Why do people despise it so much? I personally liked it and didnt see anything wrong with it.....
revenant13
Descent of Angels
i liked it also. thought it was very well written, and had much to offer in terms of insight that you would'n't otherwise have understood.
i think a lot of people don't like that it is out of sync with the other books as its set as Caliban is found.
ive never seen anyone criticise it for being vastly wrong the way they do about how events occurred Istvaan 3 or Davin for example, but rather because they don't see why it was set at the time it was.
personally i think it is the 'scene setting' for at least another DA Heresy book, which deals with the introductions that will be needed later, and that it was released early in the series so that it didn't interfere with the story once the pace from the other books had built up
i think a lot of people don't like that it is out of sync with the other books as its set as Caliban is found.
ive never seen anyone criticise it for being vastly wrong the way they do about how events occurred Istvaan 3 or Davin for example, but rather because they don't see why it was set at the time it was.
personally i think it is the 'scene setting' for at least another DA Heresy book, which deals with the introductions that will be needed later, and that it was released early in the series so that it didn't interfere with the story once the pace from the other books had built up
I liked the book...but i thought it was weird how the books about the traitor legions started off with heroic characters with a sunny disposition, whereas the first loyalist book is full of mistrust and darkness. But then again, it's my legion the Dark Angles so LOLZ what else could have happened.
But, if you think about it, dramatically that's not so strange. Think about how it would have been if the "chaos" books had begun by concentrating on dark, tortured characters: "so, you were dark and tortured, and you turned to Chaos... what a surprise, we really didn't 220 pages building up to that, we guessed half way down page one..." or, alternatively, "so, you were full of naive idealism, had a moment of doubt, but stayed loyal... well that was exciting (not)..."
Just from a narrative point of view, it makes more sense... more of a contrast or conflict, makes it more engaging. You wouldn't want BL books to be boring now, would you?
:lit crit cyclops:
Just from a narrative point of view, it makes more sense... more of a contrast or conflict, makes it more engaging. You wouldn't want BL books to be boring now, would you?
:lit crit cyclops:
I didn't hate it but I couldn't see how it fit in the Heresy...as a book I liked it but as part of the HH series I can honestly say I was disappointed.
I absolutely HATED the ending...it didn't make any sense to me and the author didn't give enough supporting detail as to even guess what occured.
If you read the HH series you can afford to skip this book and not worry about what happens(kind of like Flight of the Eisenstein, in a sense)
I absolutely HATED the ending...it didn't make any sense to me and the author didn't give enough supporting detail as to even guess what occured.
If you read the HH series you can afford to skip this book and not worry about what happens(kind of like Flight of the Eisenstein, in a sense)
I lked it.. I like all of them, those that slag any book off should do so after writing one of their own... leave that ripple in time for us all to enjoy
I didn't particularly like it, and I don't think it fit in with the rest of the HH books at all. It's pretty much 300+ pages of DA stuff not related to the Great Crusade/Heresy, with a "Oh yeah, and then they joined up with the Great Crusade and Lion El Johnson was pissed at a bunch of people".
I just came away with so many unanswered questions.
I just came away with so many unanswered questions.
again though, if they do release this 2nd book (and i am sure they will), then all the explanation of the build up has already been done, meaning that the scene is set, and the book can go straight into the action.
yes, DoA may not have been the most riveting read from the series, but it was their to do a job. that job being to lay the foundations of the betrayal, a job that imho was done, and done well
yes, DoA may not have been the most riveting read from the series, but it was their to do a job. that job being to lay the foundations of the betrayal, a job that imho was done, and done well
I just noticed that. Personally, I think the DA have some of the best fluff of any of the Chapters. This book didn't really advance that fluff. You have to admit it was one of the weakest HH novels yet though.
I chose SWs because of the models and style of play, by the way. Might have been DAs if they hadn't put them in skirts.
I chose SWs because of the models and style of play, by the way. Might have been DAs if they hadn't put them in skirts.
it may not have advanced the fluff, but it gave a pretty good explanation of how things started going pear shaped
Well, at least not all wolf players disliked it; I play them and I applaud the book for what it did.
Descent may not have been the greatest in the series, but as has been said before, it was there to do a job. There's a history between Luther, calabanite dark angels, terran dark angels, and Johnson that stretches on from before the great crusade all the way to the aftermath. If that were all done in one book then no matter what it would be out of place. (Probably be very long as well.)
As Drax said, Descent was there so we could see exactly how the seeds of betrayal were sewn. Would a book that went right into the action make sense without knowing why it happened? (Would that not defeat one of the purposes of this series, to explain why everything happened the way it did?)
Descent may not have been the greatest in the series, but as has been said before, it was there to do a job. There's a history between Luther, calabanite dark angels, terran dark angels, and Johnson that stretches on from before the great crusade all the way to the aftermath. If that were all done in one book then no matter what it would be out of place. (Probably be very long as well.)
As Drax said, Descent was there so we could see exactly how the seeds of betrayal were sewn. Would a book that went right into the action make sense without knowing why it happened? (Would that not defeat one of the purposes of this series, to explain why everything happened the way it did?)
One thing I really liked about the HH series was the way the books kind of melded into each other, with parts of battles being told from a different perspective, and the general timeline continuing slowly onwards.
Descent of Angels didn't fit into the trend in any way, as an old school Dark Angels player I was actually really looking forward to it, but honestly, I don't want to really know about the cleansing of a number of evil beasts on Caliban.
If it had been the first book in a seperate but linked Dark Angels series, I would have understood - if they come back later with a second book that makes some of the events from DoA have some relevance to the Horus Heresy, I might understand (ok, so it's pretty obvious they will, but that's just assumption from knowledge of the fluff!)
Right now though, it just sticks out as the dark sheep of what is otherwise a wonderful series. It's not so much that it's a bad book, but compared to the rest of the HH series, it's a bit of a lame duck.... on Caliban
Descent of Angels didn't fit into the trend in any way, as an old school Dark Angels player I was actually really looking forward to it, but honestly, I don't want to really know about the cleansing of a number of evil beasts on Caliban.
If it had been the first book in a seperate but linked Dark Angels series, I would have understood - if they come back later with a second book that makes some of the events from DoA have some relevance to the Horus Heresy, I might understand (ok, so it's pretty obvious they will, but that's just assumption from knowledge of the fluff!)
Right now though, it just sticks out as the dark sheep of what is otherwise a wonderful series. It's not so much that it's a bad book, but compared to the rest of the HH series, it's a bit of a lame duck.... on Caliban
I've played dark angels since I first started playing 40k over 15 years ago.
I've always like their backstory, iconography, basically everything about the Dark Angels (except their primarch's name. Lion is fine, El'Jonson always thought that was kind of lame)
I just finished reading Descent of Angels
Scanlon's novel and its portrayal of individuals has made me consider stripping my over 700 models and carving off their elaborate Dark Angels iconography.
The only characters in the book that were worthwhile were Brother Amadis and the original Lord Cypher. (I also like the Watchers in the Dark as presented here)
Is Angels of Darkness any better?
I've always like their backstory, iconography, basically everything about the Dark Angels (except their primarch's name. Lion is fine, El'Jonson always thought that was kind of lame)
I just finished reading Descent of Angels
Scanlon's novel and its portrayal of individuals has made me consider stripping my over 700 models and carving off their elaborate Dark Angels iconography.
The only characters in the book that were worthwhile were Brother Amadis and the original Lord Cypher. (I also like the Watchers in the Dark as presented here)
Is Angels of Darkness any better?
Between the two, Angels of Darkness is far better (I like Descent but Angels is better.)
Dual storyline and a neat twist on the Dark Angel secret.
Dual storyline and a neat twist on the Dark Angel secret.
I've got to say that I thought Descent of Angels was terrible compared to any other HH book (apart from Battle of the Abyss, which was also not very good).
But why did I think it was so bad?
1. It didn't give me any real feeling for the Lion, except that he's the most awesome guy ever on Caliban. Dark Angel fans tell me that you can read other fluff for that; but a standalone book should stand alone, not require cross referencing. I didn't know anything about Horus' personality pre-heresy or the Lunar Wolves, but I did by the end of the first book.
2. It introduced great things - like Librarians, actual interaction with the Emperor - then did NOTHING with them
3. It read like it was not even edited before going to the presses. The printing I had featured 2 chapter 4's! Not the same chapter twice mind you, but two different chapters both numberer Chapter 4.
4. It was riddled with grammatical errors. "I bid you welcome you to Caliban" for example.
It was an effort to finish the book.
I have a host of other reasons for not liking Battle of the Abyss, Legion was slow going at the start, but the twist at the end was worth it (and I felt like I gave a damn about the Alpha Legion at the end of it too).
But why did I think it was so bad?
1. It didn't give me any real feeling for the Lion, except that he's the most awesome guy ever on Caliban. Dark Angel fans tell me that you can read other fluff for that; but a standalone book should stand alone, not require cross referencing. I didn't know anything about Horus' personality pre-heresy or the Lunar Wolves, but I did by the end of the first book.
2. It introduced great things - like Librarians, actual interaction with the Emperor - then did NOTHING with them
3. It read like it was not even edited before going to the presses. The printing I had featured 2 chapter 4's! Not the same chapter twice mind you, but two different chapters both numberer Chapter 4.
4. It was riddled with grammatical errors. "I bid you welcome you to Caliban" for example.
It was an effort to finish the book.
I have a host of other reasons for not liking Battle of the Abyss, Legion was slow going at the start, but the twist at the end was worth it (and I felt like I gave a damn about the Alpha Legion at the end of it too).
the beginning was boring to me but overall i like the book. It gives some back ground info on the legion. Which i think is cool.
I don't think my first post came through. I read the book and liked it. The beginnig bored me but I liked the book in general. The background info on the Death Angles was good.
I really didn't like DoA, it did nothing to move the story forward and was IMO badly written. The book just seemed to run out of pages, I honestly considered checking to see if there had been a misprint and a chapter had been missed.
It may well be a setting for a later book but I think it could have been handled a whole lot better.
The first three books were outstanding, so was Fulgrim (sorry I can't remember the order they were released in now!)
Even Flight of the Eisenstien moved the story forward in it's own way and showed how word finally got back to the Emperor.
Legion was a good read and explained a few (only a few) things about Alpha Legion but then I think much of the Alpha Legion fluff should remain secret, it seems to add more to them.
Battle for the Abyss was an OK stand alone read but again did nothing for the overall story, any hopes of finding out a little more about the WB were dashed in favour of all out action.
I hope Mechanicum is a better effort.
As for the comment about writing a book before you critisize one, what?
I can't drive but I know an Aston Martin DB9 is a better car than a Vauxhaul Cavalier, I can't sing but I know I'd rather listen to Christina from Lacuna Coil than the old harridan screeching at the local Karaoke.
It may well be a setting for a later book but I think it could have been handled a whole lot better.
The first three books were outstanding, so was Fulgrim (sorry I can't remember the order they were released in now!)
Even Flight of the Eisenstien moved the story forward in it's own way and showed how word finally got back to the Emperor.
Legion was a good read and explained a few (only a few) things about Alpha Legion but then I think much of the Alpha Legion fluff should remain secret, it seems to add more to them.
Battle for the Abyss was an OK stand alone read but again did nothing for the overall story, any hopes of finding out a little more about the WB were dashed in favour of all out action.
I hope Mechanicum is a better effort.
As for the comment about writing a book before you critisize one, what?
I can't drive but I know an Aston Martin DB9 is a better car than a Vauxhaul Cavalier, I can't sing but I know I'd rather listen to Christina from Lacuna Coil than the old harridan screeching at the local Karaoke.
I thought it was a decent book. I liked reading about how the whole Dark Angels' secret history started out. I did'nt really see any problems with it...
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
