 'holding on to a terrible secret'. 

 

I'm guessing that's probably why we haven't seen the Lion's full 'El Johnson' surname in the modern background material. What was a tongue-in-cheek literary reference and single line of text (I honestly think a lot of these names were made up in the pub between the early GW writers on a Friday evening) suddenly finds itself used in NY Times bestselling books. 

 

I had also heard that Angron comes from 'Angry Ron', but I haven't ever read who Ron was and the person (you have to assume it was a person that they knew?) that were being referenced. 

 

Separately, we know that Orks speak in the way they do because of their original portrayal as British thugs/football hooligans in the 80s. I can't remember if it was a 'mail order troll' working in the deliveries department (bearing in mind how small the company was back then) who started talking like that when playing with the Orks and the image then got used by the design team. 

 

It's quite a lot of fun digging out these old stories and reading about them

 

 

Absolutely 50%+ of Warhammer 40,000 was made up in pubs and just kinda stuck. "Angry Ron" was probably a placeholder until they came up with a better name and ....after like 2 years they still hadn't come up with a better name so "Angron" it was and it shipped that way. It's amazing how much of human civilization actually functions that way...

 

Plenty of anecdotes of how George Lucas came up with now-iconic characters and names. 

 

 

<snip>

My problem with this stuff is there are very vocal and very annoying communities who push this stuff both too far and ad nauseam. 

 

"Imperial Fists are based on Prussians!? Then why don't they wear Pickelhaubes!?"

"Iron Hands are based on Scots!?  Then why don't they wear kilts and play bagpipes!?"

"Ultramarines are Roman!?  Then why aren't they speaking with Italian accents!?"

 

And as you mentioned...Dark Angels

 

There's a difference between easter egg references and people treating those easter eggs like they're integral pieces of lore.  And I've always been concerned by how often the community forgets that difference.

 

 

Absolutely agree. Something something <old man voice> the internet ruins everything something something.

 

There's this pathological need to dissect everything (which is fine in and of itself), but then the perspective that such dissection is...extracurricular...gets lost and the magic of the whole or the tongue-in-cheek elements go away. 

 

************

Necromancy: revisiting the Ferrus Manus primarchs book since a few of your <cough> Roomsky <cough> seem to think there's a redeeming thread in there and I'm too curious to let such a thought linger

[bluntblade]

Absolutely agree. Something something <old man voice> the internet ruins everything something something.

 

There's this pathological need to dissect everything (which is fine in and of itself), but then the perspective that such dissection is...extracurricular...gets lost and the magic of the whole or the tongue-in-cheek elements go away. 

 

************

Necromancy: revisiting the Ferrus Manus primarchs book since a few of your <cough> Roomsky <cough> seem to think there's a redeeming thread in there and I'm too curious to let such a thought linger

Something of this ilk that's occurred to me recently, particularly revisiting Inception in the IMAX, is that we've got to this weird stage where we assume that a writer is lying to us. Not misdirecting, but actively lying, and I wonder if this is down to the convention where people try and treat stories as logical puzzles/equations to be solved, often ignoring theme and character in the process.

 

You see this with Praetorian of Dorn. People try and logic it so that Archamus just gets in the way, so that Alpharius survives his own fatal hubris when his hubris is meant to be the foil to Dorn's resolve and hidden depths, particularly the ruthlessness he mines so reluctantly. But despite French laying this all out on the page, fully dramatised, people are still scratching their chins and going "oh, but it's so ambiguous..."

 

We no longer look at what it means, because we've accepted being lied to. We expect everyone to be Abrams or Benioff and Weiss, who we can't trust because they're waiting to suddenly pull something out of nowhere and go "ha! You never saw that coming, did you? Marvel at my brilliance! You'll never catch me hinting at anything..."

 

And we file it as a Lexicanum article with lots of stuff about how it's uncertain that Alpharius was dead, despite Omegon's POV because the XX^th Legion Primarch was notoriously mysterious.

Edited September 11, 2020 by bluntblade

[Indefragable]

 

Absolutely agree. Something something <old man voice> the internet ruins everything something something.

 

There's this pathological need to dissect everything (which is fine in and of itself), but then the perspective that such dissection is...extracurricular...gets lost and the magic of the whole or the tongue-in-cheek elements go away. 

 

************

Necromancy: revisiting the Ferrus Manus primarchs book since a few of your <cough> Roomsky <cough> seem to think there's a redeeming thread in there and I'm too curious to let such a thought linger

Something of this ilk that's occurred to me recently, particularly revisiting Inception in the IMAX, is that we've got to this weird stage where we assume that a writer is lying to us. Not misdirecting, but actively lying, and I wonder if this is down to the convention where people try and treat stories as logical puzzles/equations to be solved, often ignoring theme and character in the process.

 

You see this with Praetorian of Dorn. People try and logic it so that Archamus just gets in the way, so that Alpharius survives his own fatal hubris when his hubris is meant to be Dorn's resolve and hidden depths, particularly the ruthlessness he mines so reluctantly. But despite French laying this all out on the page, fully dramatised, people are still scratching their chins and going "oh, but it's so ambiguous..."

 

We no longer look at what it means, because we've accepted being lied to. We expect everyone to be Abrams or Benioff and Weiss, who we can't trust because they're waiting to suddenly pull something out of nowhere and go "ha! You never saw that coming, did you? Marvel at my brilliance! You'll never catch me hinting at anything..."

 

 

Yea great point @bluntblade. 

 

Like how so many people push that Little Horus will drop the shields to allow the final confrontation....when narratively speaking it just makes ironclad sense for Horus to do it himself. It's like people pushing that Eisenhower didn't actually want to invade Normandy, but an underling switched paperwork to make it happen on 06 June 1944....it just makes 0 sense other than to add a twist where one does not need to be nor serve any purpose. 

 

I think we've been blessed in the modern world with so many genuine shocks or genius turns (ala The Usual Suspects) that audiences and/or creators not only expect, but almost (unfairly) demand a certain # or caliber of twists just for the sake of having them. This also creates a prime environment for creators to bull- errr...."sell" the audience on the idea that there's something more going on or at work when there really isn't. 

 

Two random examples of the corollary to the above would be Knives Out and The Mummy (1999).

Hidden Content

If you have not seen it, Knives Out is a great example of taking a familiar formula, knowing what the audience expects, and playing off that to delightfully unexpectedly-obvious results. It's right in front of you the whole time yet the movie knows you won't believe it so it keeps you eating popcorn for 2hrs just to teach you a lesson (in most entertaining fashion). The Mummy is another example of a movie with almost 0 new ideas or elements, twists, or turns, yet that is in part what makes it so damn fun: you just enjoy a ride where 95% of the effort went into the characters and dialogue. We forget how great that can be, these days

 

Tying it into 40k (and Necromancy), I would have to say ​Know No Fear probably fits an example of no major twists or turns done well. Yes, the framing device of the story is novel (and well done), but overall there's no monster closets or "ah ha!" moments other than those that happen to the characters organically (but we the omniscient readers know about). It's just a heck of a well done story. 

[bluntblade]

I actually took my parents to see Knives Out and my mum was wondering afterwards if it was a good sign that she figured it out. I pointed out that she's a fiend for murder mysteries, something would probably have been wrong had she not deciphered it.

 

Side note: I think this is Wraight's under-noted strength. He tunnels into characters - including the character of a faction - and has that drive events even when there are external, "plotty" factors at play.

[Sothalor]

In regards to Ferrus Manus:

 

I liked it. I can absolutely understand why somebody wouldn't, though. For me, it was only about 2/3 of the way through that things sorta clicked into place.

 

The thing about Ferrus is, it's not really about Ferrus, in the same way that Prospero Burns wasn't really *about* Prospero burning. And I totally get why somebody would be disgruntled about that, especially since Ferrus Manus hasn't had much opportunity to shine as his own character, being limited to his appearances in Fulgrim and some other shorts here and there. From a meta "publishing house expanding the setting" perspective, I think there's a strong argument that his Primarch novella was the wrong one to do this with.

 

And what exactly is "this"? Well, I'd argue that Ferrus is a Fault Investigation Trench.

 

Let me explain with a bit of a tangent: I work at a geotechnical engineering firm in the California Bay Area. We do soil studies for public transportation infrastructure. There are several types of field investigation involved, and two I think are pertinent to the discussion surrounding Ferrus. One type of investigation is the Field Boring - drilling down into the soil at a project site to explore subsurface conditions. This is a small-diameter hole, going down deep, with samples taken from regular intervals for further lab tests.

 

Another type of field investigation is the Fault Trenching (this being the Bay Area, seismic faults are a major concern for civil engineering). This is where you'll dig a long, shallow trench across where you suspect a fault line may be, and then examine the soils just below the surface to try to more accurately locate it.

 

They are two different excavations; one is narrow and deep, focused on examining one particular location - the other is shallow but broad, trying to cover a wider area to find the breaks within.

 

Ferrus is the latter - and not in the way I expected. See, I went in anticipating a deep dive into the character of Ferrus Manus - a Field Boring, as it were. Like Reynold's excellent Fulgrim, using a particular event to showcase the strengths and weaknesses of the titular Primarch. This is not that book. Ferrus is a Fault Investigation - not of him, but of the broader Horus Heresy.

 

This book is like a snapshot of the Great Crusade during its height, but it just scrapes beneath the surface and reveals some of the fault lines that will be at the heart of the Heresy and its themes. It's got nominal brothers-in-arms who are driven to outdo each other in competition - but that competition holds this unspoken edge to it, like it might go beyond comradely with just the right impetus. It's got a superhuman general who is master of all he sees - except for himself, driven and consumed by his own passions to a destructive degree. Transhuman super-soldiers who follow their gene-fathers to the brink - and maybe beyond. Regular humans, whose beliefs in the Great Crusade and the Imperium run headlong into the reality that their lives are just currency to be spent in a war that drives on beyond reason to pathology. In Akurduana, the best and brightest of Terra that ultimately gets consumed by the emotional typhoons of demigods.

 

It's like that saying, "It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here." This book isn't set in the Age of Darkness, but it scratches below the surface to reveal the fault lines that will rupture in it.

 

So in that regard, I enjoyed Ferrus and enjoyed what it did. But like I said, I can totally get why somebody wouldn't. It doesn't dive into Ferrus' motivations and characters the way some other Primarch series works do, nor does it showcase the Iron Hands in a particularly complimentary light. And Akurduana is eye-rollingly super-competent at one-upping everybody. If you read this and said "It's called Ferrus Manus! Why isn't it about Ferrus?", I get you. I think it's fair for Iron Hands fans to be disappointed that their Primarch book is the one that isn't focused on their Primarch. 

 

But if you enjoy the broader themes and ideas of the Horus Heresy as a whole, I'd say adjust your expectations and give this a go.

[bluntblade]

My question with Gorgon of Medusa is: at what point does an unorthodox or unexpected approach tip into an error of intent? Is there a point - and I know, given some of my cultural leanings that I'm on thin ice right now and multiple people will think I'm a rancid hypocrite - where the author just got away from the brief they ought to have had.

[Sothalor]

I think that's a fair question, but it's also worth remembering authors don't just hand in a manuscript and the whole thing goes straight to the printers. The product still has to go through editing and approval. We really aren't talking a single point of failure here.

[StrangerOrders]

Flipping through Crusade now and I think I might have to revisit my Valdor review after this, since it changes a fair bit now.

 

For those that are curious, we now know that the Dark Angels have been active for at least two to two and a half centuries before the Crusade started and a good four to four and a half centuries before the Heresy. 

[Scribe]

Flipping through Crusade now and I think I might have to revisit my Valdor review after this, since it changes a fair bit now.

 

For those that are curious, we now know that the Dark Angels have been active for at least two to two and a half centuries before the Crusade started and a good four to four and a half centuries before the Heresy. 

 

Crusade, the HH black book? Wouldnt that throw a lot of spanners into the timeline?

Edited September 12, 2020 by Scribe

[StrangerOrders]

 

Flipping through Crusade now and I think I might have to revisit my Valdor review after this, since it changes a fair bit now.

 

For those that are curious, we now know that the Dark Angels have been active for at least two to two and a half centuries before the Crusade started and a good four to four and a half centuries before the Heresy. 

 

Crusade, the HH black book? Wouldnt that throw a lot of spanners into the timeline?

 

Yeah... and they mention alot more dates too in the 6 (603, 668 are called specifically but it now says that TWs were gone by the Mid-Point of Unity).

 

And note the TWs were gone by mid-Unity and that the DAngels had tons of Glorianas and a whole lot of other stuff. 

 

Which I am on the fence about, I am okay with their having all the rare and exotic stuff, its old news. But the sheer number of times the book is saying other Legions envied the DAngels who were great at everything but cool and confident is starting to get eerily Ward-y.

 

I am not done yet so I am of course reserving judgement but dear god this is alot of alot.

Edited September 12, 2020 by StrangerOrders

[Scribe]

Bleh. Hopefully it turns around. :p

[Sothalor]

Maybe this belongs more rightfully in the FW Black Books thread, but there's always been a fairly substantial disconnect between the fluff in the Forgeworld books and the Black Library publications. I am unsurprised there are contradictions here. Annoying, but... well, what can you do?

[Fedor]

Sounds like it will go down perfectly over at places like 40klore, where there is a large contingent who seemingly want the Dark Angels/Lion to be best at everything and find that actually interesting storytelling.

 

I wonder if it will clear up the old lore that Guymer resurrected about Lion being one of the few primarchs considered to have the most victories, with the newer stuff about him being found a good bit later than the likes of Horus/Russ and plunged into the Rangdan campaigns very soon after taking command of the legion. Something that supposedly took a very big toll on them. None of it fits together very well

Edited September 12, 2020 by Fedor

[StrangerOrders]

Sounds like it will go down perfectly over at places like 40klore, where there is a large contingent who seemingly want the Dark Angels/Lion to be best at everything and find that actually interesting storytelling.

 

I wonder if it will clear up the old lore that Guymer resurrected about Lion being one of the few primarchs considered to have the most victories, with the newer stuff about him being found a good bit later than the likes of Horus/Russ and plunged into the Rangdan campaigns very soon after taking command of the legion. Something that supposedly took a very big toll on them. None of it fits together very well

Its odd really.

 

Like, it tells conflicting stories. Like the DA being offended that no one admires them anymore or that the other Legions no longer considers them mentors.

 

...But then you go back and read it and it shows the DA were standofish to lesser Legions (they literally considered other Legions lesser), thought mortals were too pathetic and weak to grasp their victories so it didnt matter if they werent praised and were so ally-murder-happy that Imperial Army forces set up protective charms whenever they were about.

 

Its weird man.

 

I dont mind the Unification Wars being stretched out, especially since I actually think if anything the narrative problem is that the Crusade was way too short by the standards of the setting. Especially since the authors largely gave up on differentiating between 30k and 40k mortals. 

 

But the actual characterization they gave the DAngels has weird, very Wardian moments now. 

 

I will say though that the book does execute well on making Hubris a flaw, even if it doesnt quite square the balance well. 

 

Like, the DA literally shot themselves in the foot repeatedly and for all of their massive arsenals of forbidden stuff, most marines and a ton of Glorianas and forbidden lore, they seemed physically incapable of weighing risk vs. Honor.

 

It literally has the Legion parting ways several times because the respective masters were so egomaniacal that they flipped the metaphorical table and buggered off whenever a powerful lord commander wasnt smacking their heads together. It has them not just losing face because of their super special and edgy secret assignments, but because they bypassed 'easy' fights constantly while simultaneously wasting tons of troops and supplies on needlessly difficult fights they could have called in help with. 

 

They are shown to be so egotistical that they try to tell of Guilliman about Strategy and proceed to waste hundreds of veterans and get a Lord Commander killed to prove that they are superior to him. Guilliman just shrugs and basically says 'weird flex, but alright.'

 

Heck, it shows the Lion literally had to go personally recruit nearly every company back because they were so stubbornly egotistical and proud that they refused to go meet him without some insane trophy. So he had to be running around pulling the danger-lemmings off the proverbial cliff.

 

It sounds a bit silly, but trust me when I say it is necessary from the sheer amount of 'we literally do everything better' that the section is littered with.

 

Yet, despite this admittedly sounding a bit unkind, I actually kind of liked it. If only for actually executing on the premise of 'Pride as weakness', since we that attributed to literally everyone in the setting but rarely see it really executed on. 

 

Wont comment more on it since Im wanting to formally review it, but on balance I'd say its both not bad (and parts of the fluff are both clever and brilliant) but also not dissimilar to the exact sort of thing other factions have been tarred and feathered for by the community. 

 

Still liked it more than alot of the DA HH stuff, since for better or worse you come out of this with a very distinct idea of the DA which is anything but generic.

[SkimaskMohawk]

@stranger orders maybe it's been a long time since I reread the black books, but there was a lot of "horus was being evil and planning stuff from ullanor" happening, they literally double down on chondax being a way to sideline jaghatai. Now I understand there's some confirmation bias inherent in the authors speculations, but these books are for fans of the heresy; having moments of exposition that are flat out wrong and blatant time line jumping is frustrating.

[Scribe]

Hmm. It sounds like they went all in on the stuck up, pride bound Knight trope.

 

Which..I'm OK with at a glance. I like my super humans flawed.

[Roomsky]

Speaking of Dark Angels, I'm going to give Lord of the First another try. I just really want more fiction about them I enjoy, and with how much I enjoyed Dreadwing I can scarcely believe how much I disliked it on first go. Maybe I was in a bad mood or something, maybe my expectations were too high. Fingers crossed I see more of value this time.

 

In regards to Crusade, StrangerOrders, can you confirm or deny that 12 Cenobites took out 50 Justaerin. And, if so, what were the circumstances of that silliness.

[Indefragable]

In regards to Ferrus Manus:

 

I liked it. I can absolutely understand why somebody wouldn't, though. For me, it was only about 2/3 of the way through that things sorta clicked into place.

 

The thing about Ferrus is, it's not really about Ferrus, in the same way that Prospero Burns wasn't really *about* Prospero burning. And I totally get why somebody would be disgruntled about that, especially since Ferrus Manus hasn't had much opportunity to shine as his own character, being limited to his appearances in Fulgrim and some other shorts here and there. From a meta "publishing house expanding the setting" perspective, I think there's a strong argument that his Primarch novella was the wrong one to do this with.

 

And what exactly is "this"? Well, I'd argue that Ferrus is a Fault Investigation Trench.

 

Let me explain with a bit of a tangent: I work at a geotechnical engineering firm in the California Bay Area. We do soil studies for public transportation infrastructure. There are several types of field investigation involved, and two I think are pertinent to the discussion surrounding Ferrus. One type of investigation is the Field Boring - drilling down into the soil at a project site to explore subsurface conditions. This is a small-diameter hole, going down deep, with samples taken from regular intervals for further lab tests.

 

Another type of field investigation is the Fault Trenching (this being the Bay Area, seismic faults are a major concern for civil engineering). This is where you'll dig a long, shallow trench across where you suspect a fault line may be, and then examine the soils just below the surface to try to more accurately locate it.

 

They are two different excavations; one is narrow and deep, focused on examining one particular location - the other is shallow but broad, trying to cover a wider area to find the breaks within.

 

Ferrus is the latter - and not in the way I expected. See, I went in anticipating a deep dive into the character of Ferrus Manus - a Field Boring, as it were. Like Reynold's excellent Fulgrim, using a particular event to showcase the strengths and weaknesses of the titular Primarch. This is not that book. Ferrus is a Fault Investigation - not of him, but of the broader Horus Heresy.

 

This book is like a snapshot of the Great Crusade during its height, but it just scrapes beneath the surface and reveals some of the fault lines that will be at the heart of the Heresy and its themes. It's got nominal brothers-in-arms who are driven to outdo each other in competition - but that competition holds this unspoken edge to it, like it might go beyond comradely with just the right impetus. It's got a superhuman general who is master of all he sees - except for himself, driven and consumed by his own passions to a destructive degree. Transhuman super-soldiers who follow their gene-fathers to the brink - and maybe beyond. Regular humans, whose beliefs in the Great Crusade and the Imperium run headlong into the reality that their lives are just currency to be spent in a war that drives on beyond reason to pathology. In Akurduana, the best and brightest of Terra that ultimately gets consumed by the emotional typhoons of demigods.

 

It's like that saying, "It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here." This book isn't set in the Age of Darkness, but it scratches below the surface to reveal the fault lines that will rupture in it.

 

So in that regard, I enjoyed Ferrus and enjoyed what it did. But like I said, I can totally get why somebody wouldn't. It doesn't dive into Ferrus' motivations and characters the way some other Primarch series works do, nor does it showcase the Iron Hands in a particularly complimentary light. And Akurduana is eye-rollingly super-competent at one-upping everybody. If you read this and said "It's called Ferrus Manus! Why isn't it about Ferrus?", I get you. I think it's fair for Iron Hands fans to be disappointed that their Primarch book is the one that isn't focused on their Primarch. 

 

But if you enjoy the broader themes and ideas of the Horus Heresy as a whole, I'd say adjust your expectations and give this a go.

 

 https://images.app.goo.gl/TwFSZXQERJ6U4ab19 

 

Bravo. You made me re-evaluate that book entirely. 

*****************

Edited September 12, 2020 by Indefragable

[Indefragable]

Awaiting my copy of FW Black Book IX: Crusade, so trying not to get too much into the spoilers...

 

 

....but I'm ok with the Dark Angels being the bestest at everything. Why?

 

Because they get wounded by the Rangdan Xenocides. 

 

It's like how Sanguinius being the bestest Primarch is ok and not Mary Sue, precisely because he died and is never coming back. 

 

Part of the (grimdark) magic of the setting is the theme of "what was lost" and so super uber special Dark Angels before the long terrible conflict of the Rangda knocks them down to like half of what they were fits right into that. Just like Sanguinius, Ferrus Manus, Horus, and Curze all being among the best of the Primarchs fits it because they're all dead. Maybe I look at things too narratively, but it's kinda pointless to kill the runt in a story. 

 

Besides, it makes perfect sense that the first legion would be the ones everyone aspires to until they both take a body blow and Horus' genius vaults his own fellas to the new golden* standard.

 

*more of a Sycorax Bronze, really 

[bluntblade]

@stranger orders maybe it's been a long time since I reread the black books, but there was a lot of "horus was being evil and planning stuff from ullanor" happening, they literally double down on chondax being a way to sideline jaghatai. Now I understand there's some confirmation bias inherent in the authors speculations, but these books are for fans of the heresy; having moments of exposition that are flat out wrong and blatant time line jumping is frustrating.

It's not so much that Horus was always evil, as Bligh and French had him building up a power base of sorts as Warmaster and the narrator questions whether Horus was even doing so consciously or whether it was something he just defaulted to. And it does make sense in a way, given that he had so many difficult brothers. Whereas Chondax I agree is thoroughly frustrating.

[StrangerOrders]

Speaking of Dark Angels, I'm going to give Lord of the First another try. I just really want more fiction about them I enjoy, and with how much I enjoyed Dreadwing I can scarcely believe how much I disliked it on first go. Maybe I was in a bad mood or something, maybe my expectations were too high. Fingers crossed I see more of value this time.

 

In regards to Crusade, StrangerOrders, can you confirm or deny that 12 Cenobites took out 50 Justaerin. And, if so, what were the circumstances of that silliness.

I liked the Lion book ngl.

 

Given their nature I dont tend to read through BBs in a linear way, I tend to start with the Legion Appendix, then rules and then campaign. I plan to finish the rules when I get out of bed but those numbers sound like a painful thing to read ngl.

 

EDIT: Just realized that this thing becomes funny if you replace 'secret battle' and 'didn't receive accolades' with 'their foreign girlfriend you have never met'. Oddly onpoint as well.

Edited September 12, 2020 by StrangerOrders

[Fedor]

I don't mind the idea of the Dark Angels being the once prestigious first (with the various tech perks and so on this entails) that others looked up to initially, to then eventually lose that status in grinding conflict as the Crusade goes on. It's portraying it via having them as the best at everything that isn't very interesting, especially if it's starting to go the route of dross like 10 warriors bested 50 of xyz...

 

That said it's more of a problem i have with some of the fanbase rather than a major trend in the lore itself.

 

The Lion primarchs book was just very conservative. I get the possibly entirely wrong impression BL have a tighter leash when dealing with most of the more popular, money making legions like the DA, BA and UM. We are much less likely to get something like Gorgon of Medusa or Lord of Shadows for those legions. It's why i suspect Imperium Secundus ended up being very tame as far secessionist politicking goes.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Fedor

[DarkChaplain]

I think that Imperium Secundus stuff was more down to Dan really not laying a good foundation for it in The Unremembered Empire, by making the Lion dance on Roboute's palm, Sanguinius barely even being in the book, and most of it dealing with superhero fights and immortals.

 

....and then the next installment took years to even appear, because of bad scheduling and the dark years of BL/GW relationships, resulting in the big release gap on top. By that point, the negative sentiments about Imperium Secundus / TUE were pretty well known to the editing staff, too, I'd wager. Didn't help that the next novel in line after TUE was barely an IS book, only set on Macragge very briefly before heading out into the galaxy - Deathfire. The next one would be Pharos, another year or two later iirc. By that point, the arc was already being led to an end, with Angels of Caliban wrapping up loose ends.

 

That is to say, I'm not sure that they really entertained Imperium Secundus as an arc in any real way after TUE, and were more concerned with ending it after regaining control over their business. It had to be dealt with, but there's a very clear shift in direction in the second half of the 30s, where they were clearly trying to break away from ongoing plotlines and just head for Terra asap. There was no real room to explore the politics of IS, and people got excessively impatient for the Siege by that low point of the series.

 

I do think that other than that, there's certainly an element of them wanting to play it safe with those popular Legions and Chapters. It's probably also why they've given Mortarion, Sanguinius and such to old authors as they could easily anticipate how they'd handle them. I'd wager giving Ian St. Martin the Angron novel was much more of a risk, both for sales performance and narratively.

Edited September 12, 2020 by DarkChaplain