'Siege of Terra - The End and the Death Volume 1' by Dan Abnett

[EverythingIsGreat]

It doesn't seem plausible that it is a 2-way portal. The Throne is still active. Secondly, if the Throne's spiritual aegis could be bypassed, Horus would meet the Emperor at the Palace rather than risking the final act on some dispersal voodoo.

But who knows. The way I read it is, ALL the principals are now buckling under pressure. Interesting that Abbadon is one of very few still keeping his wits about him.

[tgcleric]

23 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

I didn't really think much about the custodes characterization while reading, but I just finished up another reread of First Heretic. Yikes. Not a flattering comparison with ADBs, who can make the Custodes feel aloof and hyper-focussed on their duty without making them robots. Like, they're actual characters, that can banter and have their own perspectives. This is broadly held up by wraight in Watchers and Vaults, and idk why it's not the same at the very end of the series. Also King-of-Ages is cringe.

 

I know I've complained about mischaracterization by abnett a lot, and people have said "but abnetts so good, I'm fine with him doing what he wants instead of McNeil bungling more things". It's not as simple as that. Yea, there's tons of bad writing in this enormous series. But it's easy to discard so much of it and focus on the actual really good ones, and the really good ones are still getting tossed aside. When a whole lot of people started acting weird in Lost and the Damned (zardu, pert, etc...) It was called out. Same thing in First Wall. And it's why there was criticism of Saturnine for the change in how established primarchs like dorn and the Khan talked. Imagine abnett writing gaunts ghosts like he did, up until salvations reach, but then wraight does the last two. They're well written, but every character talks and acts differently enough to rub the wrong way. That's basically what happened. 

 

 

Except Abnett has been consistent with his writing. He started the series and the tone and style. And just personally, I find his characterizations vastly better than most others outside of wraight and ABD. And even then I think both lack compared to Abnett on that front.

 

It also doesn't bother me cause I just accept and am used to different authors and artists having different interpretations. It doesn't bother me between books if characters act different. Do I wish that wasn't the case? I guess. But you take the good with the bad when you do a multi author series. The good is seeing a variety of styles and approaches to a story. The worse thing you can do is force complete conformity cause you are essentially asking authors to go against their own skills and forcing compromises for an impossible task.

 

At the end of the day, if the primarchs all talked and acted like the do in Abnetts books, this would be a series that non warhammer fans could actually enjoy as it would be full of unique and well drawn characters.

 

But it's not. There is a reason I can remember most of the names and general characteristics and even dramatic wants of anyone whose been in an abnett book. But essentially draw a blank on any character not a primarch or named Keeler anytime they show up in the story. I have to check the dramatis. And even then it's like... ah. Captain of blood angels... :cuss: was his deal again? Ah. He was in fear to tread. Okay... :cuss: was his deal again? Ah, he was with sanguinus at the maze thing. :cuss: was his deal again? Ah, yes. He had no personality.

 

Looking forward to a reread of this. I listened to all the siege books, and am working through an actual reading. Just finished Saturnine, and the shift in quality is, once again, shockingly apparent. And I like Haley alright, but still. Abnett writes actual characters.

 

Mortis is... it's killing me trying to get through it. Was hard listening. And reading is making it worse. French has a lot of qualities, but plotting and any sense of narrative momentum is not one of them. And Mortis needed that in spades. Why he's best in shorter form. 

 

 

 

[Scribe]

20 minutes ago, tgcleric said:

At the end of the day, if the primarchs all talked and acted like the do in Abnetts books, this would be a series that non warhammer fans could actually enjoy as it would be full of unique and well drawn characters.

 

I can just float over most of what you are saying as difference of opinion but what? His Primarchs are worse than Wraight and ADB, dramatically. Rob in Know no Fear (Abnetts best contribution to the series) vs Rob in Unremembered Empire?

 

Your talking about personality, when Abnett delivered almost zero of it over this last book.

 

I cannot think of an interesting character except for who...Fo?

 

Everything else had its character defined better previously, or he actively ruined it like with the Custodes.

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

Except Abnett has been consistent with his writing. He started the series and the tone and style.

 

Something I never talked about? I didn't say his writing was internally inconsistent with itself. 

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

I find his characterizations vastly better than most others outside of wraight and ABD. And even then I think both lack compared to Abnett on that front.

 

His characterization is better than Thorpe, swallow, kyme and Haley. His human characterization is better than adb, wright and french to varying degrees. Most of his primarch and marine characterization is worse than that latter group. Aximand, zephon, abaddon, dorn, curze, jaghatai, custodes, etc... are all substantially better when abnett isn't writing them. 

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

The worse thing you can do is force complete conformity cause you are essentially asking authors to go against their own skills and forcing compromises for an impossible task.

If it's impossible for an author to keep a character the same then they're a bad author. TV shows, movies, and book series have multiple writers touch characters and they stay the same across the breadth of the project. French can keep the lorgar the same as when ADB wrote him; why can't "best author" abnett do something similar?

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

At the end of the day, if the primarchs all talked and acted like the do in Abnetts books, this would be a series that non warhammer fans could actually enjoy as it would be full of unique and well drawn characters.

 

If all the characters were consistent then it would be a better series, agreed. But let's not pretend he's the only one that can write well-rounded characters, or that his Horus is now very much the exception as a compelling primarch compared to the 8 or so he's touched. 

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

But it's not. There is a reason I can remember most of the names and general characteristics and even dramatic wants of anyone whose been in an abnett book. But essentially draw a blank on any character not a primarch or named Keeler anytime they show up in the story. I have to check the dramatis. And even then it's like... ah. Captain of blood angels... was his deal again? Ah. He was in fear to tread. Okay... was his deal again? Ah, he was with sanguinus at the maze thing. was his deal again? Ah, yes. He had no personality.

 Ironic when this book is filled with lifeless characters. Rann, zephon, sol talgron, shiban, every custode. They sucked; they could have been any jk Rowling stereotyped name from their legion and there would have been no difference.

Edited April 9, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Roomsky]

52 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Ironic when this book is filled with lifeless characters. Rann, zephon, sol talgron, shiban, every custode. They sucked; they could have been any jk Rowling stereotyped name from their legion and there would have been no difference.

 

I can't believe you'd talk about Gabriel Nosfertus and Manos the Stoic like that!

[DarkChaplain]

3 hours ago, tgcleric said:

Abnett has been consistent with his writing

 

Yeah, he has been. With his writing. But he's not the only one writing these characters - it's a shared toybox. A lot of characters throughout the series have been flip-flopping or reverting experiences/arcs/behavior when Abnett got back to them. The most notable examples from the Siege are Euphrati Keeler, Kyril Sindermann and Garviel Loken. They've gone through things in other authors' books, but reading Abnett's Siege entries, you would hardly see that.

 

Looking at Saturnine in particular, where he killed off a bunch of other shared characters that barely even got speaking roles, or Sor Talgron in TEATD.... Heck, even Zephon and Fafnir Rann might as well be different characters from when we last saw them. People also pointed out Amit doing a bit of a heel-turn on his reactions before and after the closing of the Eternity Gate.

 

THIS is the stuff that ticks people off. It's a thing that happened plenty of times. It may also happen with other authors, but it's particularly notable with Abnett. It can be a blessing that he sticks to his own vision of a character or faction, or that he'll reinvent them in his own design (hello, HH-Ultramarines), but it can also cause a lot of conflicts with previous material.

 

3 hours ago, tgcleric said:

It also doesn't bother me cause I just accept and am used to different authors and artists having different interpretations.

 

That's cool and all, but that is pretty much apathy. It's fine if Brandon Sanderson has a different style from Tolkien, or that they have different views on similar concepts. But when Sanderson finishes Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, he'd better try to stick close to the former's vision, not his own.

It's a bit more complex with a sandbox like Warhammer, but the general rule should always be to treat your co-authors' works, characters and visions with appropriate respect and take their efforts into account.

 

That's one thing that Abnett will likely never surpass Guy Haley or Josh Reynolds, and others, on. It's not just research and lip-service. It's respect for those who wrote before, instead of risking to overwrite existing visions because your idea is potentially better. Even a great idea should click with those that came before it. 40k is an additive setting.

 

  

3 hours ago, tgcleric said:

But it's not. There is a reason I can remember most of the names and general characteristics and even dramatic wants of anyone whose been in an abnett book. But essentially draw a blank on any character not a primarch or named Keeler anytime they show up in the story. I have to check the dramatis. And even then it's like... ah. Captain of blood angels... was his deal again? Ah. He was in fear to tread. Okay... was his deal again? Ah, he was with sanguinus at the maze thing. was his deal again? Ah, yes. He had no personality.

 

And THAT's a You-Problem. Also a problem with Fear to Tread just being a bad book, but if you need one of those to make your argument for you, well, the argument itself suffers.

There are so many outstanding characters even in one-off novels throughout the series, a lot of which have been unceremoniously axed during the Siege - a bunch even by Abnett himself - I don't even know where to begin. Characters who aren't Sigismund, Amit or Shiban. Maybe they didn't work for you, but "no personality"? Really? Have we read the same 60+ book here?

Edited April 9, 2023 by DarkChaplain

[tgcleric]

I don't need every character "ceremoniously" axed. 

 

Also, a shared series like this is different than a TV show. Yes, a TV show has multiple writers, but usually a single creative vision and head writer. That head writer is more than an editor and often rewrites every script even if they aren't credited as doing such. 

 

You also have actors who are consistent more or less in their voice. 

 

This is closer, but still less consistent, to like Dr Who. Where writers have a clear style and obvious takes on the character.

 

Anyways. Yes, we've read the same 60+ books. It's not a me problem. It's not a problem at all. It's just my reaction after having read, literally 60 novels of this series, plus more shorts and audio dramas. Also, in a relatively short time. Just over 3 years. 

 

Also, isn't Fear to Tread relatively liked? And I would agree that there are quite a few characters that stand out in the shorts. I think quite a few of the writers in the BL benefit greatly from the short story medium.  There you get some great characters like Barbaras.

 

I guess at the end of the day it's just always surprising to see the complaints of Abnett being that he isn't consistent with lesser writers. It's like a odd bias this board has. Like, when I read an ABD and wraight book, there characterizations are drastically different (aka good) than what came before it too. But abnett seems to get the complaint. 

 

Which again makes even less sense since he started the tone and style. Every author post should be apologizing for how badly they didn't follow the clear characterization of Horus, chaos, and the 30k imperium established in Horus Rising.

[EverythingIsGreat]

The HH/SoT may be settings, but they are also stories with a certain evolution. Characters would be hardly believable if they didn't evolve along with the story-telling. Especially characters portrayed as having grandiose designs or see themselves as fundamental to the success of grandiose designs. Plotwise their universe is turned upside down, and at this point the utterly unthinkable is happening (it being the unknown, an alien quality for most characters, who are all oh-so-certain of their mission and destiny. No one character has a clear idea of how this will end, bravado notwithstanding). So I think it is imperative that the portrayal of characters is keeping pace with the seismic changes in their outlook and in the universe they occupy. Unless the characters are overtaken by insanity and are no longer able to discern the real from the false. Insanity is pretty consistent in that respect.

[SkimaskMohawk]

3 hours ago, DarkChaplain said:

But when Sanderson finishes Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, he'd better try to stick close to the former's vision, not his own

 

Yea like, when the Brendan Sanderson parts of the wheel of time came out, obviously the characters didn't match exactly with their previous iterations. But man did he try his best to preserve them and Jordan's style; he didn't just write how he was most comfortable and change them.

3 hours ago, DarkChaplain said:

will likely never surpass Guy Haley or Josh Reynolds, and others, on. It's not just research and lip-service. It's respect for those who wrote before, instead of risking to overwrite existing visions

 

Josh Reynolds really showed this with Apocalypse. He had 4 different marine factions that felt like they fit in with every major representation, with the word bearers touching on both ADBs heresy books and the other Reynolds trilogy. Not to mention the Fabius trilogy.  

[b1soul]

Blame BL for the policy of everything is canon and nothing is canon, something I recall ADB supported (and reminded fans of several times) when he was still active on some forums, not necessarily this one. Silver lining is this looser policy might have prevented the likes of Wraight, Abnett, French, ADB from being strictly bound to the preferences of someone like Thorpe or Kyme

 

So for a long while, seems every mainline HH authour was largely free to bring their own unique takes on major characters or even factions, which is why the HH series as a whole feels rather disjointed to me, but if you enjoy this sort of variety, then it's not necessarily "disjointed"...it's perhaps just "tonally diverse"

 

On 4/9/2023 at 12:33 AM, SkimaskMohawk said:

I didn't really think much about the custodes characterization while reading, but I just finished up another reread of First Heretic. Yikes. Not a flattering comparison with ADBs, who can make the Custodes feel aloof and hyper-focussed on their duty without making them robots.

That's a thin line and I think very subjective.

 

Ra and especially Diocletian felt pretty "robotic" to me. A more common complaint around MoM's release was flat or boring Custodes characters.

 

First Heretic [2011?] was also an earlier era for the portrayal of Custodes. It was like a step away from Blood Games [2009?] before ADB went full-blown MoM.

 

Of course, it was ultimately MoM which ushered in "modern" Custodes as we know them, and the first thing that struck me about Custodes in that book was how they're very monotone relative to many Astartes we've seen.

Edited April 10, 2023 by b1soul

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 minutes ago, b1soul said:

I think this is very subjective.

Ra and esp. Diocletian felt pretty robotic to me.

 

How diocletian interacted with people bordered on robotic for sure, as it was cold and blunt. His thoughts though? Full of impatience, frustration, and anger. 

 

Ra? Has a ton of character.

[Corinthus]

60+ books with multiple authors and the discussion is about some B-list character not being exactly like it was 20 books before. I think it is  a pointless argument.

 

Let’s talk ADB:

He wrote two books for the HH, and then Master of Mankind, which is almost an outliner in the saga. From those books he only rescued Land and Lotara for a brief cameo and resurrected a dull character like Zephon for no real reason. No Diocletian, no Ra or the impossible to name deamon sword. Abaddon? The character he developed so much in his Black Legion’s books? Waiting in the bench. Sevatar? One of his most liked characters after his Nightlords trilogy? Nowhere to be seen. He basically axed Sevatar from the ending of the saga and then, to finish off, let another writer end Khârn’s arc. And to top it off, he filled one half of his Siege book with a copy of the same duel but with C-tier characters.

Why isn’t he to blame for writing a book so disconnected, not only from other authors stories, but also from his own previous work?  
 

At least Wright took his Scars to the finish line and delivered. ADB didn’t show up as the moment deserved, and just wrote a disconnected A to B story to fill the needs of the plotline.

Somehow it’s Abnett’s fault that the series took so long and also that, in Siege Book 8, there’s so many characters from so many authors that didn’t get the perfectly clear and expected characterization in the ending they deserved.

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Corinthus

[b1soul]

41 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

How diocletian interacted with people bordered on robotic for sure, as it was cold and blunt. His thoughts though? Full of impatience, frustration, and anger. 

 

Ra? Has a ton of character.

 

I put Ra and Diocletian in the same category as Archamus (the old generation one): they were all flat characters to me. But with nu-Custodes and an old-school Fist...I think that might be forgiven as a deliberate method of characterisation.

 

(As many here probably know, ADB and French are both high-tier BL authours in my view, so I'm not saying they can't write very well...I just don't enjoy every single one of their characters)

 

41 minutes ago, Corinthus said:

Let’s talk ADB:

He wrote two books for the HH, and then Master of Mankind, which is almost an outliner in the saga. From those books he only rescued Land and Lotara for a brief cameo and resurrected a dull character like Zephon for no real reason...

 

...let another writer end Khârn’s arc. 

 

At least Wright took his Scars to the finish line and delivered. ADB didn’t show up as the moment deserved, and just wrote a disconnected A to B story to fill the needs of the plotline.

 

Can ADB be fully blamed for Sevatar being removed from the Siege...there might have been some editorial pressure to streamline the plot? Though I think more likely a creative call on Bowden's part, I'm not sure what Sev would really add to the Siege. Though Aaron may not have the intent, Sev has always read to me like a character the authour is really trying to promote or make "special" and it grates on me, and personally, I'm not a NL fan so this isn't really a loss to me.

 

I def agree ADB shoulda finished Khârn's arc, but this might boil down to editorial arrangement and his painstaking pace of writing. ADB delivers some of the best quality prose in BL, but he writes very slowly (I recall he mentioned this himself in the past), so other authours might have to step in to tie up some of his threads.

 

This is why I place Wraight above ADB in the HH series: he started and finished the best arc in the series and it's relatively well integrated into the wider narrative:

1. Warhawk of Chogoris

2. Brotherhood of the Storm

3. Scars

4. Path of Heaven

5. Warhawk

6. All the WS-related short stories by Wraight

 

I'm a WS fan so def biased to some degree. 

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Corinthus said:

Somehow it’s Abnett’s fault that the series took so long...

 

Its not his fault the series took so long. You can place that at the feet of Black Library editors and management.

 

However THIS sub series? The Siege of Terra? Well yes, that is 100% Abnetts fault. More than half this last book is filler. Easily. I'd say 3/4 of it could have been removed with ZERO consequence.

 

Nothing is even remotely resolved by this book. Its a nothing piece in the long run honestly.

 

They teleported to the VS.

 

The End.

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, b1soul said:

I def agree ADB shoulda finished Khârn's arc, but this might boil down to editorial arrangement and his painstaking pace of writing. ADB delivers some of the best quality prose in BL, but he writes very slowly (I recall he mentioned this himself in the past), so other authours might have to step in to tie up some of his threads.

 

This is why I place Wraight above ADB in the HH series: he started and finished the best arc in the series and it's relatively well integrated into the wider narrative:

1. Warhawk of Chogoris

2. Brotherhood of the Storm

3. Scars

4. Path of Heaven

5. Warhawk

6. All the WS-related short stories by Wraight

 

Honestly the strength of his WS stuff is pretty hard to argue against. The fact he got left alone to do it all is one of if not the strongest parts of the whole series.

 

Unfortunately, everyone seemed to what to get their shot at the WE and Khârn, but ADB's stuff is by far the best of it, and his WB's is also the best of that Legion without question.

 

First Heretic and Betrayer are top of the heap, and Master of Mankind is required reading, but yes, Wraight dropping all that whole arc is pretty hard to argue against.

[wecanhaveallthree]

Quote

I think it is  a pointless argument.

 

INCORRECT. No argument in pointless, frater, if for love of the game alone.

 

To suggest that some characters or events can simply be ignored or deleted as they're 'b-list' in a consistent series is exactly the problem. It's not 'tonally diverse' - it's a failure, at very least - and the most obvious - at the editorial level. I don't believe authors are going rogue and escaping the chains of their word-pits. It's the job of an editorial staff to ensure there's consistent vision, consistent characterisation, and consistent action. Continuity is important in such a long-running work, because reinventing the wheel and reintroducing it with a different number of spokes every book makes it very difficult to form attachments and appreciation of where things are going. Otherwise it's just not a character surmounting their arc, it's NAME doing THING with no guarantee that THING will even matter (or be ever mentioned again).

 

And that's the running complaint here. There is no more road, but the can is still getting one hell of a kick.

 

There is very little to say in the defence of Abnett or ADB OR Kyme and co. It didn't have to be this way. This is a collective failure: of vision, of characterisation, of action.

 

If only McNeill were still here... he'd punch to the spine of this matter! None of this tacit apologia! 

 

EDIT, as Scribe CUNNINGLY attempted to SNEAK this past me:

 

Quote

Nothing is even remotely resolved by this book. Its a nothing piece in the long run honestly.

 

They teleported to the VS.

 

The End.

 

That's been a problem for the entire damn Siege. We opened with three-fourths of a novel where Mercedes Oliton plays murder-mystery with some store-brand Solar Auxilia, a few lines about how there would be an awesome strategic confrontation between the tactical prowess of the Heresy's two premiere grand warfare experts (which never ended up happening, in any book, as Perturabo had to return to his home planet) which ended in 'the Traitors teleport to Terra'.

Edited April 10, 2023 by wecanhaveallthree
no evil escapes my sight

[SkimaskMohawk]

35 minutes ago, b1soul said:

 

I put Ra and Diocletian in the same category as Archamus (the old generation one): they were all flat characters to me. But with nu-Custodes and an old-school Fist...I think that might be forgiven as a deliberate method of characterisation.

 

I agree that they don't necessarily have an arc or growth, but they're absolutely characters with distinct personalities. 

 

Everyone I've complained about from EATD have 0 defining features. None.

 

1 hour ago, Corinthus said:

Why isn’t he to blame for writing a book so disconnected, not only from other authors stories, but also from his own previous work?  
 

At least Wright took his Scars to the finish line and delivered. ADB didn’t show up as the moment deserved, and just wrote a disconnected A to B story to fill the needs of the plotline.

Somehow it’s Abnett’s fault that the series took so long and also that, in Siege Book 8, there’s so many characters from so many authors that didn’t get the perfectly clear and expected characterization in the ending they deserved.

 

People did blame him for leaving a lot for abnett to wrap up. Roomsky loved echoes but still pointed that out on page 18 or 19; the issues of echoes weren't ignored or swept under the rug. I personally criticized how disconnected the crusade parts were from the siege parts. But it's definitely not disconnected from his own work, unless somehow Land, Zephon, lotarra, audax, World eaters and Word bearers weren't some of the major elements of his heresy novels.

 

And no one is saying "X character needed to be in the finale and have an arc". We don't need to see every single character left alive in the siege; its massive and the focus should be....focussed. Notice how we never saw malcharions epic slaying of three imperial heroes? That's fine, it happened offscreen somewhere. Z&R fighting street battles could have also happened offscreen, but if it needed to be shown, then the characters should be the characters. 

[Scribe]

17 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Z&R fighting street battles could have also happened offscreen

 

100% product tie in, of the most base kind.

[TrevorLoLz]

5 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

100% product tie in, of the most base kind.

 

I'm assuming you mean product tie in because there were Rann and Zephon models release a few months beforehand? I'm not sure I necessarily agree, although I can see why you think that.

For me, they've been central characters of this series and for them to just disappear could have been a pretty noticeable omission (sorta like Sigismund).  There were Rann & Zephon parts which were quite good imo (e.g. duel with Sol Talgron) and a lot which was just clear filler.  Their scenes, I think, were meant to be pace changers by Abnett but just come off as filler in the worst way.

[DukeLeto69]

Pretty clear our Bolter & Chainsword homebrew chapter should be called...

 

Fractious Fraters

[EverythingIsGreat]

The coat of arms could include a shield split down the middle

[Blindhamster]

21 hours ago, b1soul said:

This is why I place Wraight above ADB in the HH series: he started and finished the best arc in the series and it's relatively well integrated into the wider narrative:

1. Warhawk of Chogoris

2. Brotherhood of the Storm

3. Scars

4. Path of Heaven

5. Warhawk

6. All the WS-related short stories by Wraight

 

I'm a WS fan so def biased to some degree. 

 

As a blood angel fan, I'd have killed for a series in the heresy as good as the white scars narrative. It was truly exceptional within the HH series.

 

Wraights 40k space wolves are similarly excellent IMO, as are his Custodes. To me he's probably the most consistently good author, in that he sets things up and finishes them, and they're to the same quality throughout.

 

Personally I love Haleys Blood Angels books for 40k, Dante in particularl. But Realistically that's only a few books, with fairly unrelated/fragmented narratives overall. Where the above scars books just really built up an impressive arc.

[System Sound]

9 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

As a blood angel fan, I'd have killed for a series in the heresy as good as the white scars narrative. It was truly exceptional within the HH series.

Most legions deserved more. Especially Iron Hands.

 

9 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Wraights 40k space wolves are similarly excellent IMO, as are his Custodes. To me he's probably the most consistently good author, in that he sets things up and finishes them, and they're to the same quality throughout.

Battle of the Fang is a horrendous stinker. But his Watchers stuff is incredible.

 

9 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

.Personally I love Haleys Blood Angels books for 40k, Dante in particularl. But Realistically that's only a few books, with fairly unrelated/fragmented narratives overall. Where the above scars books just really built up an impressive arc.

Haley's Dante trilogy and Hink's Mephiston trilogy was a very fun ride.

[b1soul]

I thought SW fans generally like/really like Battle of the Fang.

 

I thought it was quite good, but it'll never be quite a fave of mine as SW are one of my least liked factions

[Nagashsnee]

Whatever project BL does next, the HH white scar collection is the template they need to study, learn from and copy. 

 

Knowing them tho it will end up being the HH salamander trilogy .