# Death of Antagonis?



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Anybody read it? My opinion of the SM Battles series is pretty low, but I've always had an interest in any of the more unorthodox legions/chapters. Also interested in reading something from one of the newer BL authors. Just looking for opinions before I throw money at it. Thanks in advance.:victory:


----------



## Loki1416 (Apr 20, 2010)

Unless you want it just to add to your collection or your a huge fan boy of the chapter, I wouldnt recommend it. I struggled to finish it because I thought it was crap.


----------



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

http://thefoundingfields.com/2013/03/death-antagonis-david-annandale-review-lord-night/

There's my opinion.


LotN


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

I'm with LotN, though I'd probably give it a 6/10. It was alright. Far from the best, but far from the worst.


----------



## LazyG (Sep 15, 2008)

Got bored, gave up. And that is a rare occurrence.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Ok, thanks guys. You've just reinforced my already poor opinion of the series._ Angel of Fire_ it is instead.


----------



## Brother Lucian (Apr 22, 2011)

Try Battle for the Fang if you want an outstanding SMB novel.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Dang, not looking forward to this now 





Brother Lucian said:


> Try Battle for the Fang if you want an outstanding SMB novel.


:goodpost:


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Brother Lucian said:


> Try Battle for the Fang if you want an outstanding SMB novel.


Yeah, I agree. There are a couple of diamonds buried in the shite that is this series, namely _Helsreach, Battle for the Fang _and _Legion of the Damned_, but I stopped reading it after I couldn't finish_ The Gildar Rift_. It was the final straw after _The Fall of Damnos, The Purging of Kadillus_ and _The Hunt for Voldorius_. The only reason I read the LotD book is because it was supposed to be about the LotD.


----------



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

Khorne's Fist said:


> Yeah, I agree. There are a couple of diamonds buried in the shite that is this series, namely _Helsreach, Battle for the Fang _and _Legion of the Damned_, but I stopped reading it after I couldn't finish_ The Gildar Rift_. It was the final straw after _The Fall of Damnos, The Purging of Kadillus_ and _The Hunt for Voldorius_.


I would highly recommend that you try _The Siege of Castellax_ and _Wrath of Iron_. Both are fantastic novels.



Khorne's Fist said:


> The only reason I read the LotD book is because it was supposed to be about the LotD.


Which it was, in the only way that the LotD could have had a novel about them.


LotN


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Lord of the Night said:


> I would highly recommend that you try _The Siege of Castellax_ and _Wrath of Iron_. Both are fantastic novels


Haven't read Siege but I concur that Wrath of Iron is quite good


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I didn't like Siege at all. It touched on some interesting things (like life under a CSM force) but outside that...

I didn't like how "evil" the CSM are portrayed. They're literally backstabbing and screwing each other when their lives are on the line. They're too stereotypical evil villian, ya know?

There's no real reason why they're sadistic, uncaring bastards besides the fact that they can be.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Lord of the Night said:


> I would highly recommend that you try _The Siege of Castellax_ and _Wrath of Iron_. Both are fantastic novels.


Both of which are sat neatly on my genuinely enormous "To Read" pile......


I did however, thoroughly enjoy LotD. :victory:


----------



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

hailene said:


> I didn't like Siege at all. It touched on some interesting things (like life under a CSM force) but outside that...
> 
> I didn't like how "evil" the CSM are portrayed. They're literally backstabbing and screwing each other when their lives are on the line. They're too stereotypical evil villian, ya know?
> 
> There's no real reason why they're sadistic, uncaring bastards besides the fact that they can be.


So evil guys need a reason to be evil? Here's the reason that they are sadistic, uncaring bastards. They are sadistic, uncaring, and general bastards. The 3rd Grand Company of Iron Warriors, like every single other CSM out there, are evil because they are evil people. They don't need a reason other than they like it, it's fun or the Gods demand it (but they'd do it anyway) to murder, pillage, rape and destroy everything in sight.

Not really, they are the ideal kind of evil villains. I think C.L Werner did in TSoC what he does best, write real villains that are likeable. ADB's Night Lords are sympathetic and you can understand why they are the way they are; McNeill's Iron Warriors are jerks but they kick ass in battle and you can admire their live fast and fight forever philosophy; and Reynolds's Word Bearers are evil but they are witty and you can laugh with them. TSoC's Iron Warriors are pure evil, the guys who laugh as they maim and murder slaves just because they can, which imo is the closest depiction yet of the real Chaos Space Marines.



Only Over-Captain Vallax backstabbed in the book and it's clear his hatred of Rhodaan overcame his sense of good judgement. When he realised how badly he'd messed up at the end he gave his life to buy Rhodaan, the being he hated more than anything else in creation, a few minutes more to stop the real betrayer, Oriax. That is the kind of discipline they have normally, and any backstabbing that Rhodaan did was only at Vallax in revenge for what Vallax had already done to him.

And Oriax did backstab the Iron Warriors because he wanted them all dead. He wanted them to lose the battle against WAAAGH! Biglug, Oriax wanted them dead for what they did to him and because they would have taken his teleporter. He was a sociopath, his completely unproportional response to an ancient wrong and a minor loss proves it.




LotN


----------



## Anakwanar (Sep 26, 2011)

Guys go back to discussing the pile of shit, that the Death of Antagonis is, please. Thats the point of the thread


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Anakwanar said:


> Guys go back to discussing the pile of shit, that the Death of Antagonis is, please. Thats the point of the thread


I started the thread because of my low opinion of this series so far. I had my fears about this book confirmed by members whose opinion on these things I respect, and a discussion of the few pros and many cons of the series arose. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Anakwanar (Sep 26, 2011)

Ok Nothing wrong - discussion just went for the whole SMB serie. As a whole - the serie is bad - with only 2 good novels Battle of the Fang and Siege of Castellax. But this winter we might have a jewel - Nik Vincent and Dan Abnett co-work in SMB serie in Sabbat Worlds Crusade - Battle for Urdesh. With be consistent with the latest GG novel - The Warmaster. Cant wait. One of the main protagonists of the novel will be 'Red Fury' with Gerhart and his fellow Borhman.


----------



## Apfeljunge (May 1, 2011)

In which parallel universe are Helsreach, LotD and Wrath of Iron bad novels?


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Anakwanar said:


> with only 2 good novels Battle of the Fang and Siege of Castellax.


Haven't read SoC, so can't comment. BotF is excellent, but _Helsreach _should be on there at the very least. One of the best renderings of SMs and their detachment from humanity written to date.


----------



## Anakwanar (Sep 26, 2011)

Strangely i didnt like Helsreach at all (maybe because i hate Black Templars, or because of the Titan depiction). As for the Legion of the Damned - yeah i forget this fantastic stuff - but it really was not a SMB novel but a story of the Scourge =) 
Wraith of Iron - is bad, really bad - iam tired of showing how distant Iron Hands become from anything organic. Ferrus Manus would have ripped them all apart for their machine love.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Lord of the Night said:


> So evil guys need a reason to be evil? Here's the reason that they are sadistic, uncaring bastards. They are sadistic, uncaring, and general bastards. The 3rd Grand Company of Iron Warriors, like every single other CSM out there, are evil because they are evil people. They don't need a reason other than they like it, it's fun or the Gods demand it (but they'd do it anyway) to murder, pillage, rape and destroy everything in sight.
> 
> Not really, they are the ideal kind of evil villains.


Yeah... agree to disagree... :wink:

Are there Chaos Space Marines who are nihilists, psychopaths, or otherwise more worried about petty vendettas and self-gratification than, oh, I don't know, actually conducting a meaningful defense against an invading horde of xenos? Absolutely! Is that type of Chaos Space Marine the "ideal kind" of evil villain? I beg to differ. It would take an exceptional author to make meaningful a character who, by definition and design, is less nuanced, less cerebral, and less driven to involve himself in engaging situations.

The best kind of villain is strikingly similar to the best kind of hero - it's an individual whose motivations for what he or she is doing are either relatable or plausible given their context and background. That might be a sort of sociopath, in the style of Sevatar. Or it might be a Machiavellian genius in the style of Cardinal Richelieu. Or it might be a great man whose well-intentioned decisions have brought him to darkness, as is the case with so many novels throughout time.

Either way, though, the design for any truly great villain has never been "let's make this guy evil for evil's sake" and have them act that way because they'd think it's fun.

Mind you, this isn't necessarily a critique on the book you're referencing. There were issues I had with that particular entry in the SMB series, but the internecine rivalries between the Iron Warriors wasn't necessarily one of them. Or at least one of the more glaring issues.



Anakwanar said:


> Strangely i didnt like Helsreach at all (maybe because i hate Black Templars, or because of the Titan depiction).


Hearing someone they didn't like 'Helsreach' at all makes my cranium hurt!

Kidding, kidding... we're all entitled to our opinions.


----------



## Brother Lucian (Apr 22, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> Hearing someone they didn't like 'Helsreach' at all makes my cranium hurt!
> 
> Kidding, kidding... we're all entitled to our opinions.


Always found Hellsreach and Legion of the Damned to be overrated. Battle for the Fang and Siege of Castellax I however can agree on.


----------



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

Phoebus said:


> Yeah... agree to disagree... :wink:
> 
> Are there Chaos Space Marines who are nihilists, psychopaths, or otherwise more worried about petty vendettas and self-gratification than, oh, I don't know, actually conducting a meaningful defense against an invading horde of xenos? Absolutely! Is that type of Chaos Space Marine the "ideal kind" of evil villain? I beg to differ. It would take an exceptional author to make meaningful a character who, by definition and design, is less nuanced, less cerebral, and less driven to involve himself in engaging situations.
> 
> ...


Perhaps but that depends on your definition of evil. To me guys like Rhodaan and Vallax are pure evil; while Talos and co are bad but not evil, more sympathetic characters who have been given a bad lot in life and must make the best of it. In fact you tend not to see a lot of my definition of evil in fiction, characters that are unrepentantly evil because they were born that way and who don't want to be redeemed or have friends or find love, they just want to destroy because they think it's fun or because they want to control everything around them. To me the ideal of an evil villain is a character who you can understand, but recognize is twisted. Like Emperor Palpatine, Abaddon the Despoiler, Demagol. These characters have understandable motives as you say, but you as the reader can recognize that they are evil and what they want and how they go about getting it is wrong. Characters like this can be more enjoyable than what you describe, not better necessarily, but I find them more enjoyable because they make good counterpoints to heroes.

I don't deny those are good types of villains but I don't count some of them as evil, especially not the last one. Villains driven to do bad things because they have good intentions or because they've suffered and want it to stop or because they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing aren't evil, they are misguided.

It can be. Look at Emperor Palpatine, he was a "let's make this guy evil for evil's sake" villain and he's brilliant.


LotN


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Anakwanar said:


> As for the Legion of the Damned - yeah i forget this fantastic stuff - but it really was not a SMB novel but a story of the Scourge =)


I didn't really like the Legion of the Damned either. I did like the opening with the Feast of Blades where the officers are bemoaning their ever dwindling chances of victory. That was probably my favorite portion of the book.

The Scourge just didn't quite hit it off with me. I couldn't quite get on board with him. It's probably just a different view on life. He (if memory serves me right, I read it when it first came out) seemed to be wallowing in self-pity and regret. I was always taught to move forward regardless. Pick up the pieces and do it right next time. If there's no next time for that particular choice, then do your best in whatever you end up doing. 

It didn't jive with what the Scourge did for most of the book.

I also didn't really like how few scenes there were with the Fire Hawks. The book was named after them, but we saw them what, a handful of times? And almost always in passing, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~

If we're talking about SMB books, I liked _Helsreach_ (duh) and surprisingly _Rynn's World_. _Battle for the Fang_ was decent as well.


----------



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

hailene said:


> I also didn't really like how few scenes there were with the Fire Hawks. The book was named after them, but we saw them what, a handful of times? And almost always in passing, too.


Sigh.



Lord of the Night said:


> And two, do not go into LotD expecting to read a book from the Legion's POV or to see them on every page. I find it baffling that so many people expected just that when it's clear from knowing anything about the Legion that having a story from their POV would kill the mystery behind them and that the Legion's very nature as a Deus Ex Machina means that the idea of them being in a prolonged battle is just foolish so they could not fight a battle from start to finish and a leading role in a novel would require them to do so. _Legion of the Damned_ is a story about a battle the Legion takes part in but in the way they always take part in a battle, by showing up to save the Imperium's hide when all seems lost. That is the theme of the Legion, the Deus Ex Machina, and I think that LotD accurately depicts them, awesomely as well, and is true to their theme and already-present lore.


That is what I have to say to that, i've said it elsewhere and my opinion on this matter is unchanged, and never will change.


LotN


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I can agree with you fully there. That's an opinion all right.



Lord of the Night said:


> having a story from their POV would kill the mystery behind them


Opinion.



Lord of the Night said:


> so they could not fight a battle from start to finish and a leading role in a novel would require them to do so.


Opinion.

Even if this was true, you could have a novel, from their perspective, having them join many different battles.

Heck, you could do a story of their origins. That'd be awfully interesting to see the struggles and decisions that led them to become what they are.
~~~~~~~~~

I won't waste any more of your time since you feel so strongly about your opinion.


----------



## Hachiko (Jan 26, 2011)

hailene said:


> I also didn't really like how few scenes there were with the Fire Hawks. The book was named after them, but we saw them what, a handful of times? And almost always in passing, too.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~


A standalone book featuring the Fire Hawks/LotD would be great. However the book was about the battle on Certus Minor, which the Legion played a decisive role at the end of. 

The book wasn't named solely after them; the Excoriators are a damned legion as well (Sanders even mentioned this aspect on his blog). They are damned to feel the pain Dorn felt at seeing the Emperor in apparent death, they are damned to fight at the rim of the Eye of Terror, they are damned as their Chapter Master lies sick with an unknown poison. Also, remember that the Cholercaust yields a legion of the damned as well. Chaos marines and cultists damned for their heretical actions. The title works on three levels.

Now if you couldn't gel with Kersh, that's fine too. I found him to be an engaging and exciting protagonist.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Hachiko said:


> The title works on three levels.


That's an interesting spin on things. It's a pretty cool idea. That boosts the book a little bit in my head.



Hachiko said:


> I found him to be an engaging and exciting protagonist.


How do you feel about his 180 turn at the "end" of the book? The one with his quotation?


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

It'd have to be a stand alone book for the Fire Hawks before they became the legion of the damned. The legion doesn't speak unless its a psychic link between themselves. To others like Kersh, its just the chattering of teeth and their ghostly presence that do the talking for them. Also their bolters. Can't forget the bolters


----------



## Ddraig Cymry (Dec 30, 2012)

Khorne's Fist said:


> The only reason I read the LotD book is because it was supposed to be about the LotD.


Amen. Excoriators are not anywhere close to being compelling for me.

I liked it overall, there were a lot of slow parts throughout the book and the actions scenes could be a little confusing at times, but were still well written. It definitely has a grimdark ending suitable for 40k. I like the fact they gave attention to new and unique chapters like the Black Dragons, but I wish they would have done more with them.


----------



## Hachiko (Jan 26, 2011)

hailene said:


> That's an interesting spin on things. It's a pretty cool idea. That boosts the book a little bit in my head.


I think it is a good spin. Sanders is (was) an English teacher, so building additional meanings into things is his prerogative. He probably quizzed his students on it too. 



> How do you feel about his 180 turn at the "end" of the book? The one with his quotation?


Hmmmm....are you referring to the paragraph on the very last page? If so, I honestly didn't see a 180 there. I think the main point of that was to show, ultimately, what Kersh's fate was 

that he eventually became chapter master, even though he was pretty much despised by the other Excoriators
, after the events of Certus Minor. It's a philosophical reflection of sorts, in which he will not directly state what he did see, for the simple fact that the Legion is technically legend. Therefore, he essentially says what happened in a way in which he cannot be accused of madness or heresy.
Did you see it a different way? Or did you mean a different quote? I personally love this book and enjoy discussion of it.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Hachiko said:


> Did you see it a different way?


Right quote.

It's a pretty radical departure to where he (and his Chapter) stood at the beginning of the book. It's much more optimistic. Rather than the fatalist approach that he and his Chapter shared.

Also most striking, to me, was his belief in the divinity of the Emperor.

Major character changes, in my opinion. I don't feel too strongly one way or another, but I like this change more than I dislike it.


----------



## Hachiko (Jan 26, 2011)

hailene said:


> Right quote.
> 
> It's a pretty radical departure to where he (and his Chapter) stood at the beginning of the book. It's much more optimistic. Rather than the fatalist approach that he and his Chapter shared.
> 
> ...


Maybe after seeing a real miracle, he'found Jesus'.
Or maybe he learned over the years to say the things that make him look devout and on the up-and-up. Especially seeing as though he lives his life knowing many are against him.

Better put any further comments on this in the new thread LotN opened.


----------

