# Soul Hunter/Helsreach



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

My hopes of 40k novels have been answered, by the same and possibly my new favourite author Aaron Dembski-Bowden. My favourite legion, the Night Lords, are getting their own novel series starting in march 2010 with the novel Soul Hunter.










And while im not a big loyalist Space Marine fan I do have some favourites among them and my favourite loyalist is also getting a book. Chaplain Grimaldus of the Black Templars.










Is anyone else planning to get these novels?, if so what do you think about them.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Trust me, I'm drooling over them so much I can't *not* get them. What I've seen so far of Dembski-Bowden's work has been *very* intruiging, especially, given his upcoming works, his marvelous portrayal of Astartes (in "One Hate", in _Heroes of the Space Marines_).


----------



## Dar'kir (Jul 11, 2009)

im gonna get them both


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Im gonna pre-order both along with Dark Creed at x-mas once I get some more money. Can't wait to see Grimaldus's epic line in Helsreach. "I have dug my grave in this place and I will either triumph or I will die."


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

2 reviews for Soul Hunter are up, ADB seems to be kicking ass!

http://myfavouritebooks.blogspot.com/2010/01/soul-hunter-aaron-dembski-bowden.html

& 

http://www.graemesfantasybookreview.com/2010/01/soul-hunter-aaron-dembski-bowden-black.html


----------



## RudeAwakening79 (Oct 20, 2008)

thanks for these reviews, brother subtle!

Looks like I'm buying these books in the near future. Finish Titanicus first, then buy Soulhunter/Helsreach and Dark Creed. What a great start of the year this is, eh guys?


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Definitely. Plus the second review was very interesting. Some Night Lords are faltering in the teachings of Curze and allying with the Chaos Gods, and the serfs below still serve willingly rather then through fear. The serf Eurydice and her parts are going to be very interesting.

Can't wait for this book. Glad I pre-ordered it. Only problem is will I read it all in one day like Dark Creed or try and make the book last.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Thanks for those reviews _Brother Subtle_ - both interesting. Im definatly going to get _Soul Hunter_ without a doubt! I think its fascinating what direction the Night Lords been taken, the sort of underdog of Traitor Legions - but that some are now turning to Chaos to avoid their hopeless situation :grin: - I imagine we'll get tonnes of juicy information from this series like we did regarding the Word Bearers from the Word Bearers series.

This has actually motivated me to read _Lord of the Night_, which like quite a few books have just been sat on my shelf for ages collecting dust!


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Thanks for those reviews _Brother Subtle_ - both interesting. Im definatly going to get _Soul Hunter_ without a doubt! I think its fascinating what direction the Night Lords been taken, the sort of underdog of Traitor Legions - but that some are now turning to Chaos to avoid their hopeless situation :grin: - I imagine we'll get tonnes of juicy information from this series like we did regarding the Word Bearers from the Word Bearers series.
> 
> This has actually motivated me to read _Lord of the Night_, which like quite a few books have just been sat on my shelf for ages collecting dust!


I doubt the Night Lords that turn to Chaos will survive, the Night Lords are one of my favourite marines as they simply hate the Emperor, they refuse to embrace Chaos.

Its a very good book, although now it may be a bit outdated. You'll see why when you read it.


----------



## Dead.Blue.Clown (Nov 27, 2009)

Lord of the Night said:


> I doubt the Night Lords that turn to Chaos will survive, the Night Lords are one of my favourite marines as they simply hate the Emperor, they refuse to embrace Chaos.


I'm not disagreeing, but all canonical information says the Night Lords use Chaos as a weapon, without intending to "fall" to it, which is deliciously vague, naturally. But they do use it. They're Chaos Marines, no matter how pure some of them think themselves are - they just have the honour of being the least mutated Legion. But they're in the Eye of Terror, after all. It just took them longer to get there. 

Remember that by the end of _Lord of the Night_ (which I liked a lot), Zso Sahaal was revealed as being manipulated all along, and was a staggeringly unreliable source of information. The only other Night Lords he met had distinct alternate versions of his story, and even said they new he was being manipulated. People believe Zso Sahaal over them, largely because people like Zso Sahaal so much as a character. You see that a lot online: Zso Sahaal as some exalted Drizzt figure for the Legion, and people often ignoring the end of the book where it was shown he might've been completely wrong and played like a chump. I thought that was the best bit, as it was awesomely tragic. 

All of his viewpoints on how the Legion related to Chaos were literally only _his _perspective - and one guy's viewpoint, especially after being asleep for 10,000 years, is not how a Legion is defined. (That said, there will be plenty of Night Lords that still think the same as he did, one way or another.)


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> I'm not disagreeing, but all canonical information says the Night Lords use Chaos as a weapon, without intending to "fall" to it, which is deliciously vague, naturally. But they do use it. They're Chaos Marines, no matter how pure some of them think themselves are - they just have the honour of being the least mutated Legion. But they're in the Eye of Terror, after all. It just took them longer to get there.


They use the name of Chaos to strike fear into others, they dont actually use it. Chaos is shunned in the Night Lords as they view it as weakness to rely on Chaos to the extent the other legions do.



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Remember that by the end of _Lord of the Night_ (which I liked a lot), Zso Sahaal was revealed as being manipulated all along, and was a staggeringly unreliable source of information. The only other Night Lords he met had distinct alternate versions of his story, and even said they knew he was being manipulated. People believe Zso Sahaal over them, largely because people like Zso Sahaal so much as a character. You see that a lot online: Zso Sahaal as some exalted Drizzt figure for the Legion, and people often ignoring the end of the book where it was shown he might've been completely wrong and played like a chump. I thought that was the best bit, as it was awesomely tragic.


I dont ignore the ending, which I agree with you was excellent, but I dont think it represents the Night Lords very well. Zso Sahaal was the ideal Night Lord, loyal to Curze and his teachings, and not a fear addict. But Sahaal's story is most likely correct as Acerbus was a Daemon, and Daemons only speak lies. Acerbus just knew how to get under Sahaal's skin with the right lies.



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> All of his viewpoints on how the Legion related to Chaos were literally only _his _perspective - and one guy's viewpoint, especially after being asleep for 10,000 years, is not how a Legion is defined. (That said, there will be plenty of Night Lords that still think the same as he did, one way or another.)


It wasn't just his, it was Konrad Curze's and that is what matters. At the time the entire legion thought the same, and I doubt that Acerbus has changed it that much. I think the Night Lords are going to be the same as they were during the heresy. Loyal to Curze and against the False Emperor but not truly with Chaos.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Considering your talking to the author of the upcoming Night Lords series, I think his opinion > yours, in the sense of the direction the Night Lords will be taken in anyway


----------



## Dead.Blue.Clown (Nov 27, 2009)

I dunno. I see this argument a lot, and it often comes down to one side saying "No, Sahaal is awesome, he's totally right" and the other side saying "But... all of the published lore says..."

Remember, the lies and and truths behind the Legion are what make it interesting. Nothing is clear cut. The lore still states that the Emperor was appalled at the Night Lords' actions and Konrad's depredations, it's just Sahaal's insistence that there was a conspiracy there, and the Night Lords were victims. it's a cool idea, and one I'm sure many Night Lords agree with. But it's still just one perspective. It's a mistake to see it and think: "This is the Legion, end of story."

No one knows if that's true, but because people like Sahaal, they tend to overlook all the many ways he wasn't reliable, or even goes against established lore. 



Lord of the Night said:


> They use the name of Chaos to strike fear into others, they dont actually use it.


In the published lore, they use it a lot. In the Index Astartes article, and in the codices, they use it. It even uses those exact words: _"Night Lords are exceptionally versatile in their use of the forces of Chaos, employing the hell-spawned powers of each of the major Chaos deities with equal favour."_

I'm going with that. Even in _Lord of the Night_, every Night Lord except the one (who is proven as unreliable) was involved with Chaos to some degree or another.

There's a difference, with subtle nnuances, between admitting they use Chaos and saying "They love Chaos." Of course they don't. They heap scorn upon anyone who slaves themselves to the Chaos Gods. But they use Chaos a great deal. They're Chaos Marines, no matter what Sahaal said. They scorn _faith_, in all forms. They rarely associate with any one Power for a long time, though. This is all in the Index Astartes article, which remains one of the two most reliable sources of lore - the other being the codices. 



Lord of the Night said:


> Chaos is shunned in the Night Lords as they view it as weakness to rely on Chaos to the extent the other legions do.


That's a slightly too 'Zso Sahaal' way of thinking. They don't shun it across the entire Legion. How can they, when they live in the Eye of Terror? They're Chaos Marines. All the lore says that although they're the least mutated Legion, they're still Chaos Marines. In various sources of information, it states they've even (rarely) summoned daemons to mess with the Imperium, and as a general rule they follow Chaos Undivided as a concept without worshipping any specific Power for a long time. 

They use Chaos as a weapon, believing they control it. 

Remember, one out of date novel from an unreliable narrator character that actually conflicts with some of the lore isn't the only source of info; it's just very popular because the novel rocks and Sahaal is in some regards like a beloved Drizzt character for a lot of fans. That doesn't make him reliable or right, though. 



Lord of the Night said:


> But Sahaal's story is most likely correct as Acerbus was a Daemon, and Daemons only speak lies. Acerbus just knew how to get under Sahaal's skin with the right lies.


Daemons can say whatever they like to suit their purposes. It could have been a painful truth just as easily as a pointless lie. I didn't read_ Lord of the Night_ and get the impression Sahaal came out of it completely sane and correct. He seemed just as misguided as Acerbus, and I suspect that was the point. Much more dramatic and tragic that way, too. 



Lord of the Night said:


> It wasn't just his, it was Konrad Curze's and that is what matters.


Well, no. According to one unreliable guy, it was Konrad's. According to another unreliable guy, it wasn't. 

With those negating each other, I choose to go with the official lore, which isn't as anti-Chaos as Sahaal made the Legion and their primarch out to be. They use Chaos as just another weapon, without worshipping the Ruinous Powers.


----------



## Dead.Blue.Clown (Nov 27, 2009)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Considering your talking to the author of the upcoming Night Lords series, I think his opinion > yours, in the sense of the direction the Night Lords will be taken in anyway


Personally, I've always thought Sahaal's perspective made the most sense, and was the coolest viewpoint. That's why the protagonist of the Night Lords Series sees things in a very similar light.

But a balanced, larger look at the Legion was part of the process. It can't all be "Sahaal was awesome and right" when all of the published lore (and indeed, other Night Lords in Sahaal's own story), disagreed with his interpretation. A better look at the Legion deserved more. _Lord of the Night_ wasn't a Night Lords novel, it was Zso Sahaal's story, and it rocked. But this is the Night Lords series - it needs to be about all of the Legion's aspects and facets, presenting the Night Lords in a more complete light than one guy's biased, unreliable viewpoint. Anything less than that is unfair.

Conflict, tension, smoke and mirrors - that's what's interesting to me. If it was clear cut, I think the Legion would be much less interesting. 

They dwell within Chaos, and use it in their goals... but they hate the idea of becoming shackled to it. They recognise that it corrupts everything, but they still remain the least corrupted.

That's killer.


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> I'm not disagreeing, but all canonical information says the Night Lords use Chaos as a weapon, without intending to "fall" to it, which is deliciously vague, naturally. But they do use it. They're Chaos Marines, no matter how pure some of them think themselves are - they just have the honour of being the least mutated Legion. But they're in the Eye of Terror, after all. It just took them longer to get there.


The Night Lords have been known to use Furies, the only Undivided Daemon out there in official lore, but I know they do not actively worship Chaos. But their status as Chaos Marines could be debatable, they are the least mutated and do not worship Chaos, they dont follow the Emperor or the Chaos Gods but rather they follow their Primarch. Question is though where will that lead them, so far it has led them to the Eye of Terror but whether or not it leads them to true Chaos worship, that has yet to be seen.



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Remember that by the end of _Lord of the Night_ (which I liked a lot), Zso Sahaal was revealed as being manipulated all along, and was a staggeringly unreliable source of information. The only other Night Lords he met had distinct alternate versions of his story, and even said they knew he was being manipulated. People believe Zso Sahaal over them, largely because people like Zso Sahaal so much as a character. You see that a lot online: Zso Sahaal as some exalted Drizzt figure for the Legion, and people often ignoring the end of the book where it was shown he might've been completely wrong and played like a chump. I thought that was the best bit, as it was awesomely tragic.
> 
> All of his viewpoints on how the Legion related to Chaos were literally only _his _perspective - and one guy's viewpoint, especially after being asleep for 10,000 years, is not how a Legion is defined. (That said, there will be plenty of Night Lords that still think the same as he did, one way or another.)


Sahaal himself was an icon of the old Night Lords legion, the way they used to be. I enjoyed the ending as well and I do believe there is a chance that he was played but its an ambiguous truth. On the one hand Sahaal is loyal to Curze, perhaps to a fault. He blindly believes in his Primarch and his teachings and is loathe to accept anything else. Krieg Acerbus on the other hand is willing to accept Chaos and disregard everything that Curze taught them. I dont think all Night Lords are like Acerbus but there is a chance they could end up like him. And the ones that are still like Sahaal are most likely dwindling in number.



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Personally, I've always thought Sahaal's perspective made the most sense, and was the coolest viewpoint. That's why the protagonist of the Night Lords Series sees things in a very similar light.
> 
> But a balanced, larger look at the Legion was part of the process. It can't all be "Sahaal was awesome and right" when all of the published lore (and indeed, other Night Lords in Sahaal's own story), disagreed with his interpretation. A better look at the Legion deserved more. _Lord of the Night_ wasn't a Night Lords novel, it was Zso Sahaal's story, and it rocked. But this is the Night Lords series - it needs to be about all of the Legion's aspects and facets, presenting the Night Lords in a more complete light than one guy's biased, unreliable viewpoint. Anything less than that is unfair.
> 
> ...


Thats how I see it. Sahaal's story makes the most sense out of the other versions heard but its driven by faith in Curze, and that faith blinds Sahaal to other possibilities.

That is true. The legion itself is very morally ambiguous, they use Chaos but do they worship it?. To the Imperium that doesn't matter, traitors are traitors, but to the reader its very interesting.

I agree with you there. Its the Night Lords secrecy and mystery that makes them interesting, that and the epic 'moving lightning' they have on their armour.

True but they can't remain uncorrupted forever. But are they already corrupt, do they just not realize it yet. They remind me a bit of the Emperors Children in the novel Fulgrim, they may already be corrupted but not recognize it yet. The Night Lords will never truly rely on Chaos like the other legions but using it is alright to them.



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> I dunno. I see this argument a lot, and it often comes down to one side saying "No, Sahaal is awesome, he's totally right" and the other side saying "But... all of the published lore says..."
> 
> Remember, the lies and and truths behind the Legion are what make it interesting. Nothing is clear cut. The lore still states that the Emperor was appalled at the Night Lords' actions and Konrad's depredations, it's just Sahaal's insistence that there was a conspiracy there, and the Night Lords were victims. it's a cool idea, and one I'm sure many Night Lords agree with. But it's still just one perspective. It's a mistake to see it and think: "This is the Legion, end of story."
> 
> No one knows if that's true, but because people like Sahaal, they tend to overlook all the many ways he wasn't reliable, or even goes against established lore.


The Night Lords are an interesting legion because nothing is clear. In the Crusade they were feared and called extremists but Sahaal claimed that the Emperor secretly sanctioned these atrocities. But this cant be confirmed, I personally believe it though, because its a Night Lord saying it. If another Primarch said it, like Dorn or Guilliman, then it would be clear. Also the claim that when he was in the Golden Palace an assassin came to kill Curze and failed, Sahaal said that so its truth is unclear, or that assassins before that one had come and all failed.

I recognize that Sahaal may not be reliable but in the end he is an extreme side to the legion. The one that shuns Chaos. There may be others like him but they will be small in number.





Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> In the published lore, they use it a lot. In the Index Astartes article, and in the codices, they use it. It even uses those exact words: _"Night Lords are exceptionally versatile in their use of the forces of Chaos, employing the hell-spawned powers of each of the major Chaos deities with equal favour."_
> 
> I'm going with that. Even in _Lord of the Night_, every Night Lord except the one (who is proven as unreliable) was involved with Chaos to some degree or another.
> 
> There's a difference, with subtle nnuances, between admitting they use Chaos and saying "They love Chaos." Of course they don't. They heap scorn upon anyone who slaves themselves to the Chaos Gods. But they use Chaos a great deal. They're Chaos Marines, no matter what Sahaal said. They scorn _faith_, in all forms. They rarely associate with any one Power for a long time, though. This is all in the Index Astartes article, which remains one of the two most reliable sources of lore - the other being the codices.


I do know that they use Furies but if they do use the other Daemons it will only be when they are ideal for the task at hand. I dont think they'd summon Slaaneshi daemons just to fight when they could use Undivided Daemons just as easily.

They are all involved with Chaos thats true, but the extent differs in every marine. Acerbus gave himself over to Chaos while Sahaal rejected it. They are the extremes and in-between them lie the other Night Lords. The legion's status depends on how many gravitate to Acerbus's side or Sahaal's side.

Thats true. The Night Lords will never depend on Chaos like the Word Bearers do, and will never show total devotion to a single power like the World Eaters or Death Guard but rather they try to master Chaos, to wield it as a weapon. Problem is Chaos is a double-ended sword, eventually you cut yourself with it.




Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> That's a slightly too 'Zso Sahaal' way of thinking. They don't shun it across the entire Legion. How can they, when they live in the Eye of Terror? They're Chaos Marines. All the lore says that although they're the least mutated Legion, they're still Chaos Marines. In various sources of information, it states they've even (rarely) summoned daemons to mess with the Imperium, and as a general rule they follow Chaos Undivided as a concept without worshipping any specific Power for a long time.
> 
> They use Chaos as a weapon, believing they control it.
> 
> Remember, one out of date novel from an unreliable narrator character that actually conflicts with some of the lore isn't the only source of info; it's just very popular because the novel rocks and Sahaal is in some regards like a beloved Drizzt character for a lot of fans. That doesn't make him reliable or right, though.


You make a good point there. The entire legion would not shun Chaos, Krieg Acerbus couldn't have been the only one who wanted power quickly. But I dont think the entire legion would embrace Chaos as a whole, at least not at first. It would take time but by now in the 41st millennium I dont think that many Night Lords detest Chaos as they did in the 31st millennium. This quote is quite eloquent for this point.

"Damnation starts with little steps" - Marneus Calgar.

The Night Lords may or may not be corrupt now but all it takes is small steps towards it before you fall.

Thats how it starts. But in the end nobody can truly control Chaos. So a question is, how long before the Night Lords realize that, or how long before they fall.

True but Sahaal's reliability isn't just from his popularity. Its also from the fact that his account of events makes the most sense, logically. It doesn't seem like lies but when looked at objectively Sahaal's blind faith in the Primarch makes his events hard to believe fully.





Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Daemons can say whatever they like to suit their purposes. It could have been a painful truth just as easily as a pointless lie. I didn't read_ Lord of the Night_ and get the impression Sahaal came out of it completely sane and correct. He seemed just as misguided as Acerbus, and I suspect that was the point. Much more dramatic and tragic that way, too.


Thats true. When I read Krieg Acerbus's part I believed that most of what he said could be lies since they are exactly what Sahaal would not want to hear, and that suits Acerbus fine. But the one thing that he said that I believed to be true is about Konrad Curze's split personality. I dont see a reason why he would lie about that, there are a million different lies he could have said that make the same point and are easier to believe. But if he is telling the truth, and Konrad Curze was two people, one just and fair, and one who felt the touch of Chaos, then while the Night Lords may not be corrupt yet, their teachings very well could be, and if they are then the Night Lords are on the path to true damnation.




Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Well, no. According to one unreliable guy, it was Konrad's. According to another unreliable guy, it wasn't.
> 
> With those negating each other, I choose to go with the official lore, which isn't as anti-Chaos as Sahaal made the Legion and their primarch out to be. They use Chaos as just another weapon, without worshipping the Ruinous Powers.


The official lore is the middle ground between Acerbus, who worships and gives everything to Chaos, and Sahaal, who rejects Chaos totally. I think that will make for very interesting, and morally ambiguous, characters.



Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Considering your talking to the author of the upcoming Night Lords series, I think his opinion > yours, in the sense of the direction the Night Lords will be taken in anyway


Really. Wow cool. Well this has to be said. Thank you for giving the Night Lords the series they deserve. They have always been in the shadows of the Traitor Legions, metaphorically fitting I know, but ive always thought they deserve more acclaim. They are far more interesting then the Black Legion or the Word Bearers yet both of those legions get entire series devoted to them.


----------



## Dead.Blue.Clown (Nov 27, 2009)

I dig your perspective, LotN. Everything you say clicks with my perspectives, one way or another. I like the different angles you come at the lore, and the interpretations you get from it (not _just_ because we seem to agree - you've got an interesting line of thought besides that agreement, natch.)


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Thank you. There's no problem with agreeing on a good point.

People will always have different interpretations of lore. Some may think that 'Lord of the Night' portrayed the Night Lords better then 'Soul Hunter' will. Personally I think that while 'Lord of the Night' portrayed the extremes of the Night Lords very well and made some very interesting points, when it comes to the Legion itself, 'Soul Hunter' will be the source.

Plus its not just about the Legion from what ive read. The Black Legion is appearing and Im looking forward to that. The other legions opinions of the Night Lords have never been told, although I doubt their good, and the only way we have seen other Chaos Marines was from Sahaal's point of view and he hated them. The Black Legion is what the Night Lords could become and their reactions to that will be very interesting. There may be those who are horrified by it, seeing the maddened Chaos Marines of Abaddon or some may aspire to be like them, to be the most powerful Legion of all. Or there may be some who just dont care at all.

Im also interesting in the story about the serf Eurydice. The other traitor legions treat Cultists and servants like dogs and enjoy humiliating and killing them. The loyalist legions treat them like semi-equals and recognize the important function they perform. How the Night Lords treat them will show a lot about their character and how far down the road of evil they have gone.


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

Hmmm, was that a plane that just flew over my head? Looks like I better read lord of the night so I know wtf you guys are talking about!!! Haha

edit: I just bought lord of the night off eBay just to find out what you lot are on about! It's sad when it's cheaper to buy my books from the uk than in aus. Same book in aus $24.95, delivered from the uk $16.50 with postage...


----------



## wd6669 (Feb 27, 2008)

I am now waiting for the book to come in. Also a unrelated Q for clown, are we gonna be seeing another cadian book? I really love cadian blood and the characters


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Personally, I've always thought Sahaal's perspective made the most sense, and was the coolest viewpoint. That's why the protagonist of the Night Lords Series sees things in a very similar light.
> 
> But a balanced, larger look at the Legion was part of the process. It can't all be "Sahaal was awesome and right" when all of the published lore (and indeed, other Night Lords in Sahaal's own story), disagreed with his interpretation. A better look at the Legion deserved more. _Lord of the Night_ wasn't a Night Lords novel, it was Zso Sahaal's story, and it rocked. But this is the Night Lords series - it needs to be about all of the Legion's aspects and facets, presenting the Night Lords in a more complete light than one guy's biased, unreliable viewpoint. Anything less than that is unfair.
> 
> ...


:grin: 

Well I must thanks for your perspective on these things Sir, looking forward to _Soul Hunter_ even more now!



Brother Subtle said:


> Hmmm, was that a plane that just flew over my head? Looks like I better read lord of the night so I know wtf you guys are talking about!!! Haha


Aye same! Just started it the other day, havn't had much time to plough into it properly yet though.


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

I hope you both enjoy it, its one of my favourite books.

And damn Brother Subtle that is pricey, especially for a book.


----------



## QAeternus (Nov 25, 2008)

Does anybody note the resemblance of this discussion to the whole Alpha Legion argument?

One thing I should point out is that _Pistis_ [GRK-faith, trust], and _Gnosis_ [GRK-divine knowledge, experience, enlightenment] are fundamentally different theological concepts. 

In this case the difference would be that the purpose, and intent of the Word Bearers is to honour and worship the Chaos gods. The Night Lords seek to cause fear. They don't worship them in the same sense, because they do not have the qualities one would associate with _Pistis_. This does not mean that the concept of _Gnosis_ is foreign to them, or that they deny the existence or relevance of the Gods. Eg. Apotheosis as a daemon prince, use of sorcerors, summoning daemons etc...


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

Well you pack of warpspit, thanks to ADB and LotN having a good debate, i ran out and ordered > read this book (Lord of the Night) pretty much straight after reading this. its funny to re-read what i at first didnt understand and now after reading the book, fully get the different veiw points being argued? so after that who's concusion do i agree with? Sahaal or Acerbus?

well... i still dont know. Sahaal is such a great character, i 'want' to belive his side. id hate him to go through all that crap and not be right. But pricking at the back of my mind i keep feeling that this is warhammer 40K, and in 40K there are no happy endings, so it would make sense to agree with the daemon scum Acerbus... 

So there it is, i want to belive Sahaal... but my mind tells me it makes more logic that he was just a pawn... So stuff you all i say. Im going to sit on the fence on this one... Who knows. Maybe one day he'll pop up again and set the record straight? him and his one armed witch.

this book has got me so pumped for your new take on the NL's ADB, cant wait to get my 'claws' into it. lol, worst book reference... ever.


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Brother Subtle said:


> Well you pack of warpspit, thanks to ADB and LotN having a good debate, i ran out and ordered > read this book (Lord of the Night) pretty much straight after reading this. its funny to re-read what i at first didnt understand and now after reading the book, fully get the different veiw points being argued? so after that who's concusion do i agree with? Sahaal or Acerbus?
> 
> well... i still dont know. Sahaal is such a great character, i 'want' to belive his side. id hate him to go through all that crap and not be right. But pricking at the back of my mind i keep feeling that this is warhammer 40K, and in 40K there are no happy endings, so it would make sense to agree with the daemon scum Acerbus...
> 
> So there it is, i want to belive Sahaal... but my mind tells me it makes more logic that he was just a pawn... So stuff you all i say. Im going to sit on the fence on this one... Who knows. Maybe one day he'll pop up again and set the record straight? him and his one armed witch.


I dont believe he was truly a pawn. Remember for every one truth a Daemon speaks, it will speak nine lies. My belief is that Acerbus was just saying what he knew would enrage Sahaal.

Only thing that I dont think was a lie is the part about Night Haunter being a split personality of Konrad Curze. I dont see why he would lie about that, theres a million easier and just as believable lies. Makes you think.

And seeing Zso Sahaal again would be epic. Perhaps a cameo in Soul Hunter or its successor.



Brother Subtle said:


> This book has got me so pumped for your new take on the NL's ADB, cant wait to get my 'claws' into it. lol, worst book reference... ever.


Agreed. Ive pre-ordered it so ill have it on day of release.


----------



## Commissar Ploss (Feb 29, 2008)

Great discussion guys! I'll be picking up all three books thanks to you all now! lol more money i don't have...oh well. This is what i've been hoping Heresy would turn into; a place where we can have open, civilized debates on all manner of things GW/BL where everyone can share their opinion and get along! :cray: i'm so...*sniff*...happy! 

keep up the quality posting!

CP


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

Lord of the Night said:


> I dont believe he was truly a pawn. Remember for every one truth a Daemon speaks, it will speak nine lies. My belief is that Acerbus was just saying what he knew would enrage Sahaal.


you seem very closed on the 'Sahaal was completely wrong angle'. what if Acerbus knew that the truth was more completely devastating to Sahaal than any lie he could concieve? he would have no need to lie. im sure he may have 'embellished' a little, but its complely plausable that what he said was true. and as ADB said eariler, the truth would hurt more than the lie. im not saying i 100% agree with that notion, but im open to it being possible.

we all WANT Sahaal to be right, because hes such an awesome character. and after going through the whole book alone with his thoughts, we WANT him to be right. but its 40k my man, and 40k is NOT all smiles and sunshine. so in most cases i tend to think the worst case scenario is usually the most likley. + Sahaals version makes the Night Lords that little bit cooler, so we tend to want that to be the case.


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Brother Subtle said:


> You seem very closed on the 'Sahaal was completely wrong angle'. what if Acerbus knew that the truth was more completely devastating to Sahaal than any lie he could concieve? he would have no need to lie. im sure he may have 'embellished' a little, but its complely plausable that what he said was true. and as ADB said eariler, the truth would hurt more than the lie. im not saying i 100% agree with that notion, but im open to it being possible.


Hmm, never thought about that. Maybe thats true, but its Daemon nature to lie and bend the truth. Theres no way of knowing what was lie and what was truth. I do think the bit about Curze is true though since lying about that wouldn't aid Acerbus in any way.



Brother Subtle said:


> We all WANT Sahaal to be right, because hes such an awesome character. and after going through the whole book alone with his thoughts, we WANT him to be right. but its 40k my man, and 40k is NOT all smiles and sunshine. so in most cases i tend to think the worst case scenario is usually the most likley. + Sahaals version makes the Night Lords that little bit cooler, so we tend to want that to be the case.


Thats very true. In 40k the bad ending is always most likely, or a bitter victory. Worst case scenario is most likely but there is a chance, just a small chance that the best case scenario happened.. for Sahaal at least, the planet on the other hand was not that lucky.


----------

