Character Deaths

[Master Commander Ajax]

 

 

If models are irrelevant and you can use them after death, why even do it? It's hollow and pointless.

You know, Ishagu, I'm usually not against what you say but ... sometimes you should just stop talking and think for a moment what you were going to say.

Who says you have to play 40k at the 'presen't of the most up to date timeline? Why release campaign books with scenarios and stuff if that were the case? 40k has ever, is and will forever be a game where the players, if they care about the narrative, can pick any time in the history of the 40k to play their game in. And in that time characters that are now dead might still be alive.

No I completely understand that, but 40k is now a moving narrative as opposed to a setting.

Rules for old models should exist, but perhaps in the "Legends" supplement that GW alluded to.

People were upset that some things weren't done in the recent campaign, namely the death of famous characters. To make that TRULY impactful perhaps the tabletop should follow.

It’s both a moving narrative and a setting and always has been. The speed at which it progresses however has changed of late.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Master Commander Ajax

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Huron is hardly a threatening character - in the Death Guard codex, Typhus duels and humbles him, leaving him alive only to show him Nurgle's might and generosity.

And Abby was punked by Eldrad at one point and had to flee with his tail between his legs, having narrowly avoided having his face impaled on Eldrad's staff. So Abby is clearly not a threatening character either.

 

How is there a Satan when there is a God? You're projecting your bias. The IP Managers say you are wrong. So you are wrong.

 

Because 40k doesn't perfectly mirror Christian theology? Satan is generally portrayed as the great adversary to God. So in a 40k context where God=Empy, that would indeed make 'Satan' the 4 Ruinous Powers, not some dude with a sword.

 

While I'm not exactly 100% on my 'Christian Apocalypse' mythology, he seems to be more the AntiChrist Archetype. The herald of evil who brings about the apocalypse and leads evil's fight on the material plane.

 

If there is a non-God 'Satan' of 40k, seems to me it was Horus (though imo he'd be another 'antichrist'). The most favoured servant of the 'Big Good', rebels against his creator due to pride and being unwilling to serve, turns a bunch of his peers to his side as part of the rebellion etc. And what happened to him? Stone Dead. So yeah, if 40k could successfully pull of killing 'Satan' once, they could definitely do it again.

 

Actually charting the rise of a true rival and eventual successor to Abby could be a really cool story. It could also tie in well with some of the stuff ADB posted about Abby back in the day:

 

"His enemies circle, material and immaterial, sensing potential weakness. His allies start to disappear. For a while the Chaos Powers are disinterested, choosing to split, becoming self-serving once more, raising up their champions, sometimes alone, sometimes together, hoping that these mortals will rival Abaddon. Yet they never do.

And he wonders if it is vanity. He wonders if he is deserving. He wonders if what he wants is possible."

 

All this requires to change is instead of 'yet they never do', one does. And imo that'd be plenty Grimdark. A true reflection of the 'you don't matter, everyone can be replaced, you won't be missed' underpinnings, rather than just 'it sucks to be Imperial'. Even the big scary Dark Messiah of the setting can be overshadowed and replaced, and all the while, the Thirsting Gods keep laughing.

Regardless of fan interpretation and internet memes, Abaddon has no replacement and is the big bad of 40k.

[bluntblade]

I'm not in favour of death by Rubicon, but I'm all game for death by Abaddon.

 

Or Khârn, or Necron Lord, or Black Legion lieutenant, or Mortarion...

 

We should really have a new generation of leaders to usher in the new era and shoulder its challenges.

Edited September 16, 2019 by bluntblade

[Wulf Vengis]

I think Ishagu, the reason why death should matter in the fluff and not in the rules/crunch is as someone else said. Namely it "invalidates" aspects of what a player may have spent years collecting, building and painting. I'm sure gw is just as afraid of /forcing/ a player to have to change/replace huge swathes of their collection as they are wanting that same player to buy new kits.

[Ishagu]

I think Ishagu, the reason why death should matter in the fluff and not in the rules/crunch is as someone else said. Namely it "invalidates" aspects of what a player may have spent years collecting, building and painting. I'm sure gw is just as afraid of /forcing/ a player to have to change/replace huge swathes of their collection as they are wanting that same player to buy new kits.

It has happened before. Anyone remember Lord Solar Macharius?

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

 

And Abby was punked by Eldrad at one point and had to flee with his tail between his legs, having narrowly avoided having his face impaled on Eldrad's staff. So Abby is clearly not a threatening character either.

 

 

The difference is that one was mentioned in a White Dwarf 17 years ago and was written as an epilogue for a battle report featured in the issue, in which Eldrad and his Seer Council took out Abaddon and his terminator retinue, and which has never been mentioned in another source to my knowledge, whereas the other is a piece of lore mentioned in a codex from this edition, and is thus far more relevant and provides greater insight into who the designers want to see as a credible threat.

 

(White Dwarf 266 for reference)

 

Yes, and that was worked into the greater fluff around version 1 of the 13th Black Crusade (just like Captain Tycho had his origins in a WD battle report). The point is losing one fight in one piece of fluff doesn't preclude a character from being 'threatening', especially in the current climate of advancing fluff. Dismissing one of the most prominent Chaos Warlords of 40k because he lost to one of the the setting's most prominent characters, in said characters own codex no less, is extremely harsh imo. Angron isn't 'not threatening' just because he lost to the Grey Knights at Armageddon.

 

 

 

 

Huron is hardly a threatening character - in the Death Guard codex, Typhus duels and humbles him, leaving him alive only to show him Nurgle's might and generosity.

And Abby was punked by Eldrad at one point and had to flee with his tail between his legs, having narrowly avoided having his face impaled on Eldrad's staff. So Abby is clearly not a threatening character either.

How is there a Satan when there is a God? You're projecting your bias. The IP Managers say you are wrong. So you are wrong.

Because 40k doesn't perfectly mirror Christian theology? Satan is generally portrayed as the great adversary to God. So in a 40k context where God=Empy, that would indeed make 'Satan' the 4 Ruinous Powers, not some dude with a sword.

 

While I'm not exactly 100% on my 'Christian Apocalypse' mythology, he seems to be more the AntiChrist Archetype. The herald of evil who brings about the apocalypse and leads evil's fight on the material plane.

 

If there is a non-God 'Satan' of 40k, seems to me it was Horus (though imo he'd be another 'antichrist'). The most favoured servant of the 'Big Good', rebels against his creator due to pride and being unwilling to serve, turns a bunch of his peers to his side as part of the rebellion etc. And what happened to him? Stone Dead. So yeah, if 40k could successfully pull of killing 'Satan' once, they could definitely do it again.

 

Actually charting the rise of a true rival and eventual successor to Abby could be a really cool story. It could also tie in well with some of the stuff ADB posted about Abby back in the day:

 

"His enemies circle, material and immaterial, sensing potential weakness. His allies start to disappear. For a while the Chaos Powers are disinterested, choosing to split, becoming self-serving once more, raising up their champions, sometimes alone, sometimes together, hoping that these mortals will rival Abaddon. Yet they never do.

And he wonders if it is vanity. He wonders if he is deserving. He wonders if what he wants is possible."

 

All this requires to change is instead of 'yet they never do', one does. And imo that'd be plenty Grimdark. A true reflection of the 'you don't matter, everyone can be replaced, you won't be missed' underpinnings, rather than just 'it sucks to be Imperial'. Even the big scary Dark Messiah of the setting can be overshadowed and replaced, and all the while, the Thirsting Gods keep laughing.

Regardless of fan interpretation and internet memes, Abaddon has no replacement and is the big bad of 40k.

 

No replacement at the moment. But we're talking about a progressing narrative, and saying 'nah uh, memes' is not actually countering the idea that Abby being superseded and killed is entirely in keeping with the Grimdark tone/aesthetic of 40k (especially when as far as I know I didn't actually invoke any Abby memes in my previous post).

Edited September 16, 2019 by Leif Bearclaw

[Ishagu]

A grim-dark end to Abaddon would be having him in a corner, about to lose his life, then have him accept chaos into his soul so he doesn't die only to become another puppet who meets his end shortly after.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

 

 

And Abby was punked by Eldrad at one point and had to flee with his tail between his legs, having narrowly avoided having his face impaled on Eldrad's staff. So Abby is clearly not a threatening character either.

 

The difference is that one was mentioned in a White Dwarf 17 years ago and was written as an epilogue for a battle report featured in the issue, in which Eldrad and his Seer Council took out Abaddon and his terminator retinue, and which has never been mentioned in another source to my knowledge, whereas the other is a piece of lore mentioned in a codex from this edition, and is thus far more relevant and provides greater insight into who the designers want to see as a credible threat.

 

(White Dwarf 266 for reference)

Yes, and that was worked into the greater fluff around version 1 of the 13th Black Crusade (just like Captain Tycho had his origins in a WD battle report). The point is losing one fight in one piece of fluff doesn't preclude a character from being 'threatening', especially in the current climate of advancing fluff. Dismissing one of the most prominent Chaos Warlords of 40k because he lost to one of the the setting's most prominent characters, in said characters own codex no less, is extremely harsh imo. Angron isn't 'not threatening' just because he lost to the Grey Knights at Armageddon.

 

 

 

Huron is hardly a threatening character - in the Death Guard codex, Typhus duels and humbles him, leaving him alive only to show him Nurgle's might and generosity.

And Abby was punked by Eldrad at one point and had to flee with his tail between his legs, having narrowly avoided having his face impaled on Eldrad's staff. So Abby is clearly not a threatening character either.

How is there a Satan when there is a God? You're projecting your bias. The IP Managers say you are wrong. So you are wrong.

Because 40k doesn't perfectly mirror Christian theology? Satan is generally portrayed as the great adversary to God. So in a 40k context where God=Empy, that would indeed make 'Satan' the 4 Ruinous Powers, not some dude with a sword.

 

While I'm not exactly 100% on my 'Christian Apocalypse' mythology, he seems to be more the AntiChrist Archetype. The herald of evil who brings about the apocalypse and leads evil's fight on the material plane.

 

If there is a non-God 'Satan' of 40k, seems to me it was Horus (though imo he'd be another 'antichrist'). The most favoured servant of the 'Big Good', rebels against his creator due to pride and being unwilling to serve, turns a bunch of his peers to his side as part of the rebellion etc. And what happened to him? Stone Dead. So yeah, if 40k could successfully pull of killing 'Satan' once, they could definitely do it again.

 

Actually charting the rise of a true rival and eventual successor to Abby could be a really cool story. It could also tie in well with some of the stuff ADB posted about Abby back in the day:

 

"His enemies circle, material and immaterial, sensing potential weakness. His allies start to disappear. For a while the Chaos Powers are disinterested, choosing to split, becoming self-serving once more, raising up their champions, sometimes alone, sometimes together, hoping that these mortals will rival Abaddon. Yet they never do.

And he wonders if it is vanity. He wonders if he is deserving. He wonders if what he wants is possible."

 

All this requires to change is instead of 'yet they never do', one does. And imo that'd be plenty Grimdark. A true reflection of the 'you don't matter, everyone can be replaced, you won't be missed' underpinnings, rather than just 'it sucks to be Imperial'. Even the big scary Dark Messiah of the setting can be overshadowed and replaced, and all the while, the Thirsting Gods keep laughing.

Regardless of fan interpretation and internet memes, Abaddon has no replacement and is the big bad of 40k.

No replacement at the moment. But we're talking about a progressing narrative, and saying 'nah uh, memes' is not actually countering the idea that Abby being superseded and killed is entirely in keeping with the Grimdark tone/aesthetic of 40k (especially when as far as I know I didn't actually invoke any Abby memes in my previous post).

I’m responding to you but making a larger point. The IP managers want Abaddon as the big bad, and they’ve brought in Aaron to codify it and brief the team on Abaddon. We can say ‘it would be grim if Abaddon finally gave in and is shown what a puppet he’s been the whole time’ but that’s a bit like saying ‘oh it would’ve been metal if Luke HAD killed Vader and the emperor’. It might be cool, but it’s not where the IP is going. Abaddon functions differently that Calgar. All the chaos mortal champions do. Calgar could die tmrw and you can still game with him but it doesn’t change the setting. Killing Abaddon would. Edited September 16, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Wulf Vengis]

Excerpts from the Imperial Archive Record for Lord Commander Solar Macharius...

 

/quote/Codex: Imperial Guard 2nd edition pg83, paragraph 1

 

...yet upon his death the newly won territories erupted into civil war.../quote/

 

Already dead and no model in the Imperial Guard order section in the back.

 

3rd edition Codex included rules for Macharius but no model in any photos.

Now there was a model released some time during 3rd edition (i believe).

 

There no further rules for Macharius after 3rd edition.

 

So yes, Ishagu, you are correct (there are a small number of other identical occurrences as well). But i remember the removal of this character (and any other characters/units/armies) was taken with a great deal of vocal discontent by the community at the time.

 

---

 

Abaddon is already living his grimdark end. He is destined to repeatedly amass power and forces great enough to make the Imperium quake and reel, yet cursed to eventually taste defeat, or at best a pyrhic victory equal to defeat. This is his Hell, this is how the gods of chaos imprison him within the game. An eternity of repetition, forever playing politics to unite his forces only to suffer a worthless ending and being forced to start again.

 

The gods are laughing.

 

EDIT: Numerous corrections based on Swype and exhaustion.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Wulf Vengis

[b1soul]

@ Marshal Rohr

 

Quote the IP managers please. Or better yet, try to think independently.

 

There is no "God" in the 40K setting, there is only "Satan"...or you could say that the brutal truth of the 40K setting is that the closest thing to God is Chaos. The latter formulation is closer to the truth.

 

Theologically, God is an omnipotent, generally benevolent being…and Satan is his fallen Angel and the master of all evil. On the side of evil, there is no power above Satan.

 

In the 40K setting, the Primordial Annhilator/Chaos is far more powerful than Abaddon. Abaddon taps into some of its power while thinking he can do so without being controlled. He's an elevated mortal. He thinks he can do what his gene-father couldn't.

 

The Satan analogy is superficial. Yeah, Abaddon is a fallen "angel of death", but the analogy falls apart once you apply some basic logic taking into account the powers in the setting.

 

40K is Grimdark because there is no heaven, there is only hell. And hell isn't ruled by Abaddon.

[Lexington]

The Satan analogy is superficial. Yeah, Abaddon is a fallen "angel of death", but the analogy falls apart once you apply some basic logic taking into account the powers in the setting.

All analogies fall apart so long as you keep pulling on the thread of literalism. If something’s a 1:1 equivalent, it’s the same thing, not an analogy.

 

In the 40K-as-pop-Christian-theology department, Abaddon had a bit of Satan in him, and a bit of the Antichrist. 40K mixes the material and the supernatural metaphorically, so you have real-world military supermen standing in for “angels,” created by a divine being who isn’t quite divine, etc. Big A was the mortal representation of spiritual annihilation and the powers behind it. Allegorically, there’s no doubt what he was supposed to be.

 

Like I said earlier, tho, the narrative shift of post-GS/8th Ed background 40K pulled the rug out from underneath a lot of those concepts, and Abaddon doesn’t have nearly the singular narrative role he used to, or seemingly much to do in the atomized, low-stakes Age of Guilliman. He won’t be dying anytime soon, since he just got a fancy new model, but it wouldn’t be a big deal if he did.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Lexington

[Panzer]

Abaddon is already living his grimdark end. He is destined to repeatedly amass power and forces great enough to make the Imperium quake and reel, yet cursed to eventually taste defeat, or at best a pyrhic victory equal to defeat. This is his Hell, this is how the gods of chaos imprison him within the game. An eternity of repetition, forever playing politics to unite his forces only to suffer a worthless ending and being forced to start again.

 

The gods are laughing.

 

EDIT: Numerous corrections based on Swype and exhaustion.

 

^this

The chaos gods give him enough power to play the game but never enough to finish it as long as he denies them.

[Slasher956]

heres another character to the list of those GW are bumping off....

 

Canoness Veridyan - model - check, rules, nope... sales push - nope

[b1soul]

@ Lexington

 

Some analogies are more accurate than others. The constant big bad of the 40K setting is Chaos, not Abaddon. Abaddon is subordinate to Chaos, not the other way around...regardless of what he tells himself.

 

Removing Chaos would shatter the foundations of the 40K setting. Removing Abaddon...not so much.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

I’m responding to you but making a larger point. The IP managers want Abaddon as the big bad, and they’ve brought in Aaron to codify it and brief the team on Abaddon. We can say ‘it would be grim if Abaddon finally gave in and is shown what a puppet he’s been the whole time’ but that’s a bit like saying ‘oh it would’ve been metal if Luke HAD killed Vader and the emperor’. It might be cool, but it’s not where the IP is going. Abaddon functions differently that Calgar. All the chaos mortal champions do. Calgar could die tmrw and you can still game with him but it doesn’t change the setting. Killing Abaddon would.

 

 

But isn't that the point of this thread? It's asking 'should characters die, and if so, who?'. We know that most/all of these suggestion won't come to pass, we're just anonymous fans on a forum. So trying to shut down just one suggestion/point with 'nope, IP managers won't let it happen' is a poor argument, because pretty much nothing mentioned in this thread is likely to actually come to pass.

 

You've directly claimed that killing Abby would fundamentally change the setting. I disagree, for the reasons I've already laid out. However, even if we accept that, so what? Changing the setting (in at least some way) is the point of progressing the narrative. The setting changed when Gulliman woke up, Biel Tan was fractured, the Great Rift opened and Cadia blew up etc. 'You can't kill Abby because it's not Grimdark to kill Satan' is also a poor argument, because if Abby is analogous to Satan, I don't see how Horus wouldn't fit exactly the same criteria, so 40k has already killed one 'Satan', yet it remained Grimdark enough to coin the term. Would 40k with Abby dead be different? Yes. More different than a galaxy without the Cadian Gate, Gulliman having a crack at Great Crusade 2.0 and Marines +1 all over the place etc.? I wouldn't say so.

[Marshal Rohr]

@b1soul

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aarondembskibowden.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/lets-talk-about-abaddon/amp/

 

ADB posted this directly from the IP archives about Abaddon like a bajillion years ago.

 

@Lief

 

The Chaos Gods refer to Horus as the Sacrificed King. In the blog post above it references the ‘Horus was weak, Horus was a fool’ quote. The Horus Heresy is a myth like the Iliad or the Odyssey, while 40k is the Apocalypse. These are two very separate, very distinct types of narratives. You don’t change the anti-Christ mid-Book of Revelations. It doesn’t detract from Horus at all, and even comparing them is the super shallow, non-analytical ‘40K is the Heresy part 2 Chaos Boogaloo’ line of thinking from the fans and studio we’ve been seeing for years.

[Trench]

Not really a fan of characters dying off, especially major ones like Abaddon, Calgar or on the Xenos side Eldrad, Ghazghkull, as despite the excellent books put out by the BL, 40k is not purely a novel series that should echo something like A Song of Ice and Fire.

 

Those characters are too iconic to lose from 40k, even if they are poster boys and so attract a lot of jealous hatred for it. 

[Lexington]

Some analogies are more accurate than others. The constant big bad of the 40K setting is Chaos, not Abaddon. Abaddon is subordinate to Chaos, not the other way around...regardless of what he tells himself.

Well, sure, I don’t disagree that Chaos is the conceptual antagonist at the heart of the setting, but...well, “conceptual” weighs heavily on that definition.

 

Chaos isn’t a guy. It’s a thing. A very malleable thing, a reflection of humanity’s dark psychological temptations. It can’t be a useful villain in and of itself. In terms of that fun old allegory with the Frog and the River, it’s the Nature. It needs a Scorpion. Abaddon was conceived as exactly that, and he is (well, was) very necessary in that role.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Lexington

[Volt]

@b1soul

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aarondembskibowden.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/lets-talk-about-abaddon/amp/

 

ADB posted this directly from the IP archives about Abaddon like a bajillion years ago.

 

@Lief

 

The Chaos Gods refer to Horus as the Sacrificed King. In the blog post above it references the ‘Horus was weak, Horus was a fool’ quote. The Horus Heresy is a myth like the Iliad or the Odyssey, while 40k is the Apocalypse. These are two very separate, very distinct types of narratives. You don’t change the anti-Christ mid-Book of Revelations. It doesn’t detract from Horus at all, and even comparing them is the super shallow, non-analytical ‘40K is the Heresy part 2 Chaos Boogaloo’ line of thinking from the fans and studio we’ve been seeing for years.

Except the apocalypse didn't happen and there's zero consequences really, which is the problem with Abaddon; nothing he does actually has any impact on the setting. Sure the galaxy is "split" yet the Imperium can easily traverse into Nihilus using the two access points thus allowing Guilliman to magically show up with Primaris. Whenever Abaddon fights somebody he never kills them, they 'get better' or he even gets shanked in the process and only survives due to somebody else bailing him out. Killing him off doesn't actually change anything because Abaddon hasn't changed anything. He's spent his entire existence as a Damocle's Sword that, when finally dropped.... did nothing. It turned out the sword was made of tin, not steel.

[Marshal Rohr]

That is more a function of the execution of the narrative, not the characters themselves. Ferrus is a great general and one of the best field commanders in the history of the Imperium, but you'd never know that from his Primarchs novel and the short stories he features in. GW IP is so widespread, so diverse, and so collectively produced the only reliable source we have for what characters actually are is when an author provides an out of universe explanation - since everything else relies on interpretations of the lore as presented in the products, which can... be inconsistent.

[Volt]

That is more a function of the execution of the narrative, not the characters themselves. Ferrus is a great general and one of the best field commanders in the history of the Imperium, but you'd never know that from his Primarchs novel and the short stories he features in. GW IP is so widespread, so diverse, and so collectively produced the only reliable source we have for what characters actually are is when an author provides an out of universe explanation - since everything else relies on interpretations of the lore as presented in the products, which can... be inconsistent.

Yes. And when a character is so horribly mangled by constant screwups to the point to rob them of any tension or respect, it is better to simply terminate them and institute a replacement that is more competently managed by editors. Incompetent writing absolutely plagues the franchise, and it would be nice to have characters who are freed of the aura of incompetence and present an intimidating or glorious character arc instead of waffling about as completely passive set pieces. The Dark Gods should realistically be very displeased with Abaddon at this point (or simply no longer have a use for him), and thus be shopping for a replacement, who could be anyone; the everchosen needn't even be a Marine. Likewise there is no reason for any other character to keep escaping by the skin of their teeth from death. The only one I feel as being valid to keep alive is Dante, not only because his death is set, but because he's one of the few characters that is consistently well written and not made out to be a clown.

[Viridia]

 

No I completely understand that, but 40k is now a moving narrative as opposed to a setting.

 

Rules for old models should exist, but perhaps in the "Legends" supplement that GW alluded to.

 

People were upset that some things weren't done in the recent campaign, namely the death of famous characters. To make that TRULY impactful perhaps the tabletop should follow.

 

 

Surely that makes even more sense for them to move on with new characters. Look at Warmachine, they've evolved new characters/new versions of upgraded characters as they've progressed their narrative, and you can still use the older versions.

[Lexington]

The Dark Gods should realistically be very displeased with Abaddon at this point (or simply no longer have a use for him), and thus be shopping for a replacement

I don’t really see why this would be - Abaddon’s done an incredible amount of good work, far as the gods should care. He’s helped open a galaxy-spanning warp storm and unleashed the hordes of Chaos to feast on half of the Imperium. Sure, he loses fist fights with the setting’s poster boys, but the dark powers don’t care about dumb mortal wrestling matches. They want souls. Abaddon heaped ‘em up.

[Tyriks]

So, people want to replace Abaddon because he isn't menacing because he can't win? You think a new character with none of the history or gravitas, who still won't ever win and will have all the same restrictions and downsides but none of the accomplishments, will be better?

 

The problem there isn't Abaddon. It's that GW won't actually let him kill the people he should, by all rights, murder. If GW was willing to kill characters Abaddon would be the one killing them. Problem solved.

 

Note: I'm not entirely opposed to replacing Abaddon. I just think it's silly to think that will please any of the people saying he should be replaced.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Tyriks

[bluntblade]

So, people 2amt to replace Abaddon because he isn't menacing because he can't win? You think a new character with none of the history or gravitas, who still won't ever win and will have all the same restrictions and downsides but none of the accomplishments, will be better?

The problem there isn't Abaddon. It's that GW won't actually let him kill the people he should, by all rights, murder. If GW was willing to kill characters Abaddon would be the one killing them. Problem solved.

Note: I'm not entirely opposed to replacing Abaddon. I just think it's silly to think that will please any of the people saying he should be replaced.

I agree. Abaddon and his current lieutenants need some wins and some more thorough worldbuilding to give their actions some consequence. Killing him off would be rather hollow, I think - let alone the question of whether anyone could hold the Black Legion together - and merely reinforce the issues that have sprung up with Guilliman and his Galaxy-saving presents.