Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Craw-Daddy
Joined
·
4,472 Posts
I think its kind of harsh, though I know your not trying to be. I actually liked all his Heresy Novels thus far. Some more than others.

I would say that some of his novels are quite radical, like Legion, or Prospero Burns. However, if my time in the Heresy series has taught me anything, its that I would choose quality any day.

Horus Rising, still such an awesome book, and I really don't think the series would have gone this far without it.

As far as his "radical" pieces, I've always noticed polar feeling from either or both Legion, or Prospero Burns. In each instance, it makes each legion appear over powered compared to the rest. But I once wondered how the series would be if Dan Abnett could have written about each legion. It would have probably been impossible, but it certainly would have had a certain flow. There are very few authors in the Heresy Series that should be considered consistent, and along with ADB, I would say Abnett really fills that spot.
 

·
Craw-Daddy
Joined
·
4,472 Posts
That still makes no sense.

To identify your strengths, you also need to identify your weaknesses. Take for example Power Armour. They know that the weak points are the visors and joints because there's no plating there.

That is the very basic of knowing the theory of taking down marines.

When they are in training, punching another astartes in the chest is going to do nothing, because of the fused and reinforced bone of the ribcage - you can't stab them in the heart or lungs. They have reduced reliance on things like the intestinal system - that leaves at a guess from pov either along the armpit or the neck.

Considering that this Primarch is Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Duke of Wellington, Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal and Rommel all rolled into one, I find it singularly disconcerting that even considering the events on Monarchia he didn't envisage the potential for attacking legions.

The Space Wolves considered themselves "Executioners in the Emperor's role", and that the Ultramarines new that time would come for them to give up the way of the warrior, they have to be intelligent enough to realise that time would have come to kill other legionaries. Why there were no theoreticals for that is pretty criminal for the point of view of a commander.

You can state that "you can't compare with a far future military of transhuman supersoldiers", but from pretty much every high tech super advanced military film and scifi ever pretty much consists of such technology reneging on the humans, without that being a metatype thinking, for such highly capable characters (imagine Littlefinger in the Game of Thrones or Varys with their intelligence and cognitive speed in recognizing the change of political landscape) to not think "oh shit, what if putting Horus in charge of the majority of the Imperium's armed forces was a bad thing?" (which Guilliman, among others, thought in the first place), why was there nothing in place?

I can't exactly say that they'll have imagined a massive starship crashing into a planet and then having the systems star turned into a poisonous radioactive light is pretty out there, but repeatedly harping on the point that there was no "theoreticals" from a wider perspective is absolute bullshit, as is the reason for why Thiel was marked for Censure.

I don't have that many other complaints about it, but that massive amount of self evident logic gap is annoying for me.
I agree. I think many in the series try to depict the loyalist loyalist as innocent and undoubtly loyal to the Imperium and Emperor. Horus Rising showed Horus' concerns about having the legions in line. It just seems weird that at one point we have many legions who are skeptical and jealous of the new Warmaster and then, all of a sudden, they don't know what the fuck is going on.

The Ultramarines not knowing that is pretty absurd. They embarrassed the Word Bearers and played it so coy in that novel that it does stir my guts.

The realistic view of the legions, which goes back from the beginning should really have been that all the legions were skeptical of one another, and even when they chose sides. Thats absolutely realistic, and I believe we are seeing some of that especially in the traitors but even the Lion and Gilliman seem to be falling into that.
 

·
Craw-Daddy
Joined
·
4,472 Posts
Tho, it is stated in KNF that guilliman was happy and understanding of horus becoming warmaster. So why would Guilliman think that, Horus, who he believes a noble and worthy commander, would betray him and the Imperium?

And sure, Guilliman wasnt fond of lorgar, alpharius, the khan ect, but i doubt he would have thought they would turn against him, esspecially when he wasnt aware of chaos.
Could be jealousy, or worse... hubris.

I could see Guilliman thinking his ideology to be perfect and right for all mankind... After all, he almost went to war with what the series describes as the most honest of the Primarchs... Dorn.

When an individual is set in believing his doctrine, ideology, etc... are the best... When that individual "knows" they are the best, they will stop at nothing to enforce it upon everyone else. The Emperor of mankind did this mind you.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top