Your Opinion on Recent Black Book Writing Quality?

[Azorius]

is noticeably deteriorated? 

 

Especially Legion lore section - it is a pale shadow of what has been done prior. 

[Gorgoff]

is noticeably deteriorated?

 

Especially Legion lore section - it is a pale shadow of what has been done prior.

I disagree.

Still great stuff.

[Joe]

I really wish you'd stop with these clickbait thread titles.

[Azorius]

I really wish you'd stop with these clickbait thread titles.

Sorry, that is not my intention - the space of title doesn't allow me to press sentence into it. 

[Fire Golem]

 

I really wish you'd stop with these clickbait thread titles.

 

Sorry, that is not my intention - the space of title doesn't allow me to press sentence into it.

‘Black book writing quality’ would work.

[Sandlemad]

No, the White Scars and Blood Angels sections are pretty much up there with any others in terms of complexity and how evocative they are. If anything the sections have improved from the first four in Betrayal, which are good but slightly more one-note than those in Massacre onwards. The 'notable campaigns' bit aren't quite as incredible as the heights of the Salamanders or the Imperial Fists but hardly a pale shadow.

 

The battle writing for the campaign sections - for Chondax, Signus, Prospero in Inferno, and particularly the incredibly memorable ones in Retribution - is still top notch.

[Azorius]

 

 

I really wish you'd stop with these clickbait thread titles.

Sorry, that is not my intention - the space of title doesn't allow me to press sentence into it.

‘Black book writing quality’ would work.

 

 

My bad - yep, that is true, I lapsed. Unfortunately, it is impossible to revise title once posting it; I'll refer to your advise hereafter. 

[Azorius]

No, the White Scars and Blood Angels sections are pretty much up there with any others in terms of complexity and how evocative they are. If anything the sections have improved from the first four in Betrayal, which are good but slightly more one-note than those in Massacre onwards. The 'notable campaigns' bit aren't quite as incredible as the heights of the Salamanders or the Imperial Fists but hardly a pale shadow.

 

The battle writing for the campaign sections - for Chondax, Signus, Prospero in Inferno, and particularly the incredibly memorable ones in Retribution - is still top notch.

 

Perhaps that is just my impression, but compared to Tempest and Inferno, I have remained deeply unsatisfied. Have you noticed wide deliberate page blanks, whose sole likely purpose is filling the space and increasing page count? Such travesties have nerve happened before.  Furthermore, as people have already pointed out, the writing has lost some of its erudite, academic, professionally detached edge. 

[Joe]

My bad - yep, that is true, I lapsed. Unfortunately, it is impossible to revise title once posting it; I'll refer to your advise hereafter.

This is also patently false; you just need to use the Full Editor.

[Sandlemad]

 

No, the White Scars and Blood Angels sections are pretty much up there with any others in terms of complexity and how evocative they are. If anything the sections have improved from the first four in Betrayal, which are good but slightly more one-note than those in Massacre onwards. The 'notable campaigns' bit aren't quite as incredible as the heights of the Salamanders or the Imperial Fists but hardly a pale shadow.

 

The battle writing for the campaign sections - for Chondax, Signus, Prospero in Inferno, and particularly the incredibly memorable ones in Retribution - is still top notch.

 

Perhaps that is just my impression, but compared to Tempest and Inferno, I have remained deeply unsatisfied. Have you noticed wide deliberate page blanks, whose sole likely purpose is filling the space and increasing page count? Such travesties have nerve happened before.  Furthermore, as people have already pointed out, the writing has lost some of its erudite, academic, professionally detached edge. 

 

 

Calling them travesties is a bit much, don't you think? They were present in Inferno already and we know a bunch of stuff was cut from Malevolence. I don't understand a mindset that takes 'larger blank spaces on pages' to indicate 'writing that is a pale shadow of what came before'. 

 

I am one of the people who noted the slight shift in tone and more emotional edge to the still academic/milhist style. It really is slight, with the same frequency of in-universe sourcing and documentation as before - maybe more with the ambiguity over the reliability of The Unbalanced Scales - and appropriate in the context of what the author is trying to do in the warpcraft/daemonology sections. Moreover that shift does not mean a reduction in quality. I actually found fewer of the minor stylistic quirks (e.g. the overegged multi-clause run-on sentences) that sometimes characterised the previous black books and Imperial Armour books.

[Marshal Rohr]

Unless I’m just wrong, Alan wrote or oversaw most of the creation of the legion lore histories before his passing. They are not being written on the spot, though they may be edited to fit into the space. I felt like the Chondax and Signus sections were great and actually showed a full legion deployment on the surface of a planet AND a full legion operating over an entire system, both of which were sorely needed representations. The psyarkana and Silent War sections were Grade A lore unlike anything since 2nd and 3rd edition background bits from Inquisitor and Realm of Chaos. The campaign rules feel a little wonky (one player having to win several times or totally loses). The Daemon Army list is perfect lore wise, I haven’t played any games with them so rules wise I can’t comment. I am very pleased with how Inferno and Malevolence were done.

[Azorius]

 

 

No, the White Scars and Blood Angels sections are pretty much up there with any others in terms of complexity and how evocative they are. If anything the sections have improved from the first four in Betrayal, which are good but slightly more one-note than those in Massacre onwards. The 'notable campaigns' bit aren't quite as incredible as the heights of the Salamanders or the Imperial Fists but hardly a pale shadow.

 

The battle writing for the campaign sections - for Chondax, Signus, Prospero in Inferno, and particularly the incredibly memorable ones in Retribution - is still top notch.

 

Perhaps that is just my impression, but compared to Tempest and Inferno, I have remained deeply unsatisfied. Have you noticed wide deliberate page blanks, whose sole likely purpose is filling the space and increasing page count? Such travesties have nerve happened before.  Furthermore, as people have already pointed out, the writing has lost some of its erudite, academic, professionally detached edge. 

 

 

Calling them travesties is a bit much, don't you think? They were present in Inferno already and we know a bunch of stuff was cut from Malevolence. I don't understand a mindset that takes 'larger blank spaces on pages' to indicate 'writing that is a pale shadow of what came before'. 

 

I am one of the people who noted the slight shift in tone and more emotional edge to the still academic/milhist style. It really is slight, with the same frequency of in-universe sourcing and documentation as before - maybe more with the ambiguity over the reliability of The Unbalanced Scales - and appropriate in the context of what the author is trying to do in the warpcraft/daemonology sections. Moreover that shift does not mean a reduction in quality. I actually found fewer of the minor stylistic quirks (e.g. the overegged multi-clause run-on sentences) that sometimes characterised the previous black books and Imperial Armour books.

I admit calling blanks travesties might be a stretch. But look the page 148 and 149. IIRC, I haven't seen anything like that in Inferno. 

 

Unless I’m just wrong, Alan wrote or oversaw most of the creation of the legion lore histories before his passing. They are not being written on the spot, though they may be edited to fit into the space. I felt like the Chondax and Signus sections were great and actually showed a full legion deployment on the surface of a planet AND a full legion operating over an entire system, both of which were sorely needed representations. The psyarkana and Silent War sections were Grade A lore unlike anything since 2nd and 3rd edition background bits from Inquisitor and Realm of Chaos. The campaign rules feel a little wonky (one player having to win several times or totally loses). The Daemon Army list is perfect lore wise, I haven’t played any games with them so rules wise I can’t comment. I am very pleased with how Inferno and Malevolence were done.

Do you mean the Hidden War section? Yes, Psyarkana and Hidden War are magnificent. And Signus and Chondax bear their gems. I simply haven't come to like Legion section. 

[NocturnalAnimal]

No.

[Skalpynock]

The only thing that bothers me is the individual legionaries depicted. Books 1-5 had their weapons shown besides, books 6-7 had their shoulderpads, book 8 shows only a frontal shot of the legionary. Not that it's a major issue, really.

[No Foes Remain]

The only thing that bothers me is the individual legionaries depicted. Books 1-5 had their weapons shown besides, books 6-7 had their shoulderpads, book 8 shows only a frontal shot of the legionary. Not that it's a major issue, really.

There did seem a lack of images like that in this book compared to the rest, that was the only thing I was disapointed with.

[rendingon1+]

What I don't like is BA pre-Sanguinus fluff. It seemed to me, they were trying to do something edgy and since we already had homicidal butchers in the sahpe of XIIth and pre-Russ VIth they settled for something EXTREMELY BRUTAL edgy - like eating corpses. No matter how many forced "it was neccessary" they put in the text (ok, why exactly was it neccessary - never explained) it begs a question. Why no one sanctioned, censured or whatever IXth? It's a stuff that speaks of total Legion degradation and mega barbarism, so...why no actions have been taken?

Another of facepalming things is IX campaign of note, one when they are cut of supplies. Everyone knows which one. So: according to Malevolence, IXth recruited and produced astartes just like that (while running a mobile guerilla war) and then used them as a lightly armed troops.

dumb.

DUMB.

:cussing DUMB!!!

I don't know what kind of person did it but to make an astartes you need more than just implant a geneseed. You need functional apothecarion to implement OTHER 19 (?) ORGANS required to create astartes. 

No further comment.

Other thing about this campaign is that IX must have eaten literally TONS of mutant flesh - they must have done it, since Malovelence says that they starved their enemies.

Also I was under impression that BA fluff writer believed that Omophagea was an implant unique to the Blood Angels when obviously it is not.

 

Oh, and spparently ret thirst, black rage was a thing from the beginning and was not a secret, which extremely cheapens "hidden secret flaw" thing that was much later discovery.

Still reading.

Edited April 15, 2019 by rendingon1+

[Rabidbunneh]

The BA section states the Omophagea in the 9th is overdeveloved or sensitive, leading to the flesh eating past. Using geneseed without the implants means you'd end up with stronger chaff to throw at the enemy, which fitted with their brutally pragmatic method of War.

 

The BA section was interesting, Sanguinius was as much a saviour to the Legion as he was on Baal and to the worlds he brought into compliance.

[rendingon1+]

Sorry, but battle account clearly states that they were full fledged Legionnaires. And I've never encountered a source according to which implementation of genessed only creates stronger humans.

[Marshal Rohr]

Blood Angels also have the Sarcophagi, like the one Autek Mor stole from the World Eaters. Produces recruits in a year. Blood Angels still use it. 

[Nova_Dew]

What I don't like is BA pre-Sanguinus fluff. It seemed to me, they were trying to do something edgy and since we already had homicidal butchers in the sahpe of XIIth and pre-Russ VIth they settled for something EXTREMELY BRUTAL edgy - like eating corpses. No matter how many forced "it was neccessary" they put in the text (ok, why exactly was it neccessary - never explained) it begs a question. Why no one sanctioned, censured or whatever IXth? It's a stuff that speaks of total Legion degradation and mega barbarism, so...why no actions have been taken?

Another of facepalming things is IX campaign of note, one when they are cut of supplies. Everyone knows which one. So: according to Malevolence, IXth recruited and produced astartes just like that (while running a mobile guerilla war) and then used them as a lightly armed troops.

dumb.

DUMB.

:cussing DUMB!!!

I don't know what kind of person did it but to make an astartes you need more than just implant a geneseed. You need functional apothecarion to implement OTHER 19 (?) ORGANS required to create astartes. 

No further comment.

Other thing about this campaign is that IX must have eaten literally TONS of mutant flesh - they must have done it, since Malovelence says that they starved their enemies.

Also I was under impression that BA fluff writer believed that Omophagea was an implant unique to the Blood Angels when obviously it is not.

 

Oh, and spparently ret thirst, black rage was a thing from the beginning and was not a secret, which extremely cheapens "hidden secret flaw" thing that was much later discovery.

Still reading.

 

They were almost exterminated like the other two failed legions and Malcador hated their very existence.

Blood Angels also have the Sarcophagi, like the one Autek Mor stole from the World Eaters. Produces recruits in a year. Blood Angels still use it. 

Didn't exist at the time as far as we know and i doubt even if they did they would take them down to a planet with them, they were dropped off and left to be picked up later after they had won the battle.

[Marshal Rohr]

They did exist, Autek Mor stole one in the mid Heresy at Bodt. As for being on the planet, of course, I’m just pointing out the time to make a recruit during the Heresy wasn’t what it is in 40k. That was one of Guillimansnbig reforms (and the addition of hypnotic indoctrination). Edited April 15, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Nova_Dew]

Do we know when the Sarcophagi came into being? pretty sure it's a Sang designed and made thing or was, fluff might have changed

[bluntblade]

They did exist, Autek Mor stole one in the mid Heresy at Bodt. As for being on the planet, of course, I’m just pointing out the time to make a recruit during the Heresy wasn’t what it is in 40k. That was one of Guillimansnbig reforms (and the addition of hypnotic indoctrination).

Hypno-indoctrination was developed beforehand, I believe. WE and IW may have used it during the Crusade, and the IW had some cadres on Mezoa who'd been subjected to intensive hypno-indoctrination.

[Marshal Rohr]

I know, but Guilliman made it standardized in the Codex.

[bluntblade]

I know, but Guilliman made it standardized in the Codex.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.