# Horus Heresy:Worst of the series



## mal310

Basically the same as the poll for the best novel, only it’s a poll for the worst.


----------



## mal310

My vote goes for Fallen Angels. Crap characters, very crap Astellan portrayal, boring and unimaginative story, lots and lots of silly errors and just a poor effort overall.


----------



## Baron Spikey

_Battle for the Abyss_

I don't need to explain my reasons, read the book and you'll understand.


----------



## Lupe

_Battle for the Abyss_

Although I have to say, it wasn't completely bad. Every page was interesting in its own way. It's just that it seemed to drag on forever, and the plot - otherwise having good potential - was rather wasted.

_Fallen Angels_ came close, bar the actions on Caliban, and the last page goes a great deal in redeeming the book.

_False Gods_, despite being a good book overall, makes it to third worst in the series, in my opinion. It's quite good, I'll say again, but the way Horus' fall was handled is severely lacking. And that's what I was looking forward to when I set my hands on it. The fact that Garvi Loken is a good guy, and a rather straightforward one at it, doesn't help things. 

_Fulgrim_ is yet another good book that I think was somewhat ruined by a poor choice of plot. The sword was a cheap excuse to not tackle deeper issues with the primarchs, such as character flaws, if you ask me... I find it rather sad that this, along with _False Gods_ are both written by McNeill, who clearly can do a good job at character books...


----------



## Brother Emund

Can't vote on this, there are still 589 more books to go!!!:read:


----------



## Marcoos

Difficult to pick between Descent of Angels and Battle for the Abyss. In the end I went for BotA because of the one dimensional and utterly inept portrayal of the Word Bearers. For fricks sake, they are Astartes not a gang from the A-team.


----------



## Khorne's Fist

_Battle for the Abyss._ I wouldn't wipe my ass with the pages of that book. I've read far better pieces of fanfic. The 2 DA books push it very close though.


----------



## Angel of Blood

Well we all know exactly where the result of this poll is going to go.

Voted obviously for BotA, wins(loses?) this poll by a longshot


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

What two mugs voted for _Legion_?  Would love to see a justification for that!


----------



## Captain Stillios

Legion? WORST. ENDING. EVER!!!
The book itself felt like one huge crappy build up to an awesome ending but ended in a huge let down.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Captain Stillios said:


> Legion? WORST. ENDING. EVER!!!
> The book itself felt like one huge crappy build up to an awesome ending but ended in a huge let down.


Care to elaborate as to why you think the ending was a let down?


----------



## Captain Stillios

I'm not sure, I understand why other people like it but the ending just kind of felt meh...
The entire book felt like it built up suspense and then didnt really deliver. Again this is just my opinion and I do get why others like Legion.


----------



## Brother Subtle

haha, voted before I read the rest of the posts. Exactly as i thought. BftA... Number one crapola. Not sure about who voted for Legion. I thought that was fantastic!


----------



## raider1987

Battle for the abyss is poor, but the book I enjoyed the least was... Prospero burns. I just didn't find it exciting, which is such a shame as Dan's other books are all amazing! I mean Legion and Horus rising are two of the best in the series, Titanicus is brilliant, everyone regards gaunts ghosts are one of the best BL series out there and I am currently reading eisenhorn and loving it. I recognise Dan's writing is far superior to Ben Counuter's in Battle For the Abyss. But I didn't have to almost force myself to read BFTA.

But when I finished prospero burns I was just relieved that it was over. It was just so unbearably overly descriptive, and the descriptions were often repeated. I mean how many times did the term 'Wet Leopard Growl' get used? I kept thinking that he had had a bet with a friend saying 'I bet you I can say Wet Leopard Growl more than 200 times in a single book'. It also began to frustrate me more and more every time it used that line. 

Also it did seem to me that the majority of the flashbacks were pointless, especially towards the beginning of the book. 

It really pains me to regard a book by an author like Dan Abnett as a book that I didn't enjoy, but I am not a fanboy who would just like everything I like just because I like the author. I guess that's what makes me dislike prospero burns even more as in my eyes at least its a mark against a name of one of the best authors out there. 

I feel almost guilty saying this as I have no idea if Dan reads these forums and I am such a fan of his and everything else that he has wrote that I have read has been incredible. But I am sorry, Prospero Burns got my vote.


----------



## AK74Bob

_Descent of Angels_ is my least favorite. Surprised that people voted for _Legion_ and _Mechanicum_; liked both of those.


----------



## M3N0N26

I voted for legion. Call me a retard but I literally couldn't get into the book. It was so long winded for me. This might be purely because I like reading about astartes, but hey thats my personal preference.

/me waits to get castigated.


----------



## XxwordbearersxX

*wow*

I thought Bfta wasnt bad i liked the thought of the legions fighting for the last time together kind of melodramtic but apt id say but the worst book for me was nemesis i like the whole elemnet of assasins and everything but come on it should have been a short story


----------



## Brother Subtle

XxwordbearersxX said:


> I thought Bfta wasnt bad i liked the thought of the legions fighting for the last time together kind of melodramtic but apt id say but the worst book for me was nemesis i like the whole elemnet of assasins and everything but come on it should have been a short story


I think everybody agrees that bfta was such a let down thanks to 2 dimensional characters and portraying the Word Bearers as full retards, which was just insulting. I remember a wise man once saying...

"You never go full retard! Forrest Gump, yeah a little slow, but not retarded"


----------



## Cowlicker16

Whoa why all the hate for the Abyss I thought it was ok, but I voted for Nemesis, my opinion, I don't hate any of these books but Nemesis just did not stick out to me


----------



## Ultra111

I know I'll get some people 'complaining' for this personal opinion, but in all honesties I didn't really enjoy Legion that much. I liked the ending, but the majority of the book was not what I normally enjoy from a 40k book. There was one character I liked, the Imperial Guard (?) guy (sorry haven't read in ages) but the rest of it I just couldn't get in to.

BotA was pretty bland as well, as where the DA ones.


----------



## Angel of Blood

This poll is clearly more one sided than gang rape


----------



## FORTHELION

BFTA for me closely followed by decent of angels and legion very close to that too.


----------



## Mob

No surprises here: Battle for the Abyss.

Almost total dreck.


----------



## Bane_of_Kings

Ultra: Technically, it's Imperial Army. I think you're reffering to Peto Soneka (I think)?

I can't believe I haven't posted when I voted quite early on. As to everyone's unsuprise, I voted for _Battle for the Aybss_. 

However, the best part about posting late-ish is that the reasons are already explained for you :drinks:.


----------



## Khorne's Fist

Captain Stillios said:


> The entire book felt like it built up suspense and then didnt really deliver. Again this is just my opinion and I do get why others like Legion.


I agree to a certain extent, but for me it's far from the worst. As I have said a few times in different threads, for me _Legion_ played out like a prologue to a bigger story. If there isn't a decent follow up to it, it will ultimately have failed.


----------



## Ultra111

Bane_of_Kings said:


> Ultra: Technically, it's Imperial Army. I think you're reffering to Peto Soneka (I think)?
> 
> I can't believe I haven't posted when I voted quite early on. As to everyone's unsuprise, I voted for _Battle for the Aybss_.
> 
> However, the best part about posting late-ish is that the reasons are already explained for you :drinks:.


Checked lexicanum; yeah that's the guy thanks


----------



## aquatic_foible

I voted for A Thousand Sons - and I stand by my decision. Don't get me wrong, it was wonderfully written, but I felt let down by the book by the end - for the following reasons...

1. it had been built up by several people I knew, to the point where my expectations were so high, the book could never live up to them.

2. I was slightly bored by the somewhat predictable portrayal of the Thousand Sons as "doing the wrong things for the right reasons"...

3. It was the last one I read, so still fresh in the mind, and the disappoint led to a gut-reaction click!

I reckon, however, that When I read the book for a second time at some point down the line, I imagine I'll enjoy it a lot more.... :grin:


----------



## Phoebus

Poor Ben Counter!

I really didn't think it was bad. I felt it suffered from an uninteresting main villain and a poor choice of name for his Chapter. But that really didn't detract from me, since the thrust of the novel isn't "kill that guy!", but rather "stop that ship!"

Or, to put it another way, putting Zadkiel over the Furious Abyss in terms of importance to the plot is kind of like worrying about Moff Tarkin being a bland character when it's the *Death Star* everyone should be worried about. :wink:

Once you get over that, M'hotep and Skraal alone are worth the price of admission. And bonus: the rest of the heroes aren't shabby either (to say the least).


----------



## Dead.Blue.Clown

Phoebus said:


> Once you get over that, M'hotep and Skraal alone are worth the price of admission. And bonus: the rest of the heroes aren't shabby either (to say the least).


I'm at least half-professional enough to not directly attack another author's work, and I have no massive grudge against BFtA, anyway. But, out of curiosity, what do you like about those characters? And how, really, is Skraal any more developed as a character than the sentence "He is a World Eater", and how is Mhotep any more than "He is a Thousand Son"? The same question applies to the Space Wolves and Ultramarines. They are, uniformly, "An Ultramarine" and "A Space Wolf", in the rawest, most straightforward sense.

People complain about the characterisation - even of the protagonists - because they're all literally no more than "A Marine of that Legion" in the most basic, undeveloped senses.

It's so blatant that I sort of wonder if Ben Counter did it intentionally, and it was supposed to be a feature of the narrative rather than a flaw - and it'd be an interesting angle, too. But when people sometimes say they liked the characters of Skraal and Mhotep, I always sort of pause and think, well, they're not exactly developed or nuanced characters, they're essentially stereotypical members of their Legions in Situation X, and react wholly as you'd expect considering they still believe their Legions are loyal. I think what people find interesting is the fact the Legions are mixing in a cool situation, rather than quality of the characters themselves, but that translates more simply into "They were good characters", which is a statement I'm not sure I've actually ever seen backed up with anything more than that the reader liked the fact a loyalist World Eater and Thousand sons were doing general World Eater and Thousand Son stuff.


----------



## mal310

Phoebus said:


> Poor Ben Counter!
> 
> I really didn't think it was bad. I felt it suffered from an uninteresting main villain and a poor choice of name for his Chapter. But that really didn't detract from me, since the thrust of the novel isn't "kill that guy!", but rather "stop that ship!"
> 
> Or, to put it another way, putting Zadkiel over the Furious Abyss in terms of importance to the plot is kind of like worrying about Moff Tarkin being a bland character when it's the *Death Star* everyone should be worried about. :wink:
> 
> Once you get over that, M'hotep and Skraal alone are worth the price of admission. And bonus: the rest of the heroes aren't shabby either (to say the least).


I agree with Phoebus. I didn’t think it was that bad. It was by no means a great book or even good one but I did find it entertaining up to a point. It was an easy read but a bit too simple for my liking. Saying that however, Prospero Burns goes too far the other way and is a real slog read. I’ve had the book for ages and it’s the only one in the series that I have found really difficult to read. I just can’t be bothered at the moment. I’ve read about 110 pages and found it really boring so far. 

As far as Counter is concerned I thought Galaxy in Flames was far worse. Mainly because he failed to deliver on the monumentall events it was based around and the great story set up he had been given. I found it lacking in many parts. Horus was hardly in it for god’s sake and there was absolutely no coverage given to the fact that Astartes from the same legions were blood brothers one minute and killing each other the next with no hesitation or coverage about how they felt about this. I thought it was a very poor attempt personally.


----------



## Insurance

i voted for prospero burns. i've already voiced my reasons of disgust in another thread. 

i might have voted for battle for the abyss a few weeks ago, but aaron dembski bowden was kind enough to remind me that i enjoyed the interactions between the different legions. in fact, i remember enjoying skraal's last charge, mhotep's battle against the daemon, and ben counter's depiction of brynngar and the space wolves. however, i felt the ultramarines were boring and that alone ruined the story for me.


----------



## Wusword77

I voted for BftA, not because I felt the book was poorly done (it really wasn't) rather that it didn't add all that much to the overall Story of the Heresy.

You have this massive ship, that wasn't really talked about before this book, thats going to the battle of Calth (awsome) but it's blown up before any Imperial Forces are able to confirm it was even real and leaves no witnesses behind.

After the ending the book just felt like a waste of time. I didn't learn any new information, and my outlook on the Heresy has not changed.

Though it did give a few ideas about how Astartes operated away from their home Legion.


----------



## Phoebus

Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> I'm at least half-professional enough to not directly attack another author's work, and I have no massive grudge against BFtA, anyway. But, out of curiosity, what do you like about those characters? And how, really, is Skraal any more developed as a character than the sentence "He is a World Eater", and how is Mhotep any more than "He is a Thousand Son"?
> ...
> People complain about the characterisation - even of the protagonists - because they're all literally no more than "A Marine of that Legion" in the most basic, undeveloped senses.


That's really a good question.

Partly, I would say, it has to do with the timing of the books. "Battle for the Abyss" came before "A Thousand Sons". Mhotep, in a sense, was a continuation of the theme developed in the first three or four Heresy novels: that of the Loyalist born of a Traitor Legion, a man who made a stand for what was right* even in the face of adversity. In Mhotep's case, both in the immediate sense--given the stance his allies took against him--and in the larger sense, given the Imperium's stance on his powers post-Nikaea. I found him sympathetic for those reasons.

Hand in hand with the fact that Graham McNeill had not yet written "A Thousand Sons" is my feeling that most of the looks we've had at Thousand Sons characters in other works (William King and Lee Lightner's Space Wolves works come to mind most immediately) didn't really reconcile with the more composed and stoic sense of mysticism Counter gave Mhotep. Thousand Sons in other works struck me as far more megalomaniacal, "threat of the week" types... which I suppose might be justified given the passage of ten millennia inside the Eye of Terror. In that sense, I did find Mhotep to be somewhat different than what I'd known of the XV Legio.

Looking back it, though, I will grant you though that I enjoyed Skraal less for his characterization and more for the sequences he was put through. If I'm to be honest, his penchant for stealth and the amount of self-control he displayed throughout the novel are really the only "breaks" from the typical World Eater mode.

Did Counter (my thoughts on Mhotep's characterization aside) do what he did as part of a conscious design or more because that's how it's always been done? I don't know. My feeling on the matter, if I'm to be frank, is that departures from the stereotype of the Legion/Chapter are a rather new phenomenon in Black Library fiction. Graham McNeill, for example, introduced a sense of sorcery and mysticism that went beyond the oft-used 'I'm about to unleash a titanic ritual that will be fueled by lots of mortals and will either summon/awaken something horrid or will open a gate to somewhere very unpleasant!' in "A Thousand Sons". Similarly, Dan Abnett did a terrific job of re-defining what it meant to be a Space Wolf with "Prospero Burns". But these are exceptions to the rule. Loken is a very nice character (in my humble opinion), but is he really that much more than the stoic, resolute, honorable Astartes we've seen so many times before? I'd posit he benefited from a good run of books (three) and the fact that he was places in the midst of dramatic, titanic events.

In that sense, I can excuse Counter for (more or less) keeping with the tried and true (even if I feel that Mhotep is, in fact, a step apart for reasons mentioned above). As for Skraal? I guess I remember that he was a supporting character, and not even as important as others in the books at that.

You mentioned, in a different forum, that your take on crafting Astartes concepts for the various Legions would be along the lines of "soldier and something else"--as in a World Eater being a soldier and a gladiator. If I recall correctly, that is. I applaud you for that. A great thing with getting fresh faces in a roster is fresh ideas, and one such as that might be the way we get to see a better variety of Astartes characters in larger numbers.


----------



## vulcan666

nemisis, can not stand that book, it makes BFTA seem awsome in comparison


----------



## ckcrawford

Lupe said:


> _Battle for the Abyss_
> _Fulgrim_ is yet another good book that I think was somewhat ruined by a poor choice of plot. The sword was a cheap excuse to not tackle deeper issues with the primarchs, such as character flaws, if you ask me... I find it rather sad that this, along with _False Gods_ are both written by McNeill, who clearly can do a good job at character books...


Damn. I loved that book. lol. Just felt I had to say something. Kind of like those who champion _Legion_. The sword helped but I don't think it should be looked at as the thing that turned him. I thought the character flaws worked well with the legion's experiences which was almost the legions downfall.



aquatic_foible said:


> I voted for A Thousand Sons - and I stand by my decision. Don't get me wrong, it was wonderfully written, but I felt let down by the book by the end - for the following reasons...
> 
> 1. it had been built up by several people I knew, to the point where my expectations were so high, the book could never live up to them.
> 
> 2. I was slightly bored by the somewhat predictable portrayal of the Thousand Sons as "doing the wrong things for the right reasons"...
> 
> 3. It was the last one I read, so still fresh in the mind, and the disappoint led to a gut-reaction click!
> 
> I reckon, however, that When I read the book for a second time at some point down the line, I imagine I'll enjoy it a lot more.... :grin:


Damn! Well I suppose we have different tastes over stuff. I am quite surprised at the small percentage of dislike over the most favored books of the series. But theres always that Few. 



Phoebus said:


> Poor Ben Counter!
> 
> I really didn't think it was bad. I felt it suffered from an uninteresting main villain and a poor choice of name for his Chapter. But that really didn't detract from me, since the thrust of the novel isn't "kill that guy!", but rather "stop that ship!"
> 
> Or, to put it another way, putting Zadkiel over the Furious Abyss in terms of importance to the plot is kind of like worrying about Moff Tarkin being a bland character when it's the *Death Star* everyone should be worried about. :wink:
> 
> Once you get over that, M'hotep and Skraal alone are worth the price of admission. And bonus: the rest of the heroes aren't shabby either (to say the least).


I agree that it wasn't that terrible of a book. I just didn't care much for the plot. But I think people just freaked about the "straight forwardness" of the plot and characters. 

Every book has its up and downs. But I must say, because it was an earlier book I was interested with the characteristics of the astartes from different legions.

I think it came to me the day I was trying to describe and differentiate the "savagery" of the World Eaters compared to other savage legions. I thought the book did well in showing the differences. And I did like the little approach with having astartes from other legions differ from they stereotypical traitor look. Especially the World Eaters.


----------



## genesis80

prospero burns get the worst vote for me. I've already stated why in another thread, but just to recap..

1) Abyss had the most gigantic battleship in 40k, mechanicum had titans, nemesis had assassins ....prospero burns has a "historian" or "human pawn"...nuff said

2) as a fellow forummer already pointed out, the book is best described as "going to the best steak house in town, anticipating a juicy steak & getting.... a salad"

I have been a space wolf fan since the 90's and i really had BIG BIG expectations for this book. I feel many that voted for Battle for the Abyss or Nemesis because prior to the HH series, nothing was mentioned about these 2 events and thus everyone jumps and says, "this adds nothing" or "this doesnt advance the plot". But what most people leave out is:

1) the fact that should these 2 events have been allowed to achieve the intended goal, the entire HH would be very different. (no ultramarines and no horus). Just because they failed, should they be excluded?

2) they contain main characters/ aspects you would want to read about simply due to their coolness rating (assassins, only a step down from primarchs and chapter masters (not to mention the 1st time that 4 from each temple were deployed at once......and the largest battleship ever built)

3) Their plot actually matched the title and cover. It also generally matched my expectations. i knew both books were NOT going to be part of the established canon and would add a new angle to the HH BEFORE reading the books. So their authors did a great..well..good job in that aspect

Im not saying they were the 2 BEST books in the series..they arent. BUT they are far from the worst.


----------



## RudeAwakening79

I liked all books in the series so far, but if I have to pick one then I'd say Fallen Angels. 
As a dark angels fan I expected more from it. Descent of Angels was a better portrait of them, especially of the Lion himself. He makes some appearances in FA, but I found them too short and poorly done. It just didn't stick.


----------



## Grins1878

I had to go with Descent of Angels, a book I felt didn't really add much to the Heresy story, it just seemed to be 'this is the lion and his pal, they're really good mates, they kill all the knights with the beasts, and the imperium tip up and some of them join them, and...? And that's about it.' Fallen Angels was what Descent should have been to me. It just seemed a totally bizarre setting and too far away from the heresy storyline.

Battle for the Abyss I really liked, not one of the top ones in the series, but I enjoyed reading it, like all of them so far. Was just a little disappointed with DoA.

Looking forward to Prospero Burns (Dan Abnett ftw!) though, it's on my bookcase waiting for me to finish first heretic. 

As a series though, I think it's great.


----------



## Baron Spikey

genesis80 said:


> 1) Abyss had the most gigantic battleship in 40k, mechanicum had titans, nemesis had assassins ....prospero burns has a "historian" or "human pawn"...nuff said


Prospero Burns also had a more realistic take on the Space Wolves (or The Rout as they'd prefer to be called).
But if we're going to highlight the bad elements of books lets not be biased...
BftA also had the most cookie-cutter sterotyped villain henchmen in the form of Counter's take on the Word Bearers- apparently being on a big ship renders the Sons of Lorgar mentally deficient, Nemesis presented us with some cool Assassins most of who then promptly became undisciplined snivelling bitches.



genesis80 said:


> I have been a space wolf fan since the 90's and i really had BIG BIG expectations for this book. I feel many that voted for Battle for the Abyss or Nemesis because prior to the HH series, nothing was mentioned about these 2 events and thus everyone jumps and says, "this adds nothing" or "this doesnt advance the plot". But what most people leave out is:


I actually enjoy the 'meaningless' plots, I want to know all about the Heresy not just burn through it in 5 books only learnnig about the stuff we already know.

I voted for Battle for the Abyss because it's a shit book not because it didn't lead anywhere.


----------



## Angel of Blood

genesis80 said:


> prospero burns get the worst vote for me. I've already stated why in another thread, but just to recap..
> 
> 1) Abyss had the most gigantic battleship in 40k, mechanicum had titans, nemesis had assassins ....prospero burns has a "historian" or "human pawn"...nuff said
> 
> 2) as a fellow forummer already pointed out, the book is best described as "going to the best steak house in town, anticipating a juicy steak & getting.... a salad"
> 
> I have been a space wolf fan since the 90's and i really had BIG BIG expectations for this book. I feel many that voted for Battle for the Abyss or Nemesis because prior to the HH series, nothing was mentioned about these 2 events and thus everyone jumps and says, "this adds nothing" or "this doesnt advance the plot". But what most people leave out is:
> 
> 1) the fact that should these 2 events have been allowed to achieve the intended goal, the entire HH would be very different. (no ultramarines and no horus). Just because they failed, should they be excluded?
> 
> 2) they contain main characters/ aspects you would want to read about simply due to their coolness rating (assassins, only a step down from primarchs and chapter masters (not to mention the 1st time that 4 from each temple were deployed at once......and the largest battleship ever built)
> 
> 3) Their plot actually matched the title and cover. It also generally matched my expectations. i knew both books were NOT going to be part of the established canon and would add a new angle to the HH BEFORE reading the books. So their authors did a great..well..good job in that aspect
> 
> Im not saying they were the 2 BEST books in the series..they arent. BUT they are far from the worst.


 
No, people dislike BftA because it is shite. It turns the Word Bearers into incompetent one dimensional morons who live up to every bad guy cliche in existence. It plays up the Wolves being drunken idiots to a insane level and again gives an entiely one dimensional character. The Ultramarines just aren't liekable at all, Cestus just came across as a massive tool and Antiges just didn't do alot. Skraal was interesting if not only for the fact that we are seeing a loyalist World Eater and when his rage is cooled. Mhotep, again interesting character, but pretty much only because again its a loyalist Thousand Son, somethin we had never seen before then. 

Biggest battleship in 30k(not 40k)? Yeah, and look what it did, fuck all, of course it might have been more succesful had its crew not been complete fething idiots. But even then it was probably the biggest waste of rescources ever. I could keep going on, but i just don't need to. The results of this poll are speaking for themselves and the vast majority of peoples opinons aswell.


EDIT: And indeed, i also liked the Prospero Burns, sorry that it didn't live up to your bolter porn expectations, but to alot of us fluff enthusiasts it provided excellent and shocking revelations that changed alot of perspectives people had of the Vlka Fenryka, the reasons behind the Burning of Prospero, the amnity between the two Legions and how it came to be that way and just alot of generally very interesting information about the Rout.


----------



## forkmaster

I voted _Mechanicum_ despite loving Grahams work (_Fulgrim_ is my absolut favorite novel) and _ATS_ is great as well. Particularly as i have no big interest in the priest of March but as many have pointed out, HH affected everyone so we had to see from their point of view. It was mainly just boring and slow.

_Descent of Angels_ is underrated, its actually good and _Fallen Angels_ as well, if you look beside the errors the author makes (like mixing up characters with who is holding what weapon and stuff like that).

_Legion_, is not a bad book. Not at all. I love the mystery and the Alpha Legion, but that as well tends to be boring at many points. Just my personal opinion.

_BftA_ I did enjoy, but I disliked it being one of those typical bringing in characters that wont be returning, no follow up and stuff like that. Like the first five novels, we clearly see a progression of moving forward from Sixty-Three-Nineteen to Issvaan V. Then came Descent of angels, moving back 60 years. Then came Legion, moving back 2 years only barely mentioning Horus. Then came _BftA_, barely mentioning and then at the end, bang. No continuing (except that smal part in _Nememis_ when they mention it). :angry:

_Prospero Burns_ was really hard getting through, you didnt sympatize with any characters in the Rout, not when they died. But they were portrayed in a great way of not being stereotypes. And it didnt deliver what many had for its anticipation.

I voted _Mechanicum_ then so people wont miss that, second place _BftA_, third _Prospero Burns_ and 4th _Legion_ (sorry as I know its the favorite on this website so dont be offended).

My favorites are _Fulgrim_, _ATS_, _TFH_ and _FotE_ is that particuarly order.


----------



## Brother Subtle

^ see I loved Mechanicum because it WAS different to all the other Heresy novels. It was weird, it was strange... And I loved it.


----------



## Ultra111

At least no-one voted for Galaxy in Flames, pretty sure that's my favourite of the series.


----------



## Brother Subtle

^ the first 3 books really do kick ass don't they? As a mini trilogy within a series goes.


----------



## Ultra111

Yeah, first 3 have to be my favourites, just found them a lot more involved and I found I cared about the characters a lot more, not just Loken, than the other books.


----------



## Stella Cadente

Horus Rising, it was so boring I almost wanted to slit my wrists reading it just to perk it up, I don't think I ever finished that slow pile of boring crud, and it made me not even bother with the rest, I only got thousand sons cus it has thousand sons in it, and that was only pretty average.


----------



## radicallight

Battle for...is without doubt the worst book I have ever read. The ending is a joke.


----------



## The Meddler

I've only read up to BFTA, so I can't give opinions on books after that. 

So, I voted... BFTA:shok:!!! For reasons people have already mentioned. However, the best parts of the book were Mhotep and Skraal, for the insight into 2 different legions, and for the fact that for me, they represent the death of the loyalist part of their legions. Also, even though no loyalists survived to tell people what happened, I thought this helped represent all the noble sacrifices and battles in the HH that passed unnoticed into history.


----------



## Angel of Blood

Brother Subtle said:


> ^ see I loved Mechanicum because it WAS different to all the other Heresy novels. It was weird, it was strange... And I loved it.


Indeed, i loved Mechanicum, was an excellent change of pace and showed us a very vital part of the war. Plus reading about the Titans and Knights was simply awsome



Stella Cadente said:


> Horus Rising, it was so boring I almost wanted to slit my wrists reading it just to perk it up, I don't think I ever finished that slow pile of boring crud, and it made me not even bother with the rest, I only got thousand sons cus it has thousand sons in it, and that was only pretty average.


Wow, dont think i've ever seen someone give Horus Rising a bad name before.


----------



## Khorne's Fist

Angel of Blood said:


> Indeed, i loved Mechanicum, was an excellent change of pace and showed us a very vital part of the war. Plus reading about the Titans and Knights was simply awsome.


I agree. I thought it gave a brilliant look at the inner workings of the mechanicus and it's forces. Considering just how vital they are to both sides in the conflict, I'd love to see another novel about them.


----------



## Ultra111

Angel of Blood said:


> Indeed, i loved Mechanicum, was an excellent change of pace and showed us a very vital part of the war. Plus reading about the Titans and Knights was simply awsome
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, dont think i've ever seen someone give Horus Rising a bad name before.


Have to say I thoroughly enjoyed Horus Rising, and the other 2 making up the mini-series.


----------



## Roninman

Bane_of_Kings said:


> Ultra: Technically, it's Imperial Army. I think you're reffering to Peto Soneka (I think)?
> 
> I can't believe I haven't posted when I voted quite early on. As to everyone's unsuprise, I voted for _Battle for the Aybss_.
> 
> However, the best part about posting late-ish is that the reasons are already explained for you :drinks:.


I mean no disrespect or anything like that, as i enjoy reading your book reviews but i found it really strange. You made review of Bfta as 6/10 and both Fallen and Descent of Angels as 4/10 and still you rate is as worst? Think you should think what rating you give book is in order because this can be seriously misleading. Almost seems as people jumped on Bfta bandwagon just because of what others said.

But i agree, its really bad book.


----------



## MontytheMighty

Prospero Burns was the worst in my opinion, the title and content of the book didn't match

I was never a big space wolves fan, the book with all its wet leopard growling didn't change that

didn't like the idea of the SW as the emp's executioners either...world eaters and night lords were just as ruthless, if not more so...perhaps Abnett was trying to say that the wolves had just the right combination of ruthlessness and dog-like loyalty to the emp? I dunno, the idea should have been more well thought out.


----------



## ckcrawford

Interestingly enough, most people did not vote for _Battle of the Abyss_ as worst novel in the series, despite how the poll looks. I wonder if its just a bandwagon thing. I've heard too many of examples of why its disliked but no consistancy of exactly why. I feel like I'm the only one who disliked the plot. We obviously didn't dislike _Galaxy in Flames_ enough to post Ben Counter's style of writing in that novel.



Angel of Blood said:


> No, people dislike BftA because it is shite. It turns the Word Bearers into incompetent one dimensional morons who live up to every bad guy cliche in existence.


You have no idea how I feel about how the rest of the Legions being portrayed throughout the heresy. And to the exact way your describing. Who knows, it is possible that they were very much incompetent. In _The First Heretic_ we didn't see the Word Bearers as a tactful legion. We just saw them retake loyal worlds by blowing the living shit out of them and killing everything. It is quite possible that these legions were just one "dimensional morons." Even in _The First Heretic_, we see the Iron Warriors just blowing the crap out of birds in the air and falling on their very own allies. 

In _Collected Visions_, a book many people like, we have sooo much of this "one dimensional" villain look and incompetence. Horus being distracted during the ultimate fight for mankind, the Word Bearers ignoring the fact that there were still potential weapons on Calth that could destroy them, Perturabo and his ENTIRE LEGION AND FLEET failing to destroy the Imperial Fist fleet when they ambushed them. The Emperor's Children growing bored of the siege and runnen around Terra. The list goes on.

Horus, so far, ever since the first three books is being portrayed as your stereotypical villain. Mortarion is also being depicted as so. Angron very much if not more the same. Maybe it is. Who knows. 

But one thing about the Word Bearers is sure, they have been depicted as back stabbers before. They have also seen their share of incompetence during their battle of Calth and even before the Heresy, where they spent much time trying to establish Imperial Doctrine instead of going through the galaxy and taking worlds like most of the legions. And yes, they are the second biggest legion and were still not doing so.




Angel of Blood said:


> EDIT: And indeed, i also liked the Prospero Burns, sorry that it didn't live up to your bolter porn expectations, but to alot of us fluff enthusiasts it provided excellent and shocking revelations that changed alot of perspectives people had of the Vlka Fenryka, the reasons behind the Burning of Prospero, the amnity between the two Legions and how it came to be that way and just alot of generally very interesting information about the Rout.


Enough said. :good: I totally agree with you points here. Its a novel very much like _Legion_ where I think you mentioned somewhere in another thread; just one of those legions you can't be too straightforward with. Or else you destroy their mystery and importance from the other legions and its spot in the Heresy Series.


----------



## brianizbrewtal

I'm currently on page 300 of BftA and it's not too bad. However, I did not approach it as a Heresy book so maybe that gives me a little more strength to read it. More so than others at least. I can follow it better than Legion, because to be honest I was pretty confused the whole time reading it. The last part of the book is what started to make sense. I cannot rate the rest of the series since I'm only up to book eight, but so far every book has had it's ups and downs, well some. You guys really hate Abyss that much?


----------



## Azkaellon

MontytheMighty said:


> Prospero Burns was the worst in my opinion, the title and content of the book didn't match
> 
> I was never a big space wolves fan, the book with all its wet leopard growling didn't change that
> 
> didn't like the idea of the SW as the emp's executioners either...world eaters and night lords were just as ruthless, if not more so...perhaps Abnett was trying to say that the wolves had just the right combination of ruthlessness and dog-like loyalty to the emp? I dunno, the idea should have been more well thought out.


I agree, So far the ONLY book that i have found boring in the series is Prosparo burns, not due to the lack of fighting but for the fact it was just..... uninteresting and seemed rushed? Locally me and even the space wolves fan's call it Prostate burns due to its painful reading.


----------



## Phil73805

Strange, it seems like Prospero Burns is quite the marmite book, love it or hate it. I loved it as my review on BSC made very clear.

As for Battle for the Abyssmal, it was only at the end that I found myself engaging with the characters and the story. The vast majority of the book left me cold, the story didn't grab me nor did the writing.

On the other hand, I really loved Descent of Angels and Fallen Angels which I know were generally very unpopular.


----------



## Angel of Blood

brianizbrewtal said:


> I can follow it better than Legion, because to be honest I was pretty confused the whole time reading it. The last part of the book is what started to make sense. I cannot rate the rest of the series since I'm only up to book eight, but so far every book has had it's ups and downs, well some. You guys really hate Abyss that much?


Someone else in either this thread or another also said they got confused by Legion or had trouble following it. I asked why then and they never replied. But what did you have trouble with? I personally didn't find it hard to follow at all.

And to those who said Prospero Burns is a bad book because the cover art and synopsis on the back don't match up, does that really make it a bad book? I don't think so, bad marketing certainly, but it's no reason to say the book itself is bad. Nor is the perhaps overuse of 'wet-leopard growl' something i didn't really notice myself until after people pointed it out on here. I understand fully if people didn't enjoy the book for its plot, or because of Hawsers flashbacks. I myself liked all of it and liked what the book gave us in continuation of the Heresy, but i understand if other people didn't. I just have a problem with people brandashing the book as bad simply because of bad marketing and 'wet leopard growl', just seems rather naive and close minded to me and just an excuse for people not wanting to like the book.



ckcrawford said:


> Interestingly enough, most people did not vote for _Battle of the Abyss_ as worst novel in the series, despite how the poll looks. I wonder if its just a bandwagon thing. I've heard too many of examples of why its disliked but no consistancy of exactly why. I feel like I'm the only one who disliked the plot. We obviously didn't dislike _Galaxy in Flames_ enough to post Ben Counter's style of writing in that novel.


Well no, the vast majority of people did really, the poll is accurate, your not taking into account alot of the people who voted but didn't decide to post their reasons as to why in the thread. It's widely considered by all to be the worst and weakest in the series, and the poll does reflect that. And your certainly not alone in believing the plot to be bad, many have said that, but it's not just the plot. It's the plot, the characters, that it contributed almost nothing to the heresy, the portrayal of the different legions, the writing style(noticeably different to Galaxy in Flames to me) and a myriad of other reasons. I've only re-read it once, and only permit it to exist on my bookshelf because it's part of the series, had it been a stand alone(which is may aswell be) i probably would have donated it to a charity shop, but even that would have felt wrong to subject it to other people.


----------



## ckcrawford

> Well no, the vast majority of people did really, the poll is accurate, your not taking into account alot of the people who voted but didn't decide to post their reasons as to why in the thread. It's widely considered by all to be the worst and weakest in the series, and the poll does reflect that. And your certainly not alone in believing the plot to be bad, many have said that, but it's not just the plot. It's the plot, the characters, that it contributed almost nothing to the heresy, the portrayal of the different legions, the writing style(noticeably different to Galaxy in Flames to me) and a myriad of other reasons. I've only re-read it once, and only permit it to exist on my bookshelf because it's part of the series, had it been a stand alone(which is may aswell be) i probably would have donated it to a charity shop, but even that would have felt wrong to subject it to other people.


Well 39 over 72 of the votes so far did not vote for _Battle of the Abyss_. Thats why I said its a number you don't really see in the poll. The most accurate statement about this poll is that _Battle of the Abyss_ is a really hated book. But you can't say (at least off the poll) that most people hated it. Because so far, over half the votes voted for other novels.

Its actually surprising due to all the hatred I always hear about the novel. It really should be considered the most hated book in the novel without a doubt. Nobody can go around saying they liked the book or else... So it appears to be a bandwagon book to hate. I imagine that if books like _Legion_, _Prospero Burns_, _Decent of Angels_ were bashed on the same level, I think the polls would be greater and agreeable than they are towards _The Battle for the Abyss_. 

On a more consistent note, I am quite surprised at the dislike of Dan Abnett's novels. About 20% of the disliked novels come from around his corner. And many including myself consider him the best writer of Black Library.


----------



## brianizbrewtal

Originally Posted by Angel of Blood


> Someone else in either this thread or another also said they got confused by Legion or had trouble following it. I asked why then and they never replied. But what did you have trouble with? I personally didn't find it hard to follow at all.


Well, I personally don't know much about the Imperial Army so therefore I'm not too aware of rankings and stuff. Like what's a Het? I didn't get all the names for their troupes. It's more about the terminology that confused me making me confused throughout the whole book. I have The Founding, but have yet to read it, and if it's anything like Legion in then I'm in trouble, because of how good I hear it is. I followed Grammaticus' story enough to not get confused, but then all this talk about Bronzi got me somewhat confused. The ending was good, still a little confusing, but overall it was fine. If I understood more about what Dan was writing about, I'm sure I would have liked it way more.


----------



## polynike

Prospero Burns wins hands down for me and not because it isn't 'bolter porn' as a poster above said. Its pedantic and slow, and take too long to build up to the main events at Nikea. It was obvious that Hawser was being manipulated, and its easy to figure it was the TS. Having Amon doing the possessing and manipulating I guess is the obvious link between the books. TS was my favourite until FH. I was so hoping PB would live up to the hype but I guess I fell into my own trap there. As a series though HH is a killer series and we still have the best to come.


----------



## lange72

I finally found this poll and voted. It was a hard toss up between Descent of Angels and Battle for the Abyss. I had to vote BftA as worst. 

This was hard because any novel that gets to include even a few pages of 40k naval action gets my attention. Since moving so far from my original BFG group with no one here play against I need to get my "naval action fun" from the novels.

As others have said it was an ok book, I didn't think it the useless fluff others have described. It was just the worst for me because of the whole series, it just had the worst characters. Others have described that better than I can.

And as to faves ... I'm thinking Legion. After reading it I wanted to run off and build an IG army right away. The nameless horde of the IG was so well described, even if it was with characters that actually had names :biggrin: Also, I love how it ended ... How the Alpha Legion came to the decision to join Horus. I really felt for this (these?) primarch(s)


----------



## Angel of Blood

polynike said:


> It was obvious that Hawser was being manipulated, and its easy to figure it was the TS. Having Amon doing the possessing and manipulating I guess is the obvious link between the books.


Easy eh?


Despite the fact that it wasn't the Thousand Sons or Amon at all?


----------



## polynike

Angel of Blood said:


> Easy eh?
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that it wasn't the Thousand Sons or Amon at all?


You can tell I havent finished the book lol :grin:. Just about reached the end of Nikea, great parallel to the RL Council of Nicea in 8th century that set out the rule book for the catholic church!


----------



## TRU3 CHAOS

I guess I don't like Dan Abnett's style of writing. The first book tested my patience. Legion was crap. And Prospero Burns was mega crap. I voted Legion simply because Legion had no support as a book from the rest of the series. 

I can see his talent, but its like he's on crack and he's trying to make fun of me while he writes his stories all crazily. 

"HAHAHAHA, my readers wont know what the fuck is going on now. But I bet they'll try to understand it when they're done reading it."


----------



## Angel of Blood

Yes because Horus Rising was shrouded in mystery....

Pray do tell how you would have liked the legendarily mysterious Alpha Legion to be written about? Did you want everything laid out for you from the beggining, no mystery or intrigue at all, to see the book from the Alpha Legion perspective and therefore completely negate the entire point of them?


----------



## brianizbrewtal

TRU3 CHAOS said:


> _I guess I don't like Dan Abnett's style of writing. The first book tested my patience. Legion was crap. And Prospero Burns was mega crap. I voted Legion simply because Legion had no support as a book from the rest of the series.
> 
> I can see his talent, but its like he's on crack and he's trying to make fun of me while he writes his stories all crazily. _ _
> 
> "HAHAHAHA, my readers wont know what the fuck is going on now. But I bet they'll try to understand it when they're done reading it_ ."


Opinions are just that, opinions, but it baffles me how someone could not like Horus Rising. Really? What was so bad about it? The only knowledge I had of 40k was through Dawn of War and loved it. Albeit, confusing bc I didn't know much of the story or 'fluff', but still great. I am however confused about the first two chapters. *SPOILER* What/who was that whole throne thing about? I vaguely remember someone saying something about a false emperor. Something like that at least.
Anyway, I think Dan is good at telling stories period, maybe it's just the subjects he has to write about don't grab you like others.


----------



## ckcrawford

brianizbrewtal said:


> Opinions are just that, opinions, but it baffles me how someone could not like Horus Rising. Really? What was so bad about it? The only knowledge I had of 40k was through Dawn of War and loved it. Albeit, confusing bc I didn't know much of the story or 'fluff', but still great. I am however confused about the first two chapters. *SPOILER* What/who was that whole throne thing about? I vaguely remember someone saying something about a false emperor. Something like that at least.
> Anyway, I think Dan is good at telling stories period, maybe it's just the subjects he has to write about don't grab you like others.


Were you referring to Sindermann's little lecture? It was just Sindermann just trying to guide Loken and helping his fate. It seemed as though Loken was starting to have doubts about many things.


----------



## gen.ahab

Legion

Reason: It had the misfortune of being about the alpha legion. Also, the first few pages bored me to the point I wanted to fuck my own skull in just to break up the boredom.

Just as a side note, anyone who said Prospero Burns was the worst of the series is out of their mother fucking mind. Why? Because I am a SW fanboy, and I actually thought it was a veritable fount of info on the wolves...... so live with it. I am sure I will get a similar response from people who liked Legion, without the SW fanboy part anyway.


----------



## brianizbrewtal

ckcrawford said:


> _Were you referring to Sindermann's little lecture? It was just Sindermann just trying to guide Loken and helping his fate. It seemed as though Loken was starting to have doubts about many things._


Again another spoiler if you haven't read Horus Rising...haven't read it? Get out of here then =] haha

But I'm not sure if that was what I was talking about. It's the part where they first mention the Invisibles and where the old man get's his torso pretty much blown off. I think the chapter ends with Loken telling that rememberancer to remember that she should address Horus as Warmaster. I didn't understand who they were shooting at or who the invisible being on the throne was. Soooo confused.


----------



## Ultra1

wow i really enjoyed BotA. maybe i'm just partial bc i play ultramarines (who are the greatest BTW).


----------



## Angel of Blood

brianizbrewtal said:


> Again another spoiler if you haven't read Horus Rising...haven't read it? Get out of here then =] haha
> 
> But I'm not sure if that was what I was talking about. It's the part where they first mention the Invisibles and where the old man get's his torso pretty much blown off. I think the chapter ends with Loken telling that rememberancer to remember that she should address Horus as Warmaster. I didn't understand who they were shooting at or who the invisible being on the throne was. Soooo confused.


Essentially he inhabitants of Sixty Three Nineteen had been seperated from mankind like so many others and as fate would have it, had developed in a strikingly similar way, with their ruler having proclaimed himself as the Emperor of mankind (though he was nothing like the real Emperor). He was the one sitting on the throne, invisible due to long lost(at that time) technology. And then Horus shot him.


----------



## brianizbrewtal

Angel of Blood said:


> Essentially he inhabitants of Sixty Three Nineteen had been seperated from mankind like so many others and as fate would have it, had developed in a strikingly similar way, with their ruler having proclaimed himself as the Emperor of mankind (though he was nothing like the real Emperor). He was the one sitting on the throne, invisible due to long lost(at that time) technology. And then Horus shot him.


Ahhh thank you so much. I was still confused when I read that the golden light and this and that was from Horus who was on the throne. Oh well, maybe I should go back now that I'm all the way up to Mechanicum. It's been one hell of a trip getting there. I started reading The Heresy at the end of November and can't get enough. Maybe that's a reason why reading Decent-Abyss was bearable due to constant reading. 
Thanks again though Angel of Blood!


----------



## Magister

Obviously not a popular vote but I *really* didn't enjoy _Mechanicum_, so much so that I stopped reading 100 pages in; and that's a rare thing! I found the writing not very engaging, and the subject matter wasn't much to my own tastes. I tried really hard to like it, honest.


Next suckiest in my eyes is _Fallen Angels_, a disappointing successor to a mediocre entry, closely followed by another fan favourite, _Legion_. A friend and I hotly debated the quality of Legion, with him being very much in favour of it, and my opinion swaying ultimately towards the "I r dissapoint". Abnett won me back with _Prospero Burns_ though, but it seems some of you found it underwhelming. Too much wet leopard-growl perhaps...that did annoy.


----------



## Angel of Blood

Did you go back and finish Mechanicum though? The battles at the end are essence.


----------



## Vaz

Dare I say it? All of them.

I've recently purchased Fulgrim to learn about the Emperor's Children, as I'm thinking of creating a pre-Heresy smallish army of them. It's nothing special - but the only reason was for background purposes.

The first 4, however, were such a load of congealed shit that it's one series I'm not interested in finished reading about.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza

Really didn't like Flight of the Eisenstien at all but then i've read all in order up to and including fulgrim. Plus Legion and Tales of heresy so i've not read the 2 top poo poos atm. Eisenstien i could have done without reading.


----------



## ckcrawford

I'm kind of interested with why _Descent of Angels_ is second worse. At least according to the poll. Perhaps BotA was such an outlier it prevented people for chosing a legit dissapointment. 

It could also be that the Dark Angels were a highly regarded legion and chapter to the 40k and 30k world I suppose that their novels were held to really high standards.


----------



## deathbringer

Battle of the abyss was horrific, just a large amount of horseshit
if i had to choose a second
mechanicum
couldnt get through it
tried 3 times never made it

as for descent of angels, i think its because its not about marines and just sort of background without advancing the story
not my favourite but not my least


----------



## Angel of Blood

I agree, Descent of Angels was a hard read for me. I know it's essential to have the background of Caliban for later on in the Dark Angels arc, but i think it just took to long and got a little side tracked. I became immensely bored at reading a book that was essentially 'The Adventures of Zahariel' in a feudal style war, with the Astartes or the Imperium not even turning up till right near the end of the book and then we were rushed very quickly into a campaign and final battle with no build up at all. Im fully aware some would retort that Legion didn't heavily feature the astartes as much as other books, but they did appear consistently throughout and it was(as i've said in numerous other threads) the only way the XX Legio could be written about, plus even if they weren't there, you always knew they were behind the scenes very much manipulating what was currently happening.

But yeah, i think i just got bored reading about some teenage knight crusading around Caliban, just didn't work for me. Still not as shit as the Abyss though


----------



## Magister

Angel of Blood said:


> Did you go back and finish Mechanicum though? The battles at the end are essence.


All my 40k friends have said this, but no, I've never gone back. Just doesn't seem worth the effort! :headbutt:


----------



## ckcrawford

deathbringer said:


> I think its because its not about marines and just sort of background without advancing the story
> not my favourite but not my least


This is true. In that sense its interesting that the Dark Angels have been highlighted a lot more than most legions. At least in that aspect.


----------



## Angel of Blood

Magister said:


> All my 40k friends have said this, but no, I've never gone back. Just doesn't seem worth the effort! :headbutt:


Just skip to the end then lol! Seriously the final battles are seriously good stuff.


----------

