Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
Cancel

Angels of Darkness V Fallen Angels (spoilers)

2803 Views 15 Replies 12 Participants Last post by  ckcrawford, 
mal310
Just finished Angles of Darkness. I enjoyed it, but reading it has annoyed me. Fallen Angles (which I dislike even more now) and Angels of Darkness hardly match up to say the least! Honestly, did Mike Lee even bother to read this before starting his book?? I know that authors have their own take on events and I understand this. But the two books each have fundamental and completely different histories for the Dark Angles. These are not minor discrepancies around the periphery but themes central to the Legions identity. AOD suggests that Luther was loyal (as does the opening blurb of Decent of Angels) but in FA he clearly was not. Astelan’s portrayal in FA is farcical to say the least and the whole thing seems a total mess.
I really enjoy Black Libraries work but I have to hold them responsible for this shambles. It’s easy to say “oh Astelan was just lying” but that is a cop out as AOD seemed to be all about why Astelan was not lying and in fact telling the truth.
The issue around the Lion’s fence sitting has clearly not been resolved and this could still go either way. Personally I would like to see Gav Thrope write the next Horus Heresy Dark Angles book and for the Lion to be a treacherous fence sitter.
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 2 of 16 Posts
ckcrawford
The important thing about Angels of Darkness is that we know that just because the fallen are traitors to the Dark Angels, it doesn't mean they are chaos.

Some information that we know:

-In Tharsis he created a world in which would follow the ideals of the Imperium
-He is not corrupted, and believes what he says is the truth
-He claims to be the one who ordered fire on the Lion's returning fleet.
Reply
Save
Like
ckcrawford
I understand what Darkreever says, but I have to admit disregarding information from previous books is kind like... well okay your going to do this but theres already fluff out there that needs elaboration. In my opinion I did not like Fallen Angel as I felt a lot of the secrecy that was created in Decent of Angels were destroyed. Either by writing style or whatever.The characters were no longer dark and mysterious but just real boring and everything unoriginal one would think about when first reading the 2nd edition DA codex. Both Dan Abnet and Graham McNeill both say they have collections of Warhammer books and fluff in their libraries that they revert to. Even codexes. And if indeed ADB does too you can see a pattern of success and sense to their writings to all three authors.

If both ADB and Darkreever are saying that the Heresy fluff is or will becomming the more acceptable form for information then I got to say, that DA part feels a little out of whack to me, but so hey... So does Battle of the Abyss. The good thing about that novel though is that you can ignore that novel as it doesn't destroy the integrity for any particular Legion, (Word Bearers are getting their own novel and I'm sure the Ultrabois will too). Fallen Angel has made the DA story a bit bumpy by the least
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 2 of 16 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.
Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums
A forum community dedicated to Warhammer, Warhammer 40K enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Warhammer and Wargaming collections, miniatures, tactics, terrain, reviews, accessories, history, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General 40k Modelling and Painting Wargaming News and 40k Rumors Project Logs New Member Introductions
Top