Sigismund's Curse Upon Abaddon

[b1soul]

It boils down to creative differences.

 

If I were in Aaron's shoes, I would not choose to have Sigismund offed by Abaddon. I would give him a more "triumphant" send-off, if you will...but I do not write for Black Library.

 

A large part of 40K is about hopelessness and grimdark, but Sigismund's death would occur not too long after the Scouring, when the post-Emperor Imperium is not hopeless by any means and is actually recovering and growing in strength.

 

Sigismund's death could have been handled in a more "pro-Imperial" (and indeed more "pro-Sigismund") mannner without harming the setting.

 

However, the writer gave us something else...and plenty of people really liked it. I thought it was well-written (the prose was about as good as it gets), but simply not my most preferred treatment from a content perspective. On the point of Drach'nyen, I understand why Bowden didn't have Abaddon duel Sigismund with the "End of Empires". Drach'nyen is arguably the most powerful personal weapon in the entire setting (pretty sure it surpasses even the Emperor's Sword or the Emperor's Spear). It would be incredibly one-sided and wouldn't be much of an accomplishment for Abaddon.

 

Faced with the choice between building up Sigismund through his death or building up Abaddon through Sigismund's death, I'd lean more toward the former. I think Black Legion seeks to do both but prioritises the latter...and that's fine.

 

As for what I would have preferred...

I wouldn't have minded a less honourable Abaddon...an Abaddon who views duels as a waste of time and who underestimates an age-weathered Sigismund. Abaddon orders several Ezekarion champions to get rid of Sigismund (who surprisingly slays them all in short order but can't avoiding taking some serious wounds). Abaddon is forced to duel Sigismund at this point, or lose face in front of his remaining men. Sigismund dies but incapacitates Abaddon. The temporary power vacuum caused by several dead Ezekarion and a severely hurt Abaddon leaves the Traitors leaderless and they begin to show signs of splintering once news spreads through the Traitor fleet. The Black Templars fare much better...Sigismund's lieutenants are still alive and the BT are more disciplined. Sigismund's efforts before his death help the BT to turn back the incursion.

[Medjugorje]

I would add that Sigismund's death was suitably grimdark, but Abaddon's death could be equally so.

 

Abaddon's game is to court the Great Powers without succumbing to any one of them. After 10,000 years, he finally breaks Cadia but is ultimately outplayed and eliminated by Chaos, dying a shattered husk of himself. Chaos then looks for its next pawn in the Endless Game.

 

I guess what I'm saying is...if Abaddon's story ever ends, I think a tragic ending would suit his arc and the setting (tragic for him, good for Chaos, and indirectly harmful to the Imperium).

 

@ Medjugorje

Is there any fluff concerning Emperor's Champs and prophetic visions...or is it more like Emp Champs tend to have visions of the Emperor speaking to them?

 

In some books you can read that a emperors champion get visions of his death.  I think that the authors have different views. In the Codex Black Templar, i ve read it like there are (any sort of) vision and then Chaplain decide to explain that often as forshadowing /sign that he is chosen by the emperor.... in the master as heck mars series it is explainded like a direct vision how the emperors champion will die... as the champion want to speak about this vision the chaplain said that its just his vision and nobody should now what he had seen.

[bluntblade]

We don’t know what the effect of the Templar resistance on the Black Crusade was. The Templars could have been establishing chapter keeps and defensive crusade fleets all around the Eye, pre-Astartes Praeses, and led the primary resistance against them. Abaddon’s goal being to claim Drach’Nyen doesn’t mean the Templars goal was to stop them. They would’ve had no idea it even existed. The Templars could hound the Black Legion all the way to Uralan and when they retreat count it as their greatest victory.

The epilogue to Talon makes it sound like they play a leading role in ending the First Black Crusade (hence me wanting to see a novel about the aftermath of Sigismund's death).

 

I have no problem with the way Sigismund falls. It just feels right to me. And really those who denigrate it because Abaddon just clung to life are resulting (common enough in analysis of basically anything 40K, mind). Sigismund very nearly destroyed the Black Legion.

[Moonreaper666]

 

 

Both were shown amazingly well, without either side coming out looking like chumps, which is such a common pitfall in 40k novels.

Really? Because I've heard very schizo things about this. Quick disclaimer, haven't read the book (hate Abby and what they've been doing with him recently) hated the very idea of Abby killing Sigismyund when I first heard it, and nothing I've heard yet has ameliorated my distaste. I don't think it adds anything to Sigismund's story (actually detracting, making him ultimately a failure, see below) and is just feeding a noteworthy loyalist to the villain sue. I make no secret that I've got a major dose of 'Darkness Induced Audience Apathy' with 40k atm, and am entirely sick of the Imperium always getting the shaft.

 

How does it go down then? Because I've heard the whole 'Sigi was amazing, he only lost because he was so old' line, yet I've also seen it said that Abby at this point wasn't even reckoned to be the best fighter in the Black Legion and he didn't use the Talon for most of the fight, and won pretty quickly once he did. It doesn't say much for Sigi's 'skill' if he could only hold his own when Abby was literally fighting with one hand tied behind his back. And the whole 'Abby was so respectful, cleaned the corpse and sent it back with a message' thing just seemed like an olive branch to the Templar/Imperial fans, more in keeping with the esteem Sigi has in the fandom, rather than from Abby as a character.

 

If they were going to kill Sigismund (which imo they didn't need to), it should've been once Abby had Drachn'yen (the power upgrade probably being why Abby won), and it marks the end of the Black Crusade, driving the Traitor back into the Eye. So that Sigi's sacrifice actually achieved something. As it is he failed, losing the most important fight of his life and the Templars failed to contain the Black Crusade, with Abby going on to claim the sword of (now) deus ex emperor killing. For better or worse, the idea of 'you're only as good as your last fight' applies, especially when the last one is 'big'. Custer earned a solid reputation during the American Civil War and did reasonably well in the earlier parts of the Indian Wars, yet he's most famous now because he lost at Little Big Horn. William Elphinstone was a successful officer for the majority of his career, but he's remember for the disastrous retreat from Kabul.

 

When this duel was first brought up, the comparison to Beowulf was made in defence of 'it's OK for Sigismund to die'. Thing is, Beowulf did at least kill the Dragon. He achieved something with the manner of his death. There's a big old difference between dying in victory or ultimately victorious cause (pyrrhic, bittersweet) and just flat out losing (ignominy, failure). There's a reason Leonidas is the Spartan King everyone knows, and not Agis III, despite them both dying in battles they lost. Fundamentally, it appears to me that instead of a Thermopylae, Sigi and the Templars were given a Persian Gate, arguably an impressive stand, but ultimately merely a speedbump in a losing proposition.

 

Sorry if that got a bit tangential/ranty. But I've found ADB's works increasingly frustrating in recent years. Too much grimdark, all 'black', all the time, and ideas which imo are bad for (at least my enjoyment of) the setting, and would get a lot more pushback if written by someone else. But because of his skill as a wordsmith, it all passes with approval. Granted, some of that be my distaste at getting 'suckered' by him in Soul Hunter. When I first read that book, the exchange between Talos and Abby was possibly my favourite part of a BL book. 'This guy gets it' I thought, the idea that neither side is what it was once was, that both the Imperium and Traitor Legions have fallen from the heights of the Heresy era, the Long War being akin to two punch drunk prizefighters in the 50th round, neither one able to give up or land the knock out blow (and one of them fighting a bunch of smaller guys at the same time, but that stretches the analogy a bit ). That was 'my 40k'. Then I read on here that that scene was supposed to show Talos was an out of touch loser compared to the glory and vision of Abby, and the Traitors are completely on the ascendant.

 

Bad Leif! You were meant to stop being tangential and ranty (left it in to hopefully convey some of why I take the stance I do here).

Sigismund duel with Abby has been stated in earlier works before Black Legion

 

Considering that Abby is alive in M41 while Sigismund is not, the outcome of the battle is certain

 

 

What interested me was how Abby respected Sigismund

 

 

 

Another thing I like is that the novel gives evidence that Space Marines do age and become weaker

 

 

Chaos Space Marines are a huge exception to this rule

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Leif I couldn’t agree more !

[Vesper]

It's great stuff. Suitably frustrating we sorta missed the fight because of that pesky ol' Thagus, writing it in detail would probably have robbed most of the magic of the fight, that couldn't have lived up to what we are imagining.

 

Most people are missing a few key aspects of it, though, I feel. Abaddon during this battle is mirrored by Thagus Daravek. They both are boarding the enemy's flagship, they both are the supreme commanders of their faction and they both end up facing a personal rival.

 

Abaddon defeating Sigismund made perfect sense in-setting. Sigismund standing alone, being proven right after centuries. The Black Templars stationed there couldn't have hoped defeating the Black Legion (or even Thagus' host, if it came to it) because of numbers alone, yet Sigismund, knowing very well it was his duty as a former First Captain, as the Emperor's Champion, willingly sacrificed himself trying.

 

And he almost succeded. As Thagus' death brings an end to the Legion's host, the death of Abaddon (which came pretty close) could very well have been the end of the Black Legion.

 

That's just great. All of it. And this is still the best Sigismund we've ever seen. The guy is an absolute badass with an adamant sense of duty. That's a legacy befitting the Black Templars.

 

Can't wait for Chaos Ascendant.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

Sigismund duel with Abby has been stated in earlier works before Black Legion

 

 

Could you cite one please? Because I first came across the idea a while back when someone had a 'who would win in a fight' type thread and ADB came in with something along the lines of 'I actually wrote this last month, so I know '. That was the first indication I ever saw that Abby kills Sigismund.

[Sete]

There is none to cite.

Ah, how I raged when I learned of this. Still feel the heat up my chest.

[bluntblade]

 

 

 

Sigismund duel with Abby has been stated in earlier works before Black Legion

 

 

Could you cite one please? Because I first came across the idea a while back when someone had a 'who would win in a fight' type thread and ADB came in with something along the lines of 'I actually wrote this last month, so I know '. That was the first indication I ever saw that Abby kills Sigismund.

Well, the epilogue to Talon of Horus.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

Both were shown amazingly well, without either side coming out looking like chumps, which is such a common pitfall in 40k novels.

Really? Because I've heard very schizo things about this. Quick disclaimer, haven't read the book (hate Abby and what they've been doing with him recently) hated the very idea of Abby killing Sigismyund when I first heard it, and nothing I've heard yet has ameliorated my distaste. I don't think it adds anything to Sigismund's story (actually detracting, making him ultimately a failure, see below) and is just feeding a noteworthy loyalist to the villain sue. I make no secret that I've got a major dose of 'Darkness Induced Audience Apathy' with 40k atm, and am entirely sick of the Imperium always getting the shaft.

 

How does it go down then? Because I've heard the whole 'Sigi was amazing, he only lost because he was so old' line, yet I've also seen it said that Abby at this point wasn't even reckoned to be the best fighter in the Black Legion and he didn't use the Talon for most of the fight, and won pretty quickly once he did. It doesn't say much for Sigi's 'skill' if he could only hold his own when Abby was literally fighting with one hand tied behind his back. And the whole 'Abby was so respectful, cleaned the corpse and sent it back with a message' thing just seemed like an olive branch to the Templar/Imperial fans, more in keeping with the esteem Sigi has in the fandom, rather than from Abby as a character.

 

If they were going to kill Sigismund (which imo they didn't need to), it should've been once Abby had Drachn'yen (the power upgrade probably being why Abby won), and it marks the end of the Black Crusade, driving the Traitor back into the Eye. So that Sigi's sacrifice actually achieved something. As it is he failed, losing the most important fight of his life and the Templars failed to contain the Black Crusade, with Abby going on to claim the sword of (now) deus ex emperor killing. For better or worse, the idea of 'you're only as good as your last fight' applies, especially when the last one is 'big'. Custer earned a solid reputation during the American Civil War and did reasonably well in the earlier parts of the Indian Wars, yet he's most famous now because he lost at Little Big Horn. William Elphinstone was a successful officer for the majority of his career, but he's remember for the disastrous retreat from Kabul.

 

When this duel was first brought up, the comparison to Beowulf was made in defence of 'it's OK for Sigismund to die'. Thing is, Beowulf did at least kill the Dragon. He achieved something with the manner of his death. There's a big old difference between dying in victory or ultimately victorious cause (pyrrhic, bittersweet) and just flat out losing (ignominy, failure). There's a reason Leonidas is the Spartan King everyone knows, and not Agis III, despite them both dying in battles they lost. Fundamentally, it appears to me that instead of a Thermopylae, Sigi and the Templars were given a Persian Gate, arguably an impressive stand, but ultimately merely a speedbump in a losing proposition.

 

Sorry if that got a bit tangential/ranty. But I've found ADB's works increasingly frustrating in recent years. Too much grimdark, all 'black', all the time, and ideas which imo are bad for (at least my enjoyment of) the setting, and would get a lot more pushback if written by someone else. But because of his skill as a wordsmith, it all passes with approval. Granted, some of that be my distaste at getting 'suckered' by him in Soul Hunter. When I first read that book, the exchange between Talos and Abby was possibly my favourite part of a BL book. 'This guy gets it' I thought, the idea that neither side is what it was once was, that both the Imperium and Traitor Legions have fallen from the heights of the Heresy era, the Long War being akin to two punch drunk prizefighters in the 50th round, neither one able to give up or land the knock out blow (and one of them fighting a bunch of smaller guys at the same time, but that stretches the analogy a bit ). That was 'my 40k'. Then I read on here that that scene was supposed to show Talos was an out of touch loser compared to the glory and vision of Abby, and the Traitors are completely on the ascendant.

 

Bad Leif! You were meant to stop being tangential and ranty (left it in to hopefully convey some of why I take the stance I do here).

Sigismund duel with Abby has been stated in earlier works before Black Legion

 

Considering that Abby is alive in M41 while Sigismund is not, the outcome of the battle is certain

 

 

What interested me was how Abby respected Sigismund

 

 

 

Another thing I like is that the novel gives evidence that Space Marines do age and become weaker

 

 

Chaos Space Marines are a huge exception to this rule

It was an entirely original creation never before mentioned.

[Scribe]

 

Both were shown amazingly well, without either side coming out looking like chumps, which is such a common pitfall in 40k novels.

Really? Because I've heard very schizo things about this. Quick disclaimer, haven't read the book (hate Abby and what they've been doing with him recently) hated the very idea of Abby killing Sigismyund when I first heard it, and nothing I've heard yet has ameliorated my distaste. I don't think it adds anything to Sigismund's story (actually detracting, making him ultimately a failure, see below) and is just feeding a noteworthy loyalist to the villain sue. I make no secret that I've got a major dose of 'Darkness Induced Audience Apathy' with 40k atm, and am entirely sick of the Imperium always getting the shaft.

 

How does it go down then? Because I've heard the whole 'Sigi was amazing, he only lost because he was so old' line, yet I've also seen it said that Abby at this point wasn't even reckoned to be the best fighter in the Black Legion and he didn't use the Talon for most of the fight, and won pretty quickly once he did. It doesn't say much for Sigi's 'skill' if he could only hold his own when Abby was literally fighting with one hand tied behind his back. And the whole 'Abby was so respectful, cleaned the corpse and sent it back with a message' thing just seemed like an olive branch to the Templar/Imperial fans, more in keeping with the esteem Sigi has in the fandom, rather than from Abby as a character.

 

If they were going to kill Sigismund (which imo they didn't need to), it should've been once Abby had Drachn'yen (the power upgrade probably being why Abby won), and it marks the end of the Black Crusade, driving the Traitor back into the Eye. So that Sigi's sacrifice actually achieved something. As it is he failed, losing the most important fight of his life and the Templars failed to contain the Black Crusade, with Abby going on to claim the sword of (now) deus ex emperor killing. For better or worse, the idea of 'you're only as good as your last fight' applies, especially when the last one is 'big'. Custer earned a solid reputation during the American Civil War and did reasonably well in the earlier parts of the Indian Wars, yet he's most famous now because he lost at Little Big Horn. William Elphinstone was a successful officer for the majority of his career, but he's remember for the disastrous retreat from Kabul.

 

When this duel was first brought up, the comparison to Beowulf was made in defence of 'it's OK for Sigismund to die'. Thing is, Beowulf did at least kill the Dragon. He achieved something with the manner of his death. There's a big old difference between dying in victory or ultimately victorious cause (pyrrhic, bittersweet) and just flat out losing (ignominy, failure). There's a reason Leonidas is the Spartan King everyone knows, and not Agis III, despite them both dying in battles they lost. Fundamentally, it appears to me that instead of a Thermopylae, Sigi and the Templars were given a Persian Gate, arguably an impressive stand, but ultimately merely a speedbump in a losing proposition.

 

Sorry if that got a bit tangential/ranty. But I've found ADB's works increasingly frustrating in recent years. Too much grimdark, all 'black', all the time, and ideas which imo are bad for (at least my enjoyment of) the setting, and would get a lot more pushback if written by someone else. But because of his skill as a wordsmith, it all passes with approval. Granted, some of that be my distaste at getting 'suckered' by him in Soul Hunter. When I first read that book, the exchange between Talos and Abby was possibly my favourite part of a BL book. 'This guy gets it' I thought, the idea that neither side is what it was once was, that both the Imperium and Traitor Legions have fallen from the heights of the Heresy era, the Long War being akin to two punch drunk prizefighters in the 50th round, neither one able to give up or land the knock out blow (and one of them fighting a bunch of smaller guys at the same time, but that stretches the analogy a bit ). That was 'my 40k'. Then I read on here that that scene was supposed to show Talos was an out of touch loser compared to the glory and vision of Abby, and the Traitors are completely on the ascendant.

 

Bad Leif! You were meant to stop being tangential and ranty (left it in to hopefully convey some of why I take the stance I do here).

 

 

1. You should probably read the book.

 

2. The fight was good, and was a fair representation. Anyone who saw just how badly Abaddon was damaged, was killed after if I remember right (I mean the Chaos Marines, killed their own!), to grow the legend of the Despoiler.

 

3. Darkness induced Apathy, is just a misunderstanding of the setting. I would CERTAINLY not put this book up as an example of a pit of grimdarkness.

 

4. Of course they had to kill Sigismund, and what better way to go out than dealing near mortal wounds to the Big Bad, the ultimate avatar of the Great Enemy? What do you want here, what would you realistically and possibly expect?

 

5. If you are frustrated with ADB's work, you are simply frustrated with the reality of 40K/30K and its core position.

 

As to the curse?

 

The last words of a defeated foe, one who has also watched the Imperium take its first steps towards the hellscape that is 40K, the exact opposite of what his Great Crusade was meant to achieve.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I read and didn't like it.

 

I felt the second novel where nowhere near close to the first one in terms of quality and the fight was a thing to make the book have something. There are many heroes we do not know how or when they die.

[Scribe]

I read and didn't like it.

 

I felt the second novel where nowhere near close to the first one in terms of quality and the fight was a thing to make the book have something. There are many heroes we do not know how or when they die.

 

Thats not surprising, given the perspective you put forward in many of your other posts. I personally liked the first book more myself, the fight was not the main draw of the book to me however, especially following a reading of it.

 

The main draw to me, was the study of a person who hides a truth from their self, coming to grips with a reality that they had not been willing to accept, and what it may take to get past that mental block.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I didn’t really know where the story was going tbh.

[Scribe]

I believe that was intentional, as our main protagonist was having the same issues.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I was thinking writer's block tbh .

[Scribe]

lol no. Re-read it, with knowledge of whats going on in the plot, and it moves right along as it was I'm sure intended to.

[MrDarth151]

 

Could this plausibly come to pass for Abbadon? Maybe it was just an impotent curse or maybe, at death's door, Sig saw a glimpse of the future.

 

It was an impotent curse. GW is more liable to let Abby destroy the galaxy than actually kill him.

 

And even if it did come to pass, so what? Victory against individual champions is meaningless. Is a pantomime, a war that was decided and we are only seeing actors who do not matter, take actions that do not matter, because no matter what, no matter what Imperium does, Chaos will always win. 

 

At least, that is what it turns out to be if I take ABD's interpretation of the universe as true.

 

And really, why would I? In the end, fiction is a matter of investment. Nihilism kills investment. It's a great theme for a book. For a short series, even.

 

For an universe spanning hundreds of books? It's so bad it is hilarious.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

 

1. You should probably read the book.

 

Eh, it's pretty unlikely. Like I said, these books are about what's probably my least favourite character in the entire setting. I simply don't like Abby and his Dark Messiah, 'he's so awesome he's playing the Gods themselves' shtick.

 

 

2. The fight was good, and was a fair representation. Anyone who saw just how badly Abaddon was damaged, was killed after if I remember right (I mean the Chaos Marines, killed their own!), to grow the legend of the Despoiler.

Doesn't really answer my question though. Does he fight most of the battle one handed? Is he said to be not even the best fighter in the Legion? If all witnesses were killed, how does Khayon even have a story to tell? I'm genuinely confused as to how this went down in the book.

 

 

4. Of course they had to kill Sigismund, and what better way to go out than dealing near mortal wounds to the Big Bad, the ultimate avatar of the Great Enemy? What do you want here, what would you realistically and possibly expect?

I thought I was pretty clear. I don't think 'how Sigismund dies' is a story that needed telling. Or if it did, have him die like Beowulf, succeeding in something.

 

If it had to happen with Abby? blsoul has some ideas in #26 which sound better than what we got. It seems that Sigi's death was more about Abby than Sigi (and if the response is 'it's a book about Abby' then I'd respond 'kill Sigi in some other book'). Having Sigismund's sacrifice at least be what ends the Crusade would be something. Abby winning because of the major power up of the Deamon Sword would also have been an improvement imo. Sigismund should probably have had more focus in the book he died in too. More of a twin piece, following both characters and their factions in the build up and aftermath to the fight. As is, it seems Sigi was more of an 'end of book boss' for Abby. Alternatively, I'd have been tempted  for something a bit more underhand to happen (Abby's the villain after all). Instead of just 'Sigi was old' and Abby used both hands (does he really fight one handed for most of the fight? That's an odd choice if true) something like (Game of Thrones spoiler)

 

How Arthur Dayne dies to Howland Reed and Ned Stark

 

so Abby ganks him in the back while Sigi's cutting through the Justarein and a bunch of BL Champions.

 

None of those seem terribly unreasonable to me and would be preferable (if not 'ideal') than what we got imo.

 

 

3. Darkness induced Apathy, is just a misunderstanding of the setting. I would CERTAINLY not put this book up as an example of a pit of grimdarkness.

 

5. If you are frustrated with ADB's work, you are simply frustrated with the reality of 40K/30K and its core position.

And I think you're entirely wrong on both these points (though I think we've been through this before). There was (and should be) more to 40k that 'everything sucks and the Imperium loses'. There has been a change over the years, away from 'the scale is vast, strife is eternal, however bright your life, whatever your heroics, you can be replaced, and you won't be missed' to the Time of Ending/GS type stuff 'Imperium is doomed NOW, giant spacehole!, Chaos Ascendant! All the Nids! All the Orks! Even Gulliman and his new crusade couldn't actually fix anything!'. You need variation, at least some hope and success, otherwise it just becomes monotonous and depressing. Everything new just seems to be some variant of 'how do we shaft the Imperium this time?', and I'm just tired of it. And if it had always been like this, I don't think I would have lasted 20+ years in the hobby.

 

hope that was somewhat coherent, it took several attempts because my browser kept eating my text .

[MrDarth151]

 

What is the retcon here? Especially for Drach'nyen? Addition to, or change? I dont remember anything about that sword, other than it had to be found by Abby, and then used to break down a fortress gate.

 

Monarchia: Originally, the chastisement of Lorgar took place in a explicitly private setting, and presented Lorgar is significantly less favourable light.

 

Drach'nyen: Explicitly said by Black Legion codex supplement to predate Mankind, so it would be kinda hard for it to be the Daemon formed from the first murder.

[Scribe]

As to the Sword/Daemon. Time isnt a thing to Daemons. Messy, but that IS the lore when it comes to the Warp. I certainly would not put that up their with Twin Primarchs an a Legion explicitly created as Executioners.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The Deceiver is the one who gave him the sword .

[Scribe]

The Deceiver is the one who gave him the sword .

 

Abby, or the Emperor to trap the Daemon? :D

 

Either way, Darth is correct we are way off topic at this point.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The Deceiver gave Abby the daemon sword.

[b1soul]

Was Drach'nyen formed by the first hominid murder on Earth? Or the first murder in the universe (which should have occurred among an alien species...like the proto-Old Ones)