So, does this pay off? That depends heavily on how much you enjoy his usual themes, in all honesty.
The Synopsis
On the fringes of Imperial space, the Emperor's Spears stand vigil over the Emperor's domain. As the last of three once mighty chapters tasked with guarding their territory against the outer dark, their numbers are stretched thin beyond measure. Yet as the Imperium Nihilus spews forth ever greater numbers of heretics, daemons and rebels, they continue to hold the line.
The Spears' isolation is broken only by the arrival of a heavily damaged frigate, bearing a representation of the Mentor Legion. Tasked with judging the Spears and the state of their territories by Guilliman himself, Amadeus Kalus Incarius is given the duty of deciding their future. As war continues to grip the sector, Amadeus finds himself facing animosity for not only his duty, but his very origins...
The Good
This is very much both a narrative and a lore story in one. Much like Brothers of the Snake before it, the book seeks to both offer a chapter to flesh out and highlight the very nature of space marines. Yet where Abnett focused upon elements of nobility and what separated them from humans, Dembski-Bowden went in the opposite direction. This one yangs for every time that book yinged, but it does so with an obvious goal behind it. We see how the Spears are both extremely atypical of both Ultramarines successors and chapters as a whole, giving new dimension to the Adeptus Astartes. This is especially noteworthy as they retain a much closer relationship to their citizenry, but they are almost scorned because of it.
Many essential details within the story are easily established and developed as you might expect, through the plot itself. While this is commonly commented upon and praised when an author does it well, Dembski-Bowden should be highlighted as a master of this style. There is never a single moment where the story drags itself to a halt in order to explore things or even feels the need to divert everything to focus on one idea. Even in those few moments where it is diverted to explore an idea through a scene, both character development and greater narrative impact more than excuses it.
What might also be surprising to many readers - especially after that introduction - is that the viewpoint character himself is not an astartes. Instead of Amadeus or even a member of the Spears, it is instead one of Amadeus' accompanying humans who we follow throughout this. Anuradha Daaz, a heavily augmented helot, serves as the viewpoint character. We see events through her eyes, and gain a better impression of both chapters because of this. Along with a commentary on how the Mentors act through both her upgrades and relationship with her master, we see how the Spears subvert ideas. Her predictions and attitudes towards the astartes emulate common views both in and out of the universe. This helps to more easily display just how the Spears differ from conventional chapters, and to make their personalities more distinct. This is evident not only in how they treat humans, but also in how they regard themselves or other groups.
Lastly, however, the book also takes full advantage of the setting's desperation. A problem with the new edition is how it seemed to so often treat the latest development in the setting as a new stage in a bigger battle, with each side gaining new toys. It lacked that "oomph!" factor in a few key areas, and never quite gained the edge that the new developments needed. However, Spear of the Emperor manages to fully convey it for what it is: Hell burst open. The galaxy itself was split by a wound of unreality down the middle, splitting the Imperium in two and engulfing whole worlds in the Warp. This is a time of miracles, but it also drew in far more infernal forces as well, which relentlessly taxes the Imperium at every turn. This is the best example of how an isolated world on the frontlines would be rocked by this revelation, and how the Imperium would struggle to support them. It's a bleak outlook within the story itself, but there is an odd beauty and engagement in their relentless fighting.
Unfortunately, Dembski-Bowden goes a bit too far with this...
The Bad
Now, before we get into the criticisms, let's make one thing clear: Aaron Dembski-Bowden has made two things evident in his writings - In his mind the Imperium would fail, and the Emperor was a monstrosity along with no redeeming qualities. He tends to beat this message into his stories repeatedly, and even in personal commentaries his idea that the Imperium would die at the dawn of M42 was something he held as an ultimate truth. This was often taken further and further, to the degree where it constantly seemed like he saw the Imperium as enduring thanks to the momentum of the Great Crusade, and never having any real successes or glories past that point. The reason this is worth mentioning is that Spear of the Emperor is set well after the time he felt it should fail, and he seems to use it as an opportunity to say "No, I am right, and here is why!"
The book's very introduction establishes that things have become far worse in the decade or two past the book's events, to the point of Chaos holding total dominion over the book's setting. When there's a chance to establish that the Imperium will fail, the writing will emphasise it in every way possible, and it even goes out of its way to add in more failings. Entire batches of Primaris marines dying, exaggerating the malice of the Inquisition to the point of stupidity, denying prior victories; it's all in here. The problem is that this colours the entire book, to the point where it goes from being bittersweet to downright nihilistic. Hell, it almost revels in its nihilism at multiple points, and how the Imperium is falling to bits in this version. While viewpoints like this are welcome in order to balance out more pro-Imperial ones, with the benefit of unreliable narrators on both sides, Dembski-Bowden keeps writing it in a manner of only his one being fact set in stone. This makes it, even given his exceptional talent as an author, very difficult to enjoy at points.
On a more specific book note, the bittersweet angle means that many scenes are robbed of anything to offset the more dour tones of the work. There's nothing like the benefits of the Night Lords trilogy or Word Bearers books to keep things going, and unless you're grabbed by the ideas behind it, it just isn't fun after a while. It's certainly engaging, but it can reach the point of being overwhelming. It's a problem only made worse by how, in the case of most characters, there's little to get you fully invested in them. Looking through Daaz's eyes means that she is not on the same level as the astartes, and as such it's far more difficult to depict them in the same overall manner. Unfortunately, this means that she is unable to get inside their minds or judge their personalities in the same way as another space marine, making them distant and unengaging. The same is true of her fellow helots, and as a result, it's difficult to fully care about the characters within the book so much as the events surrounding them.
Daaz herself is also not a very engaging protagonist. While, much like the above point, there are ideas which certainly benefit her, she lacks the backstory or qualities to help her stand out. Say what you will about Prospero Burns' flaws, but Kasper Hawser's personality and history made him quite memorable. I cannot say the same about Daaz, who seems far too much like a blank slate. I can comment upon her bionics more than her personality, even with all the moments where her thoughts come across clearly to the reader. It's a damn shame, as she simply lacks the benefits which made Dembski-Bowden's other first-person tales work so well.
The Verdict
Spear of the Emperor isn't a bad book, but it's a very hard one to like unless you enjoy this author's personal view on the setting. While I personally don't regret reading it, and will likely re-read it again, it lacks the enjoyment or investment that I would typically associate with a novel so well crafted. If you are curious about this one, reading a preview or renting it from a library is highly advised prior to purchase it, but don't ignore it entirely by any means.
Verdict: 6.7 out of 10
I'm going to be skipping this book for now, and it's not just because I don't have the time to read through it, it's because I'd be going into it fairly biased thanks to stuff like this:
ReplyDelete"Now, before we get into the criticisms, let's make one thing clear: Aaron Dembski-Bowden has made two things evident in his writings - In his mind the Imperium would fail, and the Emperor was a monstrosity along with no redeeming qualities.
"Spear of the Emperor is set well after the time he felt it should fail, and he seems to use it as an opportunity to say "No, I am right, and here is why!""
What ADB seems to forget is all the reasons the Imperium hasn't died yet. Sure they might be losing, but losing isn't the same as "lost" and if you only read his books, you'd be amazed that the Imperium lasted two centuries, let alone ten millennia and is still around. I know if anyone would confront him about it he'd say something like "No that doesn't matter because X" where X would be something tangential that only showed up once or was a reference to something he wrote himself.
Above all I think I'm just sick of seeing the Marines be weak. You can tell me that they're super strong, super tough super-soldiers but when you have them dying in droves, making it look like they've got worse armour and tactics than the Imperial Guard, there's something wrong. When you have people whose reaction to a story like Shadowbreaker is surprise that the Marines are NOT dying in droves, something has gone wrong with the setting, and when somebody like Astartes can put out a fan animation that's absolutely gorgeous and shows the capabilities of Marines off better than 90% of all current material, the setting as a whole has gotten really off track.
Under people like ADB and Phil Kelly you have to wonder how loyalist Marines even exist in 40k at all, since they die so much you'd figure entire Chapters would get wiped out in only a month or two (in a Phil Kelly book he did create one just to show how easy it is to kill them all and according to him, fully armoured Marines are physically weaker and slower than Kroot). When you see good material like the Damnation Crusade show just how long the recruiting process takes, it makes you realize there's massive disconnects between the authors and their material.
As far as a writing issue goes, Phil Kelly and ADB also share a similar problem: It feels like their characters have read the script. There's some leaps in logic or insane bits of luck that cause events play out a certain way, or they'll just hand-wave away certain events that should've played out a much different way because they can just go "unreliable narrator, now on with the story". I felt like Talon of Horus was really bad with that and I'm doubtful this book would be much better with it.
Now to finish off, I don't think ADB's a bad writer at all, I think he's a good writer who's ultimately ruined by his own biases. The Imperium has to be on the losing end because he says it does, why does it have to be that way? Because he thinks it has to be. He's capable of writing a good story but he's got a one-track mind in doing it, where he can't take in any outside material and it really shows when he starts writing facets that aren't CSM. Suddenly he has to change how everything works even when what he's changing it to makes no sense.
That basically sums up a lot of problems that I have with him. I am open to his flaws and can find ways to enjoy them on the whole, but as the years have gone on these problems have become more notable. It's honestly why I try to praise him when he at least actively tries to evoke an unreliable narrator style to get away with his stylings, rather than doing things like this.
DeleteI will say one thing though - This doesn't inherently have much to do with exactly how weak the marines are. While I accept that Kelly makes those errors, ADB at least does try to balance it well. It's the Imperium and the Inquisition which are the real problem in this book, and the fact he opens with "by the way, the Imperium is going to lose this war badly at some point after this ends. So, yeah. Now here's a small glimpse as to why this age is without hope."
The problems becoming more and more noticeable is exactly why I said what I did about the Marines. ADB isn't as bad as Phil Kelly at making them seem weak and pathetic, but he's done it before in other stories where he can just go "unreliable narrator!" To skip out on defending how weak they are. I still don't buy it, that throughout the setting there's all these unrelated unreliable narrators who for some reason all seem to depict the Marines in the same light. Once it becomes a pattern like that then I stop buying unreliabe narrator excuse.
DeleteOn that front I will agree with you entirely, and it has been a concern for a while with other subjects. The way in which the T'au are written involving the Aun, and people seeming to think that the Craftworld and Dark Eldar would get along just fine are the big ones. In truth, the only definite one I tend to think of as an unreliable narrator is the Black Legion series, and even then I can completely understand your objections over that.
DeleteThis is unfair strawmanning of Kelly and ADB and I find it pity that Bellarius just accepts it without much refutation.
DeletePhil Kelly did not make Kroot stronger than fully armoured Marines. He made a single, prominent, Kroot character and antagonist stronger than a single Primaris Marine in one book. I do not think the idea that there will be Kroot out there stronger than certain Marines is insane or problematic, I'd be concerned if every single Kroot ever is weaker than every Marine.
Further if you read Blades of Damocles, by Phil Kelly, then that story has a squad of Marines wiping out multiple Kroot without issue so, again, you're being far to unfair to Kelly.
Nor does creating a Chapter to be wiped out strike me as a problem. Numerous Craftworlds have been wiped out by Space Marines, and they are FAR larger than a Chapter and harder to replace, yet I see no outcry concerning this. Having a story in which a Chapter dies is no worse than the many stories in which Craftworlds are destroyed or Chaos Warbands or entire Ork Waaghs and it's intellectually dishonest to only take issue with losses when they happen to Space Marines but ignore the fact that the lore is already rife with the other factions losing entire factions.
Also saying Marines are portrayed as 'weak' in Black Library just seems hard for me to swallow. You're aware this is the book series in which two Marines kill a Wraithlord without a single loss? Or where two Deathwatch kill several dozen Howling Banshees without loss? Or where a Sergeant no-sells a Farseer's psychic powers and kills the Farseer alone? Or a sergeant slays a Riptide in a one-on-one battle? Or bloodclaws slay Archons? Or 5 Bloodclaws defeat dozens of Mandrakes? Where Cassius and Dante both beat the Swarmlord? Where Ghazghkull has lost every literary battle he's been in? Where the Avatar of Khaine has been slain so many times even the community considers this a running joke? I'm sorry but arguing Space Marines are underpowered in the lore, in Black Library, is just frankly untrue.
I am sorry Bellarius, I do like your reviews of much of the other works; Star Wars, Star Trek, Games etc. but your reviews of Space Marines I see, sadly, still suffer very much from the 40k fandom's myopic inability to look past anything but Space Marines or contemplate that any other faction should have agency or import in the lore.
You fail to really call out at all the systemic bias in favour of the Imperium, but mostly Space Marines, in almost any of your work save Death Masque, and actually often seem to act as if you somehow think there is even an equivalence in the bias which is, frankly, untrue. That in reviews like this you even seem to imply you think the Imperium doesn't recieve enough credit or support is also frankly baffling considering they win every single major campaign in the history's setting and dominate the setting's lore and importance to such a degree that the other factions are not even comparable.
So, yeah, I am sorry because I do enjoy much of your reviews and works but on 40k you seem to sadly only care for Space Marines and fail to in anyway challenge or point out the overweening systemic bias in favour of them ingrained into almost all the lore.
Which is ironic given the fact that I tend to take issue with this when the Space Marines do have this happen, especially in codices. I genuinely want to see more Xenos stories balance this out on the whole, and the only reason I have not picked up the more recent Eldar books is due to an extremely mixed feeling in relation to Gav Thorpe as a Xenos writer. I'll also happily defend Fire Warrior as a great story when la'Kais manages to single-handledly kill a good thirty marines or more throughout the tale due to its good execution, but will take issues with ones where they do not. In fact, one of the biggest problems I have with the Craftworld Eldar is the fact that its message is so often "You will die no matter what, and there is no hope for your culture, species or survival." It's a major part of why Yin-Sarr was written to try and offer an alternative to this trend. I also tend to take serious issues with it in various codex reviews like the one here:
Deletehttps://thegoodthebadtheinsulting.blogspot.com/2015/04/eldar-craftworlds-part-1-lore-warhammer.html
Or Damnos' misuse of the Necrons:
https://thegoodthebadtheinsulting.blogspot.com/2014/10/warzone-damnos-part-1-lore-warhammer.html
Or devoted a paragraph to the problem of this trend, even if it was a background mention, in Calgar's Siege:
http://thegoodthebadtheinsulting.blogspot.com/2016/11/calgars-siege-by-paul-kearney-book.html
Also, the reason I do not refute the point on Kelly is due to two things - Firstly, while he's an excellent writer for the Dark Eldar, I have had serious problems with how he writes the T'au in terms of culture and direction. The other is simple - My time is limited these days and I just did not want to pick up another book which delves into subjects I already know that I will likely hate. As such, I honestly don't know enough about the book's depiction or styling to make an argument one way or the other.
The problem I have with this one isn't that the Imperium loses or is losing ground here. That I'm fine with so long as the gradual decay is well written. The problem in this case is that ADB breaks out the litarary hammer and starts to beat this message into the readers' head:
"The Imperium is terrible, has no right to exist, no reason to continue and no hope. Everything will die, the Emperor will die, and everything will end. To believe otherwise is wrong."
It's not even delivered as a possible take on the setting by ABD, it's treated as THE definitive take, which is a problem I have had with his writing in the past.
It makes the book not only boring to read, but there are no moments to offset this feeling as featured in other books, even by this same author. I try to be wholly fair here, to the point where I will defend books where the Imperium loses like Kauyon or the destruction of Cadia, even when I will face arguments opposing this point. This one didn't simply feature the emphasis on an Imperial loss, it exaggerated it until it was undermining the very reason I wanted to keep reading the book.
However, to be fair, I will bump up an audio drama I have been sitting on for a while to better explore this. It features heavy Imperial losses and serious mistakes, and I will argue why I liked that one but took issue with this one.
Creating a Chapter just to be wiped out is a major problem because not only does it make them seem weak, it robs the story of any sort of tension since you don't know who these Marines are, you know they're created just for this story and will likely all die in it, and it comes off as nothing more than shitty writing because the Marines are mocked by the book for doing something stupid that they were specifically created by Phil Kelly to do. I'm not addressing the bit about the Craftworlds, not because I would be arguing against it, but because it's not relevant here. If we try to put this into perspective with other stupid events like that (and vice versa to those events) we just open the door to more shitty writing. We shouldn't defend bad writing with bad writing, we should slam the door in its face and point it out as the garbage that it is.
Delete"Also saying Marines are portrayed as 'weak' in Black Library just seems hard for me to swallow."
For every one of the stories you list it's not that hard to dig up two more where the opposite happens, admittedly most of them are Horus Heresy novels or garbage like the Beast Arises (which is mainly terrible for being character assassination for the entire Imperium, but that's for a different discussion).
It's not systematic bias to say that Space Marines should be strong and tough, that's how they were initially written (hell, in one older story I can bring up from a CSM codex of all places shows a single squad outright win a planetary war) and that just a few squads of Marines would be enough to turn a conflict to the Imperium's favour (and vice-versa for Chaos). It's not bias to point out when the Marine's opponents win by virtue of the Marines being idiots or somehow becoming a lot weaker than they used to be, and it's not bias to point out that if Marines really were as weak as people seem to think (aka how they are on the tabletop), they never would've lasted this long.
Finally if you really think I'm just biased in favour of the Marines in all conflicts, I'm going to have to correct you because my favourite book in the setting is the second edition of the Anphelion Project. In that book the Marines get their asses kicked hard, along with the Inquisition and a specifically modified group of Elysian Drop Troops. Why am I happy with it happening there? Simple, it's because the Marines aren't suddenly a lot weaker just to make the threat seem stronger, nobody acts like an idiot, they're all doing the best they can with the information they have at hand. The only possible way they could've done better is if they knew in advance what was going to happen, but because they didn't read the script they found themselves caught off-guard. The dumbest part in the book is in the final couple of paragraphs for one character's story, but even then it's only written as a fluke to make that character's death seem less pathetic, and what he does is meaningless anyway so I let it slide.
I think I forgot to add this to my original comment, so I'll just post it again here and delete it if I did remember to add it:
DeleteWhen you make one Kroot stronger and faster than a Primaris you make all of them like that and you know why? It's because of how the Kroot evolve. They take characteristics of those they eat and their children inherit some parts of those. If one Kroot is able to somehow become stronger and faster than a Primaris, then the entire group he's from who's on the same evolutionary path as dictated by their Shapers will be stronger and faster than Primaris Marines. That's also not how the Kroot evolution works, they don't just eat Orcs and suddenly become as tough and strong as the Orcs, they inherit some of the same strength, some of the same toughness, which means they're still weaker in both aspects. Having Kroot suddenly become stronger and faster than Marines who are supposed to be even stronger than normal Marines is exactly "insane and problematic" and I've got no clue why you'd be concerned if the Kroot were weaker than the Marines, other than wanting to see Marines as weak, because it means that out of nowhere the Kroot are as powerful as Custodes with no justification for it.
Okay grdaat no this is just...I'm sorry but I am shocked at this, how many Black Library novels have you read? Because your opinions seem completely contrasting to the actual details.
DeleteCreating a Chapter to just be wiped out is how Warhammer works. It's a wargame. That's what they do. Chapters are no more special than Craftworlds. Indeed Chapters can be refounded, recreated, Craftworlds cannot. There have been over twenty foundings of Space Marine Chapters, not a single new Craftworld has ever been built. If you're going to have an issue with Chapters being created to be wiped out then be consistent in your outrage as Xenos suffer this to a far worse degree than Space Marines do by several orders of magnitude.
Your core issue here seems to just stem from the fact that you simply cannot abide Space Marines losing in most cases which...does sort of reveal the issue here. That being said you are the first person I have ever met who complains that Space Marines are underpowered in 40k as the overwhelming consensus has always been they are overpowered in the lore.
You also don't dispute the point I make that there are far more instances of Space Marines being overpowered than underpowered, you just sidestep it. There are more examples. Black Library has also included: A single Squad of Space Marines killing so many Drukhari they ran out of ammo, Lady Malys, the 2nd most intelligent Dark Eldar in existence being outwitted by a Bloodclaw, whole Craftworlds destroyed by a single Chapter, the Swarmlord dying to Marneus, Dante and Cassius, Ghazghkull losing every war he's fought against Space Marines, a Librarian casually and instantly killing a Genestealer Patriarch, a team of 4 Marines killing over 100 Purestrain Genestealers alone, Lieutenants defeating Archons in one-on-one duels, the list is near endless. I'm sorry but if you honestly think that Space Marines are underpowered in 40k's fluff then you simply, clearly, do not read much of it. Even a casual perusal of the lore would reveal to anyone that overwhelmingly they are overpowered and portrayed as superior in almost every way. This is also largely conceded by everyone, on any site, so I find it baffling you honestly think Space Marines are underpowered.
Saying Space Marines should be strong or tough isn't what you're saying. You're saying that Black Library isn't representing them as strong and tough 'enough'. That's the part I dispute. Space Marines are strong and tough, and are overwhelmingly represented as such, that's not even a question to me.
DeleteAlso saying 'I like this one time Space Marines lose' in no way means that you don't have a clear systematic bias in favour of Space Marines in your thinking. That's just not how rational thought processes work.
As for Kroot: this shock me because it seems you haven't even read the T'au codex? Of course Kroot aren't all equally strong and fast, that is literally what Shapers and Master Shapers are, stronger, more skilled, smarter Kroot. You understand that Shapers and Master Shapers are literally defined by being superior to average Kroot? You can literally grab the Tau Codex, the current or any older versions, peruse it, and you'll see quite clearly that not all Kroot are at equal levels of strength and power. So your contention that if one Kroot is that strong all are is simply, absolutely, factually incorrect and seems to show a complete lack of understanding of the Kroot fluff you attest to be knowledgeable of.
A single Kroot character, a primary antagonist, being stronger than a Primaris Marine is not concerning or worrying at all, it is perfectly sensible and understandable. Also, I'm sorry, but being stronger than a regular Primaris Marine does not make you Custodes tier at all, where did you even come up with that?
Honestly I'm a bit disappointed, you don't seem to use examples much at all or when you do it's simply incorrect like your assertion that if 'one Kroot is X strong All Kroot are' which is simply contrary to the most basic fluff in the Tau Codex of every edition.
Those are very isolated cases and, to be fair, the Craftworld one isn't even about the omnipresent bias in favour of Space Marines, it's just about the omnipresent bias against Eldar (which, don't get me wrong, is also a huge problem in 40k's lore).
DeleteAs I said I think overall you're a good reviewer, but your fixation on the Imperium and Space Marines is to evident for me to enjoy the reviews when you often are uncritical of how almost every novel portrays Xenos as pathetic compared to the Imperium and then take exception whenever a novel implies the Imperium is doomed. You mention, for example, there being 'good' ways to reflect the Imperium decaying but, if I'm honest, 90% of all novels I've read on 40k don't have the Imperium decay, they just have it win, again and again and again and again.
I agree that Chapters are no more special than Craftworlds, however that doesn't change the fact that both are special, just in very different ways. Creating a chapter just to wipe them out is not how Warhammer works, it happens in very few books compared to the majority, and usually in the really bad novels by worse writers. I also said I'm not addressing Craftworlds because they're not the issue at hand here, but don't just assume I'm inconsistent about the two when I haven't said a thing about them. They're not the topic of discussion, so I'm leaving them alone.
DeleteMy core issue is that the Space Marines are portrayed as weak so often that it skews the setting when you put it into perspective with what they're actually capable of. If you think the overwhelming consensus is that they are overpowered in the lore then apparently you haven't read as many Black Library novels as you think you have.
I sidestepped the point you tried to make about examples because it would lead to a never-ending argument. You could bring up an example, I could bring up two more that show the opposite, and we could continue this every day until well into next year. Hell all the examples you've listed right now could easily be refuted by the novel Deathfire and I'd still have a few more I could pull from it.
Saying they should be strong and tough is exactly what I'm saying, when you show me a Primaris getting overpowered by something like a Kroot, then I'm not going to see them as strong and tough, because it means that Kroot are now more powerful than regular Marines, and Kroot aren't exactly known for being strong or tough compared to a lot of other races in the setting (yes they're stronger than humans, given their tolerance to injury though it won't be by as much as a Space Marine compared to a human). You're also ignoring why I mentioned the Anphelion Project, it's not just a book I like, it's my favourite book in the setting and it's one where Marines get their asses handed to them. How they get their asses handed to them is something I'd list as one of the best parts about the book. Since you want to go on rational thought processes though, you know what's not a rational thought process? Assuming you know what I think about Craftworlds when I haven't addressed them, and assuming you know that I have a systematic bias in favour of Space Marines when I'm pointing out how they're suddenly much weaker than a race they were physically superior towards in the past for no given reason.
As for the Kroot: Shapers are like the rest of the Kroot; They take traits from things they eat, but unlike the rest of the Kroot their goal is guiding their group alongside a specific path and limiting what they eat so that they remain on it. They are not defined as being "stronger, more skilled, smarter kroot" they're defined as being the leaders that sets the goal for the rest of their group to follow. Please, I'd like you to find me a Tau Codex that states Shapers are stronger, more skilled and more intelligent than other Kroot, since you seem to think you can find them from any Codex. I'm honestly surprised that you'd think they were defined by being physically superior, instead of by their role.
DeleteA single Kroot character being stronger than a Primaris means his entire Kindred should be nearly if not just as strong and fast as he is, because that's literally how the Kroot evolve. They don't evolve as individuals who just go their own way, they evolve as a group which is the entire point of the Shapers. As for being as powerful as Custodes, Marines themselves are depicted as being weaker than Custodes as well as less skilled but the gap in Strength itself isn't truly massive the way the gap is for Marines and their Primarchs. Primaris Marines are supposed to be significantly stronger than regular Marines, and if we go by the description of Garro's duel with a Custodes and take that one as the average Custodes (as well as the duel in the book we're discussing), it would put Kroot at or above Custodes in terms of Strength, judging by the descriptions when they dealt their blows on their opponents. When you put it into perspective like that where else could you put him? That's exactly why I'm calling it out and pointing out how ridiculous it becomes.
If you really think that it's possible one Kroot could be so much stronger and more powerful than all the others and there aren't entire Kindreds who either are, or are trying to be exactly like him and are following the exact same evolutionary path, then I'm sorry but you don't know how the Kroot work. that's also ignoring the fact that I have no clue what the fuck the Kroot could possibly eat to make them that way. Even when they ate Orks it didn't make them as strong as the Orcs, it boosted their durability.
Finally, let me say that I think your opinion of me is skewed because of the topic of discussion. We could've easily been looking at a different race, say the Eldar or Necrons, and if we suddenly had something like Space Marine Scouts running into an active warzone in between fire from both sides, somehow being completely unnoticed and plant bombs on a superstructure that's entirely undefended, which would then be picked up and somehow fired by that Chapter's Chapter Master, you'd find me immediately calling bullshit on it. If Deathwatch waltzed into a Tomb World and began sabotaging it by removing vital components and planting bombs without resistance or a mention of coming across a Canoptek... anything, you'll find me right there calling bullshit on it. If a Space Marine Captain killed a Necron Lord by stabbing it in the right spot, you'll find me immediately calling bullshit on it. What I want is not for the Marines to win every fight they're in, or be the be-all-end-all of everything in the setting, but for the setting to be more consistent about the races within it (sadly all of those examples are real and Phil Kelly wrote all of them). The reason I'm focused on discussing the Marines here in particular is just because they're the topic of the article we're talking under.
Actually, by definition, creating a Chapter to just be wiped out IS how Warhammer works since both Games Workshop and Black Library do it. So contending that it isn't how they work is simply contradictory to facts.
DeleteFurthermore Chapters aren't comparable to Craftworlds. Chapters are only 1000 strong and their over 1000 of them. Not to mention they are replaceable, the Imperium has had over 20 foundings of Chapters already. Craftworlds are completely finite. There is a set number which ONLY decreases, no new ones are ever made. So there should be far more Chapters destroyed and wiped out than Craftworlds. Furthermore, Craftworlds are part of this issue since the problem relates to the depiction of factions and their relevant strength in the setting, so you cannot dismiss them. Any complaint that Space Marines are 'too weak' in the lore is inevitably connected to the depiction of other factions in the lore. If Craftworlds can be depicted as such then their is no reason Space Marine Chapters cannot. This also does not change that Space Marine Chapters are, overwhelmingly, depicted as more powerful and win virtually every major conflict in the setting.
The overwhelming consensus isn't just in Black Library it is among fans too. The vast majority of all fans of 40k will tell you that in stories Space Marines are overwhelmingly depicted as stronger than everyone. You realize Space Marines literally win almost every single major conflict and battle in the story? That they defeat almost everyone constantly when most other factions barely ever win anything of note? I'm sorry but I just cannot imagine someone who actually participates in 40k's Lore thinks Space Marines have been depicted in the majority of all cases as underpowered, I have literally never, until now, met anyone who complains that Space Marines are 'too weak'.
Space Marines are tough and strong. This is depicted constantly. You are using one case where one specific Kroot character gets the better of one specific Space Marine. This is 40k specific characters with experience and skill performing well is part of the setting. Their are commissars and human officers who have defeated Space Marines before. Going by the codices the average Commissar, for example, will almost always beat the average Space Marine grunt. So your issue with one Kroot being able to beat one Primaris Marine proves nothing other than that you seem not to be aware of how 40k works. Characters, leaders, have AlWAYS been able to fight the mooks and grunts and base soldiers of other factions. This isn't new.
Literally read a Tau Codex? They have higher Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill and Leadership? Wounds and Attacks as well. You aren't honestly trying to say here that Shapers have no combat advantages over other Kroot, are you? Because that would be ridiculous, they are literally given significantly stronger skills and stats. That's just canon.
Again; no, Shapers have ALWAYS been stronger, faster and more skilled than regular Kroot. Again just look at the statlines. Not to mention read Deathwatch: Mark of the Xenos. I really can't imagine I need to explain that Kroot Shapers are more dangerous than regular Kroot.
DeleteThe Garro duel again proves nothing because, again, in 40k singular characters and protagonists have ALWAYS been able to exceed the capabilities of rank and file, so Garro's performance against a Custodes is not indicative of what an average power differential between a Custodes or a Space Marine is. It has no bearing at all.
And I don't think I'd have a different opinion. You categorically think Space Marines are consistently underpowered in the lore and that is simply objectively not true. Space Marines are overwhelmingly dominant in every facet of the lore to the point that it is frustrating. Fans of Xenos have to sit through book after book after book in which we lose again and again and again. Almost every single campaign and major conflict is won by Space Marines, Space Marines consistently are better than everyone at everything. I have honestly never met a person who thinks that Space Marine are 'too weak' in the lore. I'm just honestly shocked and dismayed.
If that was how 40k worked then it would be what they always did, not just what they've done a handful of times while in all others these Chapters have stuck around. Claiming that it's what 40k is about with such a small sample size is like claiming 40k is about battles that happen on frozen or near-frozen worlds, since there's about as many of those examples.
DeleteI've never compared Chapters to Craft worlds, and I don't appreciate you pretending that I did. As I've told you before, they're not the topic here, so I'm not discussing them.
"You realize Space Marines literally win almost every single major conflict and battle in the story?"
You should tell that to GW and ADB, they seem to be under the impression that the Imperium's struggling to survive because it's up against incredible odds. I wasn't aware you could win nearly every single major engagement and still be on the losing side. You're acting as if they're curbstomping their opponents when we both know that's not true, and a quick read of the CSM codex, or the Damocles Crusades, or even the recent campaign books proves that's not true.
"Space Marines are tough and strong. This is depicted constantly."
Unless they're up against whatever it is the author wants to kill them with, take you pick. This ranges from unarmoured and unarmed Marines to a single Scourge or Kroot. When you claim the leaders of factions can always handle mooks of another faction in the lore, you make yourself look really ignorant, because the tabletop isn't at all accurate to a lot of the factions.
Now getting to the Kroot, statlines are in no way indicative of size or intelligence. The leaders statlines are always better, even when they shouldn't be, like a Chapter Master being more skilled and tough than the Chapter's champion who is supposed to be the most skilled/tough, or how the honour guard should each be on par with Captains but aren't. Hell if you really want to use stats as an example, Sigismund can nearly solo a Primarch and we know in the lore he stands no chance. I asked you to find me a single mention in the lore of Shapers being stronger or smarter or more skilled, and I'm still waiting. At no point in any Codex is this stated, yet you claim it can be found in all of them.
DeleteThe Garro duel shows what it's like for a Space Marine to fight a Custodes, and the only thing that makes Garro different to a regular Astartes is his skill. You're acting as if because he has a name he's automatically stronger or faster when that isn't the case. You're pretending it has no bearing when it puts the Kroot duel into perspective and shows that the Kroot are at relatively the same strength the Custodes are. This is just like how you're pretending the Kroot can evolve individually, and that they don't have entire kindreds on the same path they're on, all sharing the same specific features (toughness, wings, spitting poison, etc). Writing it off like that is just a childish attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Finally how prevalent Marines are doesn't relate to this discussion. Do they show up a lot? Yes, do they die in droves when they show up? Typically. If you think they're better than everyone at everything then not only have you not read any recent Tau vs Marines book, but you haven't even read the book that includes the duel we've been discussing.
Sometimes people like a story in which Space Marines don't just beat everyone and are better than everyone at everything. Considering 90% of the novels Black Library puts out are just relentless stories about how Space Marines outclass everyone and never lose, even when Leviathen itself descends on Baal Dante still wins in a one-on-one duel with the aeons-old Swarmlord, so I think having one book every five or six years which isn't just about again showing how Marines are unstoppable and impossible for anyone to ever stand a chance against is kinda okay.
ReplyDeleteAlright, Rocktree? I'm going to be blunt with you here - You have been banging this gong non-stop in every single comment and I am getting very tired if it. If you have an axe to grind, then take it elsewhere. I am open to some comments which disagree with my points and the ideas brought up. I am not okay with you using this as a platform to relentlessly mouth off about your dislike for how the posterboys are treated and how Dante beat the Swarmlord. I'm not a particularly big fan of it myself, and I would like more stories where the marines are defeated. However, in your zeal to make this comment you seem to have missed one key point:
DeleteThe issue I have isn't with the marines being beaten. It's the sheer oppression of one writer attempting to force nihilism back into the setting by removing any hope at all from the wider IMPERIUM. My comments relate less to the astartes than they do humanity as a whole and the issues, if you read the book, have far more to do with the Inquisition and the treatment of Chaos than anything to do with the marines themselves.
Now that is done, please keep in mind that I try to judge all factions equally. I try to keep up to date with them, and I will call out any one for being mistreated or mark down books that I feel downplay an army's strengths. It's the reason that I was willing to praise Kauyon while dragging Mont'ka over the coals. One featured the T'au Empire winning victory earned through planning, luck, the application of force and learning from their mistakes. I didn't care that the Raven Guard and White Scars came off badly, I cared that the T'au earned it. By comparison Mont'ka had the T'au winning through the writer forcing growing stupidity onto the Imperium and ignoring any of their strengths. I disliked that because it reeked of bad writing and favouritism.
Also, to point out the problem with your claim, here's a few other stories that I have read over the years:
Kauyon (the audio drama, not the rulebook previously mentioned) - A pair of Pathfinders and a Skyray decimate an Imperial column, resulting in the deaths of over a hundred Imperial Guardsmen an a good thirty Imperial Fists, if not more.
Siege of Castellax - An Iron Warriors Grand Company and their stronghold are gradually overwhelmed by a far greater Ork WAAAGH! This and petty infighting costs them their very fortification, and only a scant few survivors escape with little hope of survival.
Soul Hunter - A massed boarding action by Blood Angels against their Chaos counterparts results in a far smaller group of Night Lords decimating them. They lose one of their greatest heroes, masses of troops, and inflict damage against only the mortal crewmen in return.
Void Stalker - From the above series as well. The Ulthwe eldar hunt down and destroy the Night Lords from above en mass. Even with massive advantages in their favour, the Night Lords only manage to fight the enemy eldar to mutual destruction, and even then this is only accomplished through "cheating".
Storm of Iron - The Iron Warriors completely destroy an ancient, and very well defended Imperial stronghold. This includes a full company of Imperial Fists.
DeleteSanctus Reach - An entire space marine chapter is destroyed in an Ork WAAAGH! Even in the counter-assault, the Imperium loses multiple vital defensive points across the region and takes extremely heavy losses when they win.
Fire Warrior - The space marines die in droves to Chaos and Tau troops. The Imperium loses badly to both forces.
This is also leaving out the short stories I don't deny that there needs to be more like this, but they do exist. The point is that if you are going to mouth off to someone about this, try not to say it to someone who isn't wholly aware of this problem and can quote more books where this happens than you can claim.
Now, if you want to do more than use this as a means to rant at others, you are welcome. If you want to keep yammering on about the same argument, go find a forum somewhere and start picking fights. I really do not have the patience for this sort of thing any longer.
Hang on a minute here RockTree, you realize Dante is older than the Swarmlord right? Not just older, but vastly older? Sure the Swarmlord might have been around in his old galaxy but I'm not making that assumption because he wasn't fighting the same enemies there, if he was even around. I'm not going to defend that duel but if you want to make claims about "the aons old Swarmlord" then don't pretend he was up against just some guy by omitting similar facts about his opponent.
Delete