Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seriously, am I the only one who wants to see the execution model?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Seriously, am I the only one who wants to see the execution model?

I'd like to see all of them.

If only to see how someone could be so artistically talented to make those conversions look good like the OP said and at the same time be so clueless about what they actually represent (or a genuine racist).

Frankly, I find the Jihadist thing more distasteful. It's something I would imagine coming from the deep south here in the US. It smacks a bit of prejudice overtones. I can't help but find myself a bit nonplussed by the Nazi models. In this day and age I can't help but run into them in any sort of media.I can watch historical videos of Nazis. I can see Nazi zombies on netflix. I can kill nazis on my video games. I can watch Indiana whip a nazi's head off with a whip crack. Nazi iconography is stolen all over the place to make villians in any number of stories. I can play historical or Weird War and play with Nazis. I don't see why other wargames are somehow protected from this. 40k itself in fiction portrays the Imperium as Nazi-esc and the aquilla is very similar to Nazi iconography already. Painting your minis in a certain way doesn't make you enorse Nazis or everyone who played Nazis, sculpted Nazis, acted in a movie about Nazis, programmed Nazis for video games would have to answer the same scrutiny. Painting them is just another fiction. None of the others cause a strong moral outcry from us nerds as we stab nazis in their brautwurst or watch them get killed by the bushel on screen, there's little reason we can't enjoy putting pie plates of Fritz's head. The barrier is largely a construct to protect against nothing. The models aren't going to invade Poland while you sleep. Painting them isn't going to make people think, "Hey, that Hitler guy must have been right." I would be far more worried if the person was sporting nazi tattoos or shouting about the Jews, but most skinheads don't have the mental capacity to engage in a hobby, especially one as cerebral as wargaming. I can understand that people may be uncomfortable around it, but I really just don't see it as any different than any other way we treat Nazis in this day and age.

 Surtur wrote:
Frankly, I find the Jihadist thing more distasteful.

Just to defend the deep south a bit, and believe me I understand the nature of where I live, I did here a Boston man interviewed in an NPR piece a little while ago say that 'the terrorists were trying to kill all of us, and we have to kill them all first'. America has a national subculture of ignorant, xenophobic, protectionist racism; it isn't just in the deep south.

Oh, and the Barack Obama as foreign-born 'N-word' comment I referenced earlier was overheard in good ol' Muncie Indiana, home of the Middletown studies. Perhaps in a fit of mid-western liberalism, the man did say that he'd rather vote for a woman.

What do you mean by "SS" colors? Do you mean something like Pea-dot camouflage or black uniforms?

weeble1000 wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Frankly, I find the Jihadist thing more distasteful.

Just to defend the deep south a bit, and believe me I understand the nature of where I live, I did here a Boston man interviewed in an NPR piece a little while ago say that 'the terrorists were trying to kill all of us, and we have to kill them all first'. America has a national subculture of ignorant, xenophobic, protectionist racism; it isn't just in the deep south.

Oh, and the Barack Obama as foreign-born 'N-word' comment I referenced earlier was overheard in good ol' Muncie Indiana, home of the Middletown studies. Perhaps in a fit of mid-western liberalism, the man did say that he'd rather vote for a woman.

Agreed. In fact, my experience is that the Northeast harbors more overt prejudices than the South. I've split time between both locations, both cities and rural areas. It may be just a jaded lens, but I don't think so. I have theories as to why, but I suppose that is another topic to be had.

Fair enough. Prejudice shares no real boundaries and frankly my swipe at the South was prejudice as well. The irony!

I'm personally against political correctness, but I also think there's a level where it's okay. Painting your IG in WW2 german colors and having a red flag with a white circle and black Aquila on it is probably fine (and probably fluffy) barring certain circumstances (e..g I wouldn't recommend bringing that army to a game in Germany), having swastikas everywhere or having "Sieg Heil" on the tanks is crossing the line.

Same with let's say Dark Eldar. Having them all painted white (i.e. KKK) with black slaves all over the place is going to be offensive, but there are ways to do it without being blatantly offensive.

I think looking at this in terms of being politically incorrect is a way of phrasing the question poorly. I mean, who isn't a littled tired of "political correctedness?" even if the term doesn't really apply to potentially offensive miniatures.

The way I would phrase the question would be: "How do people feel about models that are likely to offend people?"

I guy in my local area is of middle eastern descent. I can't imagine he'd be thrilled to see an Emperor's Champion killing a "jihadist."

So, my answer to this is the same it always is when this broad type of question filters out: With so much real world history, alternative history, official canon, fan made background, and sheer room to explore ideas, why would you pick something that is going to offend and upset people?

(as an aside, I feel differently about art/media in general, and that includes display pieces. An army is meant to be used, with somebody. Your opponent is not always there by choice, for example tournament pairings and the like. The classic argument for offensive expression is that you can look away, and that's harder with an army.)

I remember when Forge World wasn't around as long that they did their Tallarn Vanquisher with an Imperial version of the Afrika Korps logo, only replacing the swastika with the Aquila, that felt a little too close for comfort somehow. I think FW felt the same way about it, as it hasn't been seen since.

 BrookM wrote:
I remember when Forge World wasn't around as long that they did their Tallarn Vanquisher with an Imperial version of the Afrika Korps logo, only replacing the swastika with the Aquila, that felt a little too close for comfort somehow. I think FW felt the same way about it, as it hasn't been seen since.

The Arika Korps, in the US at least, is a bit romanticized as being the "good germans." Maybe its due to being under Rommel, or because with no real civilian populaiton there could be no reprisals or war crimes, but the DAK is a really popular force.

As cool as it is, I agree that a direct callback to the Nazis is a bit jarring, although its interesting that GW sees the Tallarn as being closer the Germans than to Arab forces.

 Polonius wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
I remember when Forge World wasn't around as long that they did their Tallarn Vanquisher with an Imperial version of the Afrika Korps logo, only replacing the swastika with the Aquila, that felt a little too close for comfort somehow. I think FW felt the same way about it, as it hasn't been seen since.

The Arika Korps, in the US at least, is a bit romanticized as being the "good germans." Maybe its due to being under Rommel, or because with no real civilian populaiton there could be no reprisals or war crimes, but the DAK is a really popular force.

As cool as it is, I agree that a direct callback to the Nazis is a bit jarring, although its interesting that GW sees the Tallarn as being closer the Germans than to Arab forces.

I once felt the same way about it being a gentleman's war that was being fought in Africa, but I blame Discovery Channel for that.

You can still see a picture of the tank in question in the third edition Guard codex, on the inside of the front cover.

Then again, that codex did give real world examples of camo as great sources of inspiration, including snippets of Warwick's Tsagarad (sp?) army that was more or less based on WWII Germans, even including a squad of storm troopers with peadot camo to make them stand out.

Here's a perspective on it.

Way back in 2nd edition days, there was a guy with an IG army with a penal legion platoon. All of the guardsmen were white, but he chose to paint the penal legion troopers as Africans. He put more work into the penal legion troopers, adding various bits and conversions that were there to make sick jokes.

Everyone who saw the army thought it was funny, not because of the models but because someone chose to do that. The conversation during his games would revolve around his choices for how to model his troops, and would inevitably degenerate into discussions about crime, race and poverty in the real world. His opinions were not politically correct or very intelligent.

Without passing any kind of judgement here, I did not see how this made the game more enjoyable. it was some kind of a political statement many people found shocking, and it brought out the worst in some other players. I don't think there's a place for this in games, but that's only my opinion. People are free to do what they want with their minis.

Hmmmm....

Good points and in normal life I try to be VERY politically correct.

We play war games.

You know, simulating all the various traditional and non-traditional means of killing another.

I think these "joke" models are like anything: it seems fun at first until you run into someone who has a first-hand perspective.

I had a classmate that did everything "by the numbers" bordering on OCD, I called him in jest the "Numbers Nazi".
He proceeded to shout at me that a large portion of his family tree was wiped out by those #@$%*!!!!!!
I proceeded to apologize and said that I did not have any experience with them at all and had no idea he had.
We got along fine after, he did feel obliged to describe some of things that happened in his family past and I am more understanding because of it.

About the only "politically correct" means of fielding a risqué army is one from your own "stereotype" or your historical "enemy".

I must admit, I have been sorely tempted to replace "satchel charges" with an explosive vest since the range might as well involve self-detonation.

I think the only real worry is keeping the models rated "PG" since you never know what child will wander through during your game.

I couldn't care less. Actually, if anything I'm the other way, I'm glad people make politically incorrect things so easily offended people can get their knickers all up in a twist about it, I find it amusing

There are people who might legitimately have been affected by the scenarios depicted and I that sucks, but I don't think people should have to worry about that when making the offending articles (unless they are purposely doing it to hurt those people in which case it's just a dick thing to do).

But most of the time it's just people getting their knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect them and/or they are trying to contrive a scenario about how it affects them.

weeble1000 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I think the issue with the OP is that it breaks the immersion for me, by putting real world / current event issues into miniatures that are supposed to be in an alternate universe.

But is there not a place for that alternate universe to serve as a commentary on and criticism of reality?

I'm not suggesting that you should be thinking such thoughts when you are trying to have a fun time on Saturday night, and I get your point. But I did want to make an oblique point about the social commentary inherent in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe universe, and make a gentle reminder that fiction is influenced by and relates to reality.

I also find the overt representation of real-world issues in a fantasy setting to be immersion-breaking, and I don't think that a wargaming army is necessarily the best platform for social commentary. That said I'm not absolutely against it, but if some-one creates such an army for use 'in public', they need to be aware that people will hold opinions on the commentary being converyed (or which is perceived to be being conveyed).

Oh, could some-one please tell me what an "SJW" is? I keep seeing the term used when things like feminism and political correctness are being discussed, but only when Americans are involved.

SJW = Social Justice Warrior. As for a good description.. check off-topic.

I'd say both of those things are in extremely poor taste at best and I would avoid playing with those guys whenever possible. If they were regulars at my FLGS, I'd still play there, but I wouldn't play with those players. I'll echo the sentiment that they have a right to make that kind of stuff, but they also have to accept that they're going to have to face the consequences, including but not limited to being extremely unpopular individuals and possible bans from venues. I know if I ran an FLGS I would not allow them to bring those armies into the store.

EDIT: If it was a tournament or something like that where I HAD to play against them, I'd just do my best to get the game over with as quickly as possible and avoid them during downtime.

Turaxa wrote:

Oh, could some-one please tell me what an "SJW" is? I keep seeing the term used when things like feminism and political correctness are being discussed, but only when Americans are involved.

Social Justice Warrior: It depends who is using the term, but usually it's used as a way to insult someone who is espousing progressive views in the context of an argument.
The term is almost always usually sarcastically, suggesting that the person is not an actual "warrior for social justice", but is only espousing these views in order to gain a moral "high-ground" and the esteem of their peers.

After having read the "sexy land raider" thread, I'm not sure i believe the OP's post. It seems almost ...like the OP is designed to elicit a similar response.

Turaxa wrote:

I also find the overt representation of real-world issues in a fantasy setting to be immersion-breaking, and I don't think that a wargaming army is necessarily the best platform for social commentary. That said I'm not absolutely against it, but if some-one creates such an army for use 'in public', they need to be aware that people will hold opinions on the commentary being converyed (or which is perceived to be being conveyed).

What I am saying is that it is there whether you want it to be or not. Somebody other than you created the Warhammer 40,000 universe. You can address it or ignore it, but it is there regardless of your personal relationship to it.

@ Eilif & BrookM - Thanks, it's been coming up on many (video) gaming sites recently and it was puzzling me.

I think context is an important factor that many people forget. In what context is Nazi iconography on a Guard army appropriate? I'd say no context, because the context of Nazi iconography is WWII, and 40K =/= WWII. Same would apply to jihadists (or even anti-jihadists).

I can come up with some arguably good reason for someone to paint 40K troopers exactly like widely vilified, historical soldiers, but it's really strained.

Maybe if someone always wanted to paint and play historical miniatures, but no one in his area did so, so he gave up and used the real world paint scheme he wanted to paint on his troopers.


However, in general, it just seems creepy. There seem to be so many more creepy reasons for doing it (likes Nazis, big fan of Hitler, deliberately provocative, neo-Nazi, etc), that the very specific situation (I wanted to paint historical minis but for some reason can't do that) seems unlikely.


The other situation is, honestly, even worse for me, because at least in the SS instance, you can at least appreciate the effort made to get uniforms and unit markings correct as a disciplined painter. A Black Templar with a back banner saying 'I'll see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade" just bothers me on so many levels.

I don't see Space Marines carrying back banners with insults to their opponents. It's like the Crimson Fists carrying signs that say "Orks are stupid!"

I don't see how both the creator of the piece and the Marine supposedly carrying the banner both would not see the hypocrisy of criticizing a religiously motivated war by threatening a religiously motivated war.

I mean, the very same model with a Banner reading "Death to Heretics" or "So Perish All Apostates" would be totally in character for 40K.

Plus, while you have every right to express yourself and your political convictions, other people can find them tiresome. Just like I don't want to get in a theological argument when I'm having a break at work, I don't want to endure political rants during a game.

I don't think that means that I dislike it because it isn't 'politically correct'. I mean, I would also roll my eyes at an Eldar Exodite army depicted slaughtering oil drillers and rescuing oil-soaked otters. I'd roll my eyes at a Sisters of Battle army with banners condemning violence against women. I'd not care to play against an army of pink orks to raise awareness of breast cancer research. It's not offensive; it's just tiresome.

 Azazelx wrote:
After having read the "sexy land raider" thread, I'm not sure i believe the OP's post. It seems almost ...like the OP is designed to elicit a similar response.

What has a sexy raider in Common with nazi guard? Those People Play very regularily at the Place im now playing and i was looking for oppinions and maybe arguments against this stuff.
Thank you for your constructive participation

It is also important to actually BE offended.

I know that sounds utterly facile, but I find too many people react to this sort of thing because they're a) under the impression they should be offended, so decide to act offended or b) fear that other people may be offended so decide to be offended on their behalf, often without checking with who they perceive as the wronged party and how they actually feel.

This definitely overlaps with the whole SJW concept, but offence is really a personal, gut reaction, and one shouldn't feel guilty about not being offended by something just because it could be perceived as offensive.

Given the spelling errors in the logo, and the fact that I can't tell whether those errors are the fault of original poster or actually present on the model in question, it appears equally plausible that the original poster is wrong about the intent and presentation of the model.

Asking for hypothetical offense to incomplete details may as well be trolling.

weeble1000 wrote:

Turaxa wrote:

I also find the overt representation of real-world issues in a fantasy setting to be immersion-breaking, and I don't think that a wargaming army is necessarily the best platform for social commentary. That said I'm not absolutely against it, but if some-one creates such an army for use 'in public', they need to be aware that people will hold opinions on the commentary being converyed (or which is perceived to be being conveyed).

What I am saying is that it is there whether you want it to be or not. Somebody other than you created the Warhammer 40,000 universe. You can address it or ignore it, but it is there regardless of your personal relationship to it.

I'd agree that 40K was written with an element of social commentary, in as much as many of the factions, particularly the Imperium, are a grim parody of humanity's worst historical excesses. What I sometimes find jarring is when some-one other than the creators brings their own social commentary to the mix by dressing their army in the clothes of current events, and the resulting visual theme is a poor fit for the setting or unsubtly references a contentious topic. Yes, I and everyone else just has to deal with it, but I don't think what is essentially a social activity is the best place to be making what is essentially a political statement unless some-one knows they will be in likeminded company or is looking to elicit a reaction.

I'll step away from the soap box now....

 Brennonjw wrote:

It's like the SJW has rubbed off onto everyone, we live in an era of free speech, yet people throw a fit when someone does something that offends them. like people think that the world owes them a trigger warning whenever something is done.

Wwhat is often overlooked is the fact that the right to free speech is not the same as the right to consequence free speech. The words and attitudes you express are fair game for others to judge you by. I think in the age of social media, there's this attitude that whatever stupid idea that drops out of your mouth or flows from your keyboard is somehow immune to critique. Yes, you can paint whatever you want. I can still think its crass, juvenile, bigoted, or, who knows, if you pull it off, totally amazing or hilarious. There's a huge difference between something that is a step away from Ass: The Movie as portrayed by Idiocracy and an utterly filthy but clever and hilarious stand up routine.

For the SS guys, I don't see a problem.

But for that tallarn model, there is a problem.

The problem isn't the conversions, or the models, but the words.

You can do whatever you want model-wise, but the moment you try to put words to it, in such a hateful manner, it's disallowed. Completely. I'd even go so far as to break said banner off to prove a point.

You models are not a platform for you to project your views, regardless of how correct or incorrect they are.