What is your least favorite HH novel?

[Angel_of_Blood]

There are quite a few poor entries. But nothing tops Fear to Tread. As a long time Blood Angels player and fan, I couldn't have been more excited for it, even when I heard it was Swallow, as not even he could :cuss up Signus. I was so very, very wrong. 

[Xisor]

Angel Exterminatus.

 

It's a tough one.

 

Since a Thousand Sons, I don't think I've enjoyed anything of Graham's within the Heresy. I've enjoyed plenty of his other work, but with the Heresy, it's a great big :|

 

That's coupled to the realisation that before ATS, I didn't exactly enjoy "False Gods" either.

 

Specifically, the lack of vision on Horus' fall.

 

Galaxy in Flames gets a lot of crap, but False God's is an interesting enough Titan crew story, couple to Horus Rising's coat tails.

 

---

 

To that extent, for all that I usually enjoy McNeill's writing, I find much of his HH really difficult to stomach.

 

So Angel Exterminatus, the Crimson King, The Outcast Dead, Vengeful Spirit, the miraculous adventures of that Raven Guard & pals...

 

They all leave me really cold. Or worse, incensed in a dislike me fashion.

 

Fear To Tread, Battle for the Abyss and Descent of Angels have questionable bits to them.

 

But for the life of me, I don't mind them anywhere near as much as I resent the conceptual grief I get from, say, Angel Exterminatus.

 

Skraal & Mhotep were fun characters to read, at least.

[DukeLeto69]

@Xisor am with you to an extent. Never to this day finished Angel Exterminatus though I loved Thousand Sons and really liked some of GM’s other HH books.

[Jareddm]

I was going to say Abyss as well, but I have to agree about all of McNeil's work of the past 9 years. The Outcast Dead and Vengeful Spirit are terrible mishmashes of plot that required so much support from other authors to make them palatable for me. The worst offense of The Crimson King, in my opinion, is ruining the Ahriman trilogy, a significantly better TS series.

 

Damnation of Pythos gets a pass for me because despite not really deserving the Horus Heresy title, I found it not so bad on a second read, especially with all the related shorts fresh in my mind.

[Klod]

Fear to Tread. Literally made me feel Black Rage. It's so bad.

[aa.logan]

Um.

 

Actually.

 

I kind of like everything.

 

There’s always something in a Heresy book that I enjoy.

 

Even the ‘bad’ ones.

 

They all add up to the greater whole, in the end anyway.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Mine was Furious Abyss, but move over FA as Tallarn is now my worst, there was nothing interesting that happened in it, even the fight with the titans was boring. It was so bad, practically no character development, the best bit was . It was all either action or driving around in tanks, I can't wait for it to be over and a lot of the time I wasn't even paying attention to what I was reading it was so bad, I was daydreaming my own thoughts while reading this. Granted it was a collection of stories but Jesus.

Tallarn is one of the best books in the series lol. I'll admit that bouncing through the shorts can be offputting, but Ironclad is fantastic. Its the start of an arc for Argonis, Volk and Perturabo that gets continued in Slaves to Darkness and Solar War. "All action or tanks" misses out on Iaeo vs the alpha legion, almost all of argonis' plot, a decent amount of Kord, almost all of Hrend. So most of the story.

[Sandlemad]

Unremembered Empire. There's definitely worse books - Fear to Tread, Battle for the Abyss, Galaxy in Flames... probably a little over half the heresy books in all fairness - but this was just such a disappointment. Partially because it was from Abnett but also because it was such a squandering of an interesting premise, of interesting character arcs in favour of a big 'third-act-of-a-Marvel-movie' punchup. It did act as a chance to sew together a bunch of plotlines but it did so clumsily and inelegantly.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

Mine was Furious Abyss, but move over FA as Tallarn is now my worst, there was nothing interesting that happened in it, even the fight with the titans was boring. It was so bad, practically no character development, the best bit was . It was all either action or driving around in tanks, I can't wait for it to be over and a lot of the time I wasn't even paying attention to what I was reading it was so bad, I was daydreaming my own thoughts while reading this. Granted it was a collection of stories but Jesus.

Tallarn is one of the best books in the series lol. I'll admit that bouncing through the shorts can be offputting, but Ironclad is fantastic. Its the start of an arc for Argonis, Volk and Perturabo that gets continued in Slaves to Darkness and Solar War. "All action or tanks" misses out on Iaeo vs the alpha legion, almost all of argonis' plot, a decent amount of Kord, almost all of Hrend. So most of the story.

 

Not at all, there are no characters to identify with, no character development, it was awful.  

[Fedor]

Vengeful Spirit, fear to tread and Unremembered Empire as far as books i was excited for that did very little with what i really wanted of them....a deeper look into Horus and the LW/ Blood Angels and the politics of Imperium Secundus. I was still entertained by them once i accepted them as battle books though.

 

Promethean Sun and Feat of Iron for novella/short.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Fedor

[b1soul]

Fear to Tread was bloody terrible ;)

[bluntblade]

It's a mark of how selective I've been in my readings beyond the opening trilogy, but I think I'd say False Gods. The SoH lose multiple dimensions, promising characters are shunted to the margins and Genius People are rendered muppets. Edited November 25, 2019 by bluntblade

[Lucerne]

I consider Seventh Serpent an excellent case for not letting McNeil write in the Heresy ever again, and I say this as someone hungry for an actually coherent AL plotline and who can find things to like about a lot of his other work.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Ugolino

[DarkChaplain]

 

Mine was Furious Abyss, but move over FA as Tallarn is now my worst, there was nothing interesting that happened in it, even the fight with the titans was boring. It was so bad, practically no character development, the best bit was . It was all either action or driving around in tanks, I can't wait for it to be over and a lot of the time I wasn't even paying attention to what I was reading it was so bad, I was daydreaming my own thoughts while reading this. Granted it was a collection of stories but Jesus.

Tallarn is one of the best books in the series lol. I'll admit that bouncing through the shorts can be offputting, but Ironclad is fantastic. Its the start of an arc for Argonis, Volk and Perturabo that gets continued in Slaves to Darkness and Solar War. "All action or tanks" misses out on Iaeo vs the alpha legion, almost all of argonis' plot, a decent amount of Kord, almost all of Hrend. So most of the story.

 

 

I'm on the completely opposite end. I thought Ironclad was the issue with Tallarn. Executioner was brilliant, something I'd recommend to folks unfamiliar with 40k, just for how well it handled its subject matter and characters. Ironclad fell flat for me on every front, with the climax feeling unconclusive, abridged and needlessly convoluted.

It's the one book, after all other shenanigans, that made me actively wary of the Alpha Legion in the Heresy, and French writing them in particular. If anything, it soured me on Praetorian of Dorn, too, because of how much focus he put on them there as compared to the Imperial Fists.

 

There are decent parts in Ironclad, but they all come to dissatisfactory ends for me. It's a short novel that either needed to be longer or cut down to focus. I still couldn't tell you where Argonis came from and why he matters so much all of a sudden, and the characterization of Perturabo in it was disappointing. It tried to have its cake and eat it too, by both being detached from the war for Tallarn at a macro level and only delivering interstitials, while being surprisingly close to the point of it all while still not really getting there.

 

The interstitials always had me thinking of the stories that could have been told in the Tallarn framework. From Rogue Trader fleets in orbit to small ground assaults and feats of heroism that'd impact the larger war. But instead, it relegated all of those to a few lines or paragraphs in between really rather dull chapters. It was a slog, especially after the high expectations I had for it after Executioner, which I also re-read and loved even more than the first time just before it.

 

On the other hand, I liked all the Tallarn shorts (though the final one was just a micro short and thus didn't have that much to it). It needed more of those, and less of Ironclad's throwaway elements.

[Kelborn]

=][=

 

Gonna lock this until I removed the off topic.

This is about a collection of subjective opinions about a series of novels and not about BLs open window and the impression of ideas being "stolen" by them.

 

=][=

Edited November 25, 2019 by Kelborn

[Kelborn]

=][=

 

Purge completed. Unlocking for now.

 

Keep in mind what the thread is about before posting your humble opinion.

 

=][=

Edited November 25, 2019 by Kelborn

[SkimaskMohawk]

@dark chaplain I'd say that's pretty fair if you really liked the content of the shorts from tallarn, then Ironclad might not be to taste. Care to explain what you mean about the alpha legion?

 

@torvald, how do you know how the characters developed if you didn't pay attention to the book and haven't finished reading it?

Edited November 26, 2019 by SkimaskMohawk

[Manchu warlord]

The Master of Mankind. 

 

Now, the quality (ADB's writing style) was amazing, but the content (what ADB chose to write, how he portrayed the Emperor) was absolutely rubbish, and not to my liking.  When you have the big 'Chaos' writer of BL write about the Light-Against-Chaos (the Emperor), it reeks a foul ploy to badmouth the Emperor; it makes no sense.  I strongly dislike the book, I find it very ridiculous, even more so than The Unremembered Empire (which is my second least favorite book).  Also, considering the book is called the 'Master' of 'Mankind', it does not talk much about the Emperor, other then his plans.  The portrayal of him was absolutely in the negative, no redeeming qualities of him were depicted at all, it's as if ADB was trying to make the Emperor as unlikeable as possible (I wouldn't be surprised if that was his agenda).  Also, it just felt like as ADB finally had the chance to write about the loyalists, he was mostly fooling around, trying to write bits about new things, and sabotaging them while he was at it.

Anyway, that was went through my head as I read the satanic book.    

[mc warhammer]

yes, totally a ploy to badmouth a fictional character. worth investing years of his life and artistic passion towards that end. maybe the emperor hurt adb when he was a child. seems likely

[justicarius6]

The Master of Mankind.

 

Now, the quality (ADB's writing style) was amazing, but the content (what ADB chose to write, how he portrayed the Emperor) was absolutely rubbish, and not to my liking. When you have the big 'Chaos' writer of BL write about the Light-Against-Chaos (the Emperor), it reeks a foul ploy to badmouth the Emperor; it makes no sense. I strongly dislike the book, I find it very ridiculous, even more so than The Unremembered Empire (which is my second least favorite book). Also, considering the book is called the 'Master' of 'Mankind', it does not talk much about the Emperor, other then his plans. The portrayal of him was absolutely in the negative, no redeeming qualities of him were depicted at all, it's as if ADB was trying to make the Emperor as unlikeable as possible (I wouldn't be surprised if that was his agenda). Also, it just felt like as ADB finally had the chance to write about the loyalists, he was mostly fooling around, trying to write bits about new things, and sabotaging them while he was at it.

Anyway, that was went through my head as I read the satanic book.

I'm not a fan of ADB's loyalist writings either. He just cannot seem to write loyalist fiction without hints of sarcastic smarm. It's hard to describe but there always seems to be a bad taste in my mouth when I read his writings about anyone other than his favourite chaos.

 

As for other books, I am really really really struggling with the Crimson King. The rare moments of action seem stilted, and so far it just seems to be all Ahriman having a sulk about daddy. Coupled with all the "rise to the third enumeration" stuff every other paragraph and the annoying Egyptian naming devices for everyone and their bolt pistols and I just really struggle to read more than a half chapter at a time when I can be bothered to pick it up!

 

And I liked the other Thousand Suns stuff too!

Edited November 26, 2019 by justicarius6

[Angel_of_Blood]

Huh? His Black Templars, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Celestial Lions and Emperors Spears have all been fantastic. Or going back to Master of Mankind, he's the only author so far that has actually written a decent Blood Angel, his Corax, brief as he was, was awesome and devastating, and pitted against the odds as they were, his Ultramarines from Betrayer were decent characters. And then we have his Dark Angels which were just far beyond anyone elses.

 

It seems that just because of his Night Lords and Black Legion series, then The First Heretic and Betrayer everyone see's him as Chaos only or that he favours Chaos. When I'd argue he's almost written more loyalist or just as much.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Angel_of_Blood

[IamAlphariusxx20]

I really don't get the hate for master of mankind - yeah, the Emperor's a bit of a psychopath, but of course he is - he's looking at the big picture. What he does makes sense in a utilitarian way.

I personally thought MoM was a bit below ADB's usual standards mainly because the main characters didn't have much of a moral conflict, and were all just really, really loyal. The look at how the mechanicus would betray someone was pretty cool though.

[b1soul]

I thought Emperor's Gift felt very rushed at the end.

 

I do think Aaron does CSM better than his loyalists, but frankly, it's the difference between A and A- (maybe a high B+ at worst)

[Fedor]

Don't really get the extent of the praise for Savage Weapons i've read over the years, it's a perfectly good Dark Angels short and is notable for being the first of their HH entries to indicate they weren't going to go down the "plays both sides/waits it out" debate that AoD introduced, but it was hardly some radically new take on the DA or big difference in quality than what we had got for them before it imo. The entertaining Lion and Curze dialogue was the best thing about it for me.

 

That slight disagreement aside, i completely agree with everything else angel of blood said about ADB's loyalist writings. It  also just seems utterly childish to think a writer would willingly sabotage a faction or character through petty bias.

 

I'd say the most dubious authorial creative decision in the HH for me was McNeil's plot for Crimson King seeming to just be a reinterpretation of French's ideas for his Ahriman series, that only seemed to canonically invalidate a lot of those books. Then again it's been ages since i read the Ahriman books so maybe on a reread it would fit together better.

[Sandlemad]

I'd say the most dubious authorial creative decision in the HH for me was McNeil's plot for Crimson King seeming to just be a reinterpretation of French's ideas for his Ahriman series, that only seemed to canonically invalidate a lot of those books. Then again it's been ages since i read the Ahriman books so maybe on a reread it would fit together better.

 

Completely agree on Crimson King. It's like McNeill was taking the same ideas that were explored in the Ahriman trilogy but doing them in a clumsier, less sophisticated way. I've read the Ahriman books recently-ish so reading Crimson King after was like seeing a pantomime version of the same broad ideas wedged into a heresy novel. Like a fetch quest type thing with less interesting versions of the same characters. I think they technically fit together in that there's no obvious contradictions in timeline or whatever but the spirit is so different.

 

Honestly seeing the proliferation of 'primarch shards' as a kind of Horcrux-like item through the heresy and 40k as opposed to their more shadowy and esoteric origin in French's book has been a big disappointment.