Valdor: Birth of the Imperium

[Scribe]

It is starting to feel like an idea took root, to subvert expectations, and they windmill slammed it on the table and just ran with it.

 

We know that there was a core group of people involved at FW (Alan, French) to then Black Library (Goulding, French, Wraight, ADB, Kyme??) to now the Siege and even books like Valdor, which have these common threads, and ideas.

 

Some of them read VERY much like apologies or explanations for things which at the time, the community flipped out over but just as many seem to exist for no reason other than to muddy the water, to put everything in question and contradict what came before.

 

Was that our misunderstanding, or a concerted effort to make the setting more ambiguous than it really was?

 

I have not stayed current. I can admit that (rant in the spoilers below..) but I just feel like the latest books are...really not the same as the high points of the series. The parts that cling to the canon as it existed, and tell the story relevant to those points if that makes sense.

 

The Black Books. - Too expensive, my play group imploded, and no reason to keep up on them when they were massively delayed.

 

The Horus Heresy - Too disjointed, too many side plots that tried to muscle in (or be forced into relevance) on the main plot line. I never listened to a single audio only offering, I dont know that I can remember reading a single Knight-Errant book, and probably around Vulkan Lives, I gave up on anything else by Kyme (Gav lost me when he retconned the Raven Guard story).

 

Siege - Fiscally burnt out, fatigued by a seemingly endless parade of books about irrelevant factions (Knights-Errant, Blackshields, SHATTERED LEGIONS omg...so many) and utter non-sense I didnt even care to keep up with this series. I've read the first one, and it was fine, but...thats kind of it.

 

You could read the relevant parts of the Horus Heresy, up to the Siege, in about what, 10 books? I dont know that I've even missed out on much but it feels as if the tone of the series, the story itself has become, I dont want to say made up, but reinvented?

 

Clearly I take this stuff too seriously but it seems the plot was lost, or diverted, or simply reinvented.

 

EDIT: I looked, and at the time I felt it was 16 meaningful books...

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/349732-your-preferred-horus-heresy-reading-listorganisation/?p=5149712

Edited March 31, 2020 by Scribe

[Roomsky]

I honestly wish some magical foresight had infected those early authors that allowed them to A: Not allow Ben Counter to write anything and B: market it as a setting from the start. The Heresy as it is now isn't really a series, at all. The numbers on the spines aren't even in-universe chronological. It's a fantastic sandbox to play in and it honestly should have always been "here is the Horus Heresy Blood Angels Trilogy, penned by a single author to be read on its own," rather than "here is the Blood Angels book which is also the exciting nominally-next-step in this exciting saga."

 

I personally am always thankful it's turned into a setting. Can you imagine if (insert least favourite author here) wrote a book that was essential to your understanding of what was going on? This was the problem with The Beast Arises, you were stuck with even the least entries if you wanted any kind of coherence.

 

Oh, and I'm 100% in favour of taking anything any character says with a grain of salt, it's much more interesting that way.

 

Also also, authors generally concern themselves with writing a good story first and foremost. Most calls I've heard of subversion for subversion's sake are rather unfair.

[b1soul]

Can we say for certain that the Emperor had no influence over the scattering of the primarchs? Let's say Erda was used by Chaos (or Erda and Chaos used each other), and the Emperor was genuinely enraged by the scattering...could the Emperor and Malcador not affect to some extent where the pods landed?

Also, I recall it was stated somewhere that Fulgrim and the Khan were intended to land on each other's planets, so it all gets quite confusing. But I suppose Fulgrim could fit in among the Palatine nobility and the Khan could fit in among the Chemosian tribesmen/sword-dancers of the wastelands.

[Scribe]

I honestly wish some magical foresight had infected those early authors that allowed them to A: Not allow Ben Counter to write anything and B: market it as a setting from the start. The Heresy as it is now isn't really a series, at all. The numbers on the spines aren't even in-universe chronological. It's a fantastic sandbox to play in and it honestly should have always been "here is the Horus Heresy Blood Angels Trilogy, penned by a single author to be read on its own," rather than "here is the Blood Angels book which is also the exciting nominally-next-step in this exciting saga."

 

I certainly agree with this.

 

b1soul - No, we cannot say anything for certain. 

[b1soul]

Frankly, I would prefer a concentrated,

tightly plotted HH series plus a wider, sprawling later GC and HH setting.

 

EDIT: My dream would be a Unification Wars and earlier GC setting focusing more on the latter with explorations of the former: Terra, Sol, Rangda, Terran and transitional legions, early conquests and legion masters and heroes who have faded into legend by the late GC, formative years of the primarch "fraternity", their schooling, political struggles and machinations, etc.

 

Doesn't have to be a continuous narrative, just a massive sandbox in which to world build

Edited April 1, 2020 by b1soul

[Scribe]

I think Unification War's would be an interesting small series, early GC would be almost just fan service like the Primarch series, but Legion focused.

[DarkChaplain]

....which is the frustrating part to begin with. We can't say jack all for certain, but now it isn't because it was left mysterious on purpose, but because there are so many crossing streams involved, so many he said, she said moments, so many straight up contradictions all embroiled in a cauldron of retcons and ForgeWorld's retroactive product placement, even the supposedly more "iron rules" of the setting are wobblier than a geller field near collapse. What we see as absolutely confirmed and true today could be totally contradicted with another release in the coming years, which doesn't mesh well with what has come before but is still going to be the new jumping off point for newer works anyway. And if that retcon-heavy work gets written by an author popular enough in the nerddom, it may as well be considered the new testament of the setting, consistency with the past be damned.

 

I think that's my biggest issue with 40k and the HH right now. Yes, it's turned into a setting and yes, it is evolving. But it is doing so within a series that, before it was even finished, was already self-contradictory to a frustrating degree, with too little general oversight, haywire ideas, schedule conflicts and on top of it all another major setting rummaging in its belly, trying to draw connections both ways, and inevitably changing aspects or mandating characters' fates, or spoiling pivotal points.

 

I mean, just look at The Beast Arises.

Vulkan confirmed alive, long before Old Earth saw him return post-Deathfire. Sindermann now a 1500 year old Inquisitor, meaning we know he can't die during the Siege, and all the setup for his role is predetermined now, rather than a surprise. Maximus Thane is now in the Siege, even though it should be Oriax Dantalion. The Sisters of Silence wiped out somewhere in between, then returned, in a series that was rewritten on the fly as new model kits were being scheduled and they wanted to include those. The Deathwatch being established merely 1500 years after the Heresy, again to coincide with the Codex release. The Feast of Blades being introduced as a cultural event for the Imperial Fists successors, to keep them in touch, now retconned in the Siege as a regular old thing that was part of the Legion all along, in spite of the earliest sources, including Legion of the Damned, telling us it was a breaking of the Legions idea, and so forth.

 

We knew that The Painted Count would get what he got, because he popped up in another story years earlier. We know what's with the Sanguinor, which was again a model that used to be mysterious but had to be fed back into the Heresy to link the settings. Falkus Kibre's thingything. The Iron Warriors McNeill invented for Storm of Iron...

 

It's not just one series or setting that is being affected by those retcons, but at least two. And the other one has finally decided to stop being static and introducing new technology while pretending it was there all along, despite being absent from any prior source. 40k, in that sense, is a bloody mess of a franchise, and the more they retcon things, the more they revise established history without actually revising the works themselves, updating numbers or fixing continuity errors in reissues when they happen, the less I've been seeing myself enjoying the deep dive. My reading of 40k stories has gone drastically down, to be frank. This all is part of the reason. I loved WHFB most of all to begin with, mind you, and the Old World exploding and AoS replacing it almost got me to quit the hobby entirely. I clung on to The Beast Arises and the Heresy, mostly, holding out hope that things for Fantasy would improve. Things have improved drastically on the plastic side of the hobby, but the fiction? It feels more scatterbrained than ever, some of these days...

[b1soul]

The "mess" is essentially BL's canon policy to let multiple authours the freedom (some would say too much freedom) to play around with the same characters and events.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yeah, the whole "It was my idea all along! Psych!" angle just... does nothing positive for me at this point anymore. In a sense, it's the most cop-out explanation the authors can go for right now. It's a stupid rabbit hole that you can never get out of.

 

A lot of these things from Valdor and, yeah, Saturnine and ForgeWorld make for a pretty clear example of why I never wanted to see the timeline moved to the Unification era to begin with.

 

But again, we're assuming that Erda is telling the truth, even if that's how she remembers it. Maybe Chaos really did do it, and the Emperor screwed with her memories because he knew she was already starting to doubt how beneficial the project was, and if she knew that the Chaos Gods stole away the Primarchs but the Emperor still planned to use them, that she'd do everything in her power to destroy such tainted beings.

 

I mean, nothing the Emperor tells you, or you remember about him, or hell, literally none of your memories once you've met him, can be trusted at face value. Malcador was able to keep a cloned Eldar alive as a confidant, rebuilding him and wiping his memories each time he died, just so he could have a talking diary. Knowing what we know of the Emperor, I could fully see him rewriting your memories of the past if it's helpful to his agenda. Hell, we know for a fact that he wiped Horus' memory of what happened on Molech.

 

When dealing with a telepath, "I remember this so it happened" isn't something that can be said with confidence.

[mc warhammer]

....which is the frustrating part to begin with. We can't say jack all for certain, but now it isn't because it was left mysterious on purpose, but because there are so many crossing streams involved, so many he said, she said moments,

i can understand the frustration if you're looking to come away with a singular cohesive narrative

 

but isn't "he said, she said" supposed to be one of the foundations of how the IP works?

 

granted, i prefer a pre planned and well executed rashoman style narrative of contradictions and alternate truths but in the case of GW, isn't it operating pretty much as it said it would? like scribe, i'm not 100% up to date on all the readings, so maybe i'm missing something.

 

Yeah, the whole "It was my idea all along! Psych!" angle just... does nothing positive for me at this point anymore. In a sense, it's the most cop-out explanation the authors can go for right now. It's a stupid rabbit hole that you can never get out of.

 

A lot of these things from Valdor and, yeah, Saturnine and ForgeWorld make for a pretty clear example of why I never wanted to see the timeline moved to the Unification era to begin with.

 

But again, we're assuming that Erda is telling the truth, even if that's how she remembers it. Maybe Chaos really did do it, and the Emperor screwed with her memories because he knew she was already starting to doubt how beneficial the project was, and if she knew that the Chaos Gods stole away the Primarchs but the Emperor still planned to use them, that she'd do everything in her power to destroy such tainted beings.

 

I mean, nothing the Emperor tells you, or you remember about him, or hell, literally none of your memories once you've met him, can be trusted at face value. Malcador was able to keep a cloned Eldar alive as a confidant, rebuilding him and wiping his memories each time he died, just so he could have a talking diary. Knowing what we know of the Emperor, I could fully see him rewriting your memories of the past if it's helpful to his agenda. Hell, we know for a fact that he wiped Horus' memory of what happened on Molech.

 

When dealing with a telepath, "I remember this so it happened" isn't something that can be said with confidence.

 

there might be a bigger end game plan with her revelation

 

or there might not be. we'll find out

[Kelborn]

Suggestion:

Keep this one about the novel Valdor and have a seperate thread about how BL treated the Emperor/ the released series and how they retconned/ extended old lore and so on.

 

Alright? Feels like it's a discussion jumping from Saturnine to Valdor and back again.

 

 

 

And on a personal note: Those of you who had the chance to read both, which one would you recommend more, Valdor or the Lion? Thanks. :)

Edited April 1, 2020 by Kelborn

[Sandlemad]

Odd question but would you guys recommend to read Valdor or Lion?

Pal of mine got the Lions LE and of course, he recommends the latter.

 

Given that I love Wraights Valdor and Custodes, I was thinking to start with Valdor and then jump into the Tales of Terra as I call them: Vaults of Terra and Emperor's Legion.

I’ve not read The Lion but this is Wraight at the top of his game when it comes to character, prose and atmosphere. I’ve never read anything to suggest Guymer can hit those heights. His previous primarch novels were respectively fairly ok and (apparently) bad so if this also covers subject matter you’re more interested in, I’d go for this.

 

The thread’s obviously been completely dominated by the issue of predestination and planning on the Emperor’s part re: legion roles but for anyone interested in this book, that essentially comes down to two tossed away lines. There’s vastly more to the book than that.

[b1soul]

Definitely recommend Val over Lion based on past experience with the authours

[Fedor]

Guymer has only done one Primarch novel before the Lion?

 

I don't think there's much difference between them as writers ability wise, both did some great old world and Iron Hands stuff.Wraight has been the more prolific writer with a bigger body of quality work though, at least it feels that way as i haven't read any AoS books which i believe Guymer has done quite a few of.

 

Strictly staying on the Primarchs range, though divisive in what it actually does with the legion and character, Guymer's Ferrus has far more balls and deeper intent about it than Wraight's Russ or Khan. Not that i subscribe to that way of thinking as tier or seal of quality as i mentioned in the night lords thread, but it's probably the best of the series from a traditional academic "literary" approach. The Lion is more of a generic/classic Legion showcase though. Valdor a world building book.

 

I'd go for Valdor, especially if you are a big Custodes fan anyway. Both are worth reading.

[Brother Lunkhead]

Odd question but would you guys recommend to read Valdor or Lion?

Pal of mine got the Lions LE and of course, he recommends the latter.

 

Given that I love Wraights Valdor and Custodes, I was thinking to start with Valdor and then jump into the Tales of Terra as I call them: Vaults of Terra and Emperor's Legion.

[Brother Lunkhead]

Read 'm both Brother Kel. It's only money.

...... but since the topic is Valdor, read this first

[b1soul]

Yeah...have to strongly disagree with Fedor over the claim that Guymer and Wraight are on the same level of writing ability.

 

IMO, very few BL authours are on Wraight's level, as I'd rank him up there with ADB and Abnett. Guymer is kinda like a Haley to me, certainly not bad but rarely if ever great.

 

That said, could give both Lion and Valor a read and arrive at your own conclusion.

[Roomsky]

Review of second go-through coming soon.

 

In regards to the current convo, even as a huge Guymer fan, Wraight is probably the safer bet. However, I think Guymer is much more efficient at making the bit-part characters stick with the reader. Ferrus Manus had quite a wide cast and even those with minimal screentime were distinct and memorable.

 

Valdor is expertly written but the cast has far less flare. 

[DarkChaplain]

Yeah...have to strongly disagree with Fedor over the claim that Guymer and Wraight are on the same level of writing ability.

 

IMO, very few BL authours are on Wraight's level, as I'd rank him up there with ADB and Abnett. Guymer is kinda like a Haley to me, certainly not bad but rarely if ever great.

 

That said, could give both Lion and Valor a read and arrive at your own conclusion.

 

 

We know.

 

I'd agree with Fedor that Guymer, in a sense, takes more "risks" than Wraight and has a thicker prose style on top. Whether you like him or not, he's put a lot of thought into how to tackle the Iron Hands and their quirks, both in the Great Crusade and the present 41st Millennium. Divisive he may be, but he's also trying to do more than just write some run of the mill action flick that ticks the boxes.

 

As for the Lion, while I'll be waiting for the regular release/audiobook, I'm very happy they picked Guymer for the job, after his first outing with El'Jonson and co in Dreadwing. He managed to combine a bunch of things from the Dark Angels narrative back into one cohesive whole. It was still slightly divisive with some folks, but it was certainly a strong read that fit snugly with what we've seen before.

Wraight's Lion in the Leman Russ Primarchs novel wasn't bad either, but I was hugely let down by the book in general, with a weak framing narrative and lackluster characters.

 

Funnily enough, I liked Ferrus Manus: Gorgon of Medusa much better than Wraight's Jaghatai Khan: Warhawk of Chogoris, as well. Chris' novel was a prequel that I didn't feel was needed at the point it was written, or published, and hugged his Scars novels too closely to stand on its own. It had no real narrative to boast, being more of a patchwork of scenes from the Legion's history, as they relate to the Heresy. Made me scratch my head. Of course I'd recommend reading that book when it comes to the Scars' arc in the Heresy, to fill in some gaps, but standing on its own, it is probably the most skippable Primarchs novel when it comes to its own narrative.

 

Guymer's written a lot of convincing novels and short stories that'd fall outside of B&C's subject matter, so I'll just say that I like his work outside of 40k/HH as well, as do I Wraight's. At least up until Wraight's intro novella to AoS, which stunk more than all his Nurgle-loving Death Guard put together.

Edited April 2, 2020 by DarkChaplain

[b1soul]

Yeah, I'm going through Guymer's Lion and it's a bit of a slog to me...and not because I don't like the DA or the Lion. They used to be my faves along with the BA and GK...before Wraight got me firmly onto the WS fan wagon.

 

I couldn't put down Valdor...solid gold IMO, so to each his own.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

Yeah...have to strongly disagree with Fedor over the claim that Guymer and Wraight are on the same level of writing ability.

 

IMO, very few BL authours are on Wraight's level, as I'd rank him up there with ADB and Abnett. Guymer is kinda like a Haley to me, certainly not bad but rarely if ever great.

 

That said, could give both Lion and Valor a read and arrive at your own conclusion.

 

We know.

 

I'd agree with Fedor that Guymer, in a sense, takes more "risks" than Wraight and has a thicker prose style on top. Whether you like him or not, he's put a lot of thought into how to tackle the Iron Hands and their quirks, both in the Great Crusade and the present 41st Millennium. Divisive he may be, but he's also trying to do more than just write some run of the mill action flick that ticks the boxes.

 

As for the Lion, while I'll be waiting for the regular release/audiobook, I'm very happy they picked Guymer for the job, after his first outing with El'Jonson and co in Dreadwing. He managed to combine a bunch of things from the Dark Angels narrative back into one cohesive whole. It was still slightly divisive with some folks, but it was certainly a strong read that fit snugly with what we've seen before.

Wraight's Lion in the Leman Russ Primarchs novel wasn't bad either, but I was hugely let down by the book in general, with a weak framing narrative and lackluster characters.

 

Funnily enough, I liked Ferrus Manus: Gorgon of Medusa much better than Wraight's Jaghatai Khan: Warhawk of Chogoris, as well. Chris' novel was a prequel that I didn't feel was needed at the point it was written, or published, and hugged his Scars novels too closely to stand on its own. It had no real narrative to boast, being more of a patchwork of scenes from the Legion's history, as they relate to the Heresy. Made me scratch my head. Of course I'd recommend reading that book when it comes to the Scars' arc in the Heresy, to fill in some gaps, but standing on its own, it is probably the most skippable Primarchs novel when it comes to its own narrative.

 

Guymer's written a lot of convincing novels and short stories that'd fall outside of B&C's subject matter, so I'll just say that I like his work outside of 40k/HH as well, as do I Wraight's. At least up until Wraight's intro novella to AoS, which stunk more than all his Nurgle-loving Death Guard put together.

seconded on ferrus being a more interesting depiction than warhawk

[Sandlemad]

Ah whoops, I thought Vulkan was Guymer too. My mistake.

 

Either way I’m probably being a bit unfair towards Guymer. While I agree that he did some fascinating and surprisingly radical structural stuff in his 40k IH novels - and should definitely be praised for it, that was seriously a wonderful surprise - it was still weighed down with by-the-numbers action parts. And that’s to be expected on some level, probably, so whatever but it’s not something I’ve felt about most of Wraight’s work.

 

Ferris Manus was more than just a bolter porn piece but I didn’t think any of the characters had any real depth or subtlety to them. Manus himself was more than two dimensional, which puts him ahead of most other depictions of the primarch, but compared to Wraight’s Russ (from Wolf King and the primarch novel both) and especially his Khan, Manus felt like an angry cardboard cutout. If feel in general that while Guymer’s characters in his 40k and AoS work can be bold and memorable, there’s not a great deal of depth to them. Which is not the end of the world, I’d rate the majority of characters and primarchs in the heresy novels as bold if not terribly complex compared to Wraight’s multi-work portrayals of the Khan and Russ.

 

In that same vein I’d push back against the idea that Valdor is a ‘world building novel’. Valdor himself and especially Kandawire are well explored and have a lot going on. Even the simpler characters like the soldier of fortune are evocative and drawn out more than they need to be.

 

Agreed about the Khan primarch novel though, that felt like a collation of deleted scenes retreading already covered ground and is certainly the weakest of the Scars books.

 

Overall I think the Haley comparison is pretty apt. Not in a crude fandom “author tier” manner but in that they are both clearly interested in some real innovation for BL novels, be that structural or in all the new ground Haley broke in Titandeath, but then also have their fair share of filler and to my mind often fall down on a prose or character level.

[Fedor]

Ferrus gets a lot of subtle character development in his book imo, it's definitely a multi-faceted take. Wraight's work on the Scars is great overall and i love the main books, but i do feel he skirts close to having the Khan be a character with no real or interesting flaws. He's a bit too "allknowing" in his temperate wisdom, though tbf it is refreshing in its own way when most of the Primarchs tend to be of the damaged or larger than life variety. This is probably getting off topic discussing other primarchs here though.

 

I do agree with you Valdor has some good characters. I'd just consider its main focus to be building up a view of that particular time rather than a Valdor showcase per se.

[bluntblade]

I think the Khan's flaws are relatively subtle - and his depiction is very much that his nature is vice-and-virtue - but they constitute a real driving force in his narrative and, with him and the wider Legion, create jeopardy.

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

Yeah...have to strongly disagree with Fedor over the claim that Guymer and Wraight are on the same level of writing ability.

 

IMO, very few BL authours are on Wraight's level, as I'd rank him up there with ADB and Abnett. Guymer is kinda like a Haley to me, certainly not bad but rarely if ever great.

 

That said, could give both Lion and Valor a read and arrive at your own conclusion.

 

 

We know.

 

I'd agree with Fedor that Guymer, in a sense, takes more "risks" than Wraight and has a thicker prose style on top. Whether you like him or not, he's put a lot of thought into how to tackle the Iron Hands and their quirks, both in the Great Crusade and the present 41st Millennium. Divisive he may be, but he's also trying to do more than just write some run of the mill action flick that ticks the boxes.

 

As for the Lion, while I'll be waiting for the regular release/audiobook, I'm very happy they picked Guymer for the job, after his first outing with El'Jonson and co in Dreadwing. He managed to combine a bunch of things from the Dark Angels narrative back into one cohesive whole. It was still slightly divisive with some folks, but it was certainly a strong read that fit snugly with what we've seen before.

Wraight's Lion in the Leman Russ Primarchs novel wasn't bad either, but I was hugely let down by the book in general, with a weak framing narrative and lackluster characters.

 

Funnily enough, I liked Ferrus Manus: Gorgon of Medusa much better than Wraight's Jaghatai Khan: Warhawk of Chogoris, as well. Chris' novel was a prequel that I didn't feel was needed at the point it was written, or published, and hugged his Scars novels too closely to stand on its own. It had no real narrative to boast, being more of a patchwork of scenes from the Legion's history, as they relate to the Heresy. Made me scratch my head. Of course I'd recommend reading that book when it comes to the Scars' arc in the Heresy, to fill in some gaps, but standing on its own, it is probably the most skippable Primarchs novel when it comes to its own narrative.

 

Guymer's written a lot of convincing novels and short stories that'd fall outside of B&C's subject matter, so I'll just say that I like his work outside of 40k/HH as well, as do I Wraight's. At least up until Wraight's intro novella to AoS, which stunk more than all his Nurgle-loving Death Guard put together.

 

 

Wasn't the narrative of Warhawk about the Khan steadily learning that he can't just take no part in the Imperium and hope for the best? He just assumed that he could do his thing on the fringes, that politics would just all work out for him in the end, and he got burned by this assumption. I've posted my thoughts on Ferrus Manus elsewhere.

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

Ferrus gets a lot of subtle character development in his book imo, it's definitely a multi-faceted take. Wraight's work on the Scars is great overall and i love the main books, but i do feel he skirts close to having the Khan be a character with no real or interesting flaws. He's a bit too "allknowing" in his temperate wisdom, though tbf it is refreshing in its own way when most of the Primarchs tend to be of the damaged or larger than life variety. This is probably getting off topic discussing other primarchs here though.

 

I do agree with you Valdor has some good characters. I'd just consider its main focus to be building up a view of that particular time rather than a Valdor showcase per se.

 

He definitely does have flaws, in fact he's actually quite similar to Magnus. The Khan just assumes that he's right, but unlike Magnus who tries to lecture everyone and convince them that he's right, the Khan just assumes that others will see his rightness and go along with him, that he doesn't actually need to take part in politics, and things will just work out. Part of the point of Warhawk is that if the Khan had taken even a bit of personal involvement, the Conclave of Nikaea may have gone entirely differently. Instead, he just wanted to hunt on the fringes of the Imperium, and blindly trusted that people would see things his way.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Lord_Caerolion