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.

 Fezman wrote:
Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.

See... I find comments like this more offensive and puerile than the actual models in question (given that we have no context for the models beyond the few short sentences we were given). But then that's just me, I find it offensive when people want to pigeon hole others off limited information.

And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.

The free speech argument is entirely circular.

In my ideal world people would show up with such an army wouldn't create a stir beyond peaceful conversation because we're all mature enough to know we're playing pewpewpew with little man dollies that aren't actually representative of what we ourselves support or condone.

When someone actually comes along and their miniatures have messages of hatred, racism, etc against their fellow humans and/or they themselves are acting with hatred, racism, etc THAT'S when I want to see a stir created.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I personally couldn't give a toss unless the players themselves are spouting racist and similar remarks.

Im gonna ditto this.

paulson games wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
[Would Nazi iconography be appropriate on Space Marines? No, then it's not appropriate for ww1 space germans either.

FYI Nazi's weren't WW1

What if they were WWII space Germans though?

I'm aware of the nazis being a later development. I specified WW1 because the the DKoK are WW1 (not nazi) styled, so it showed that the artist was clearly bent on putting nazi icongraphy on his mins since he really didn't have a historical leg to stand on.

That said, I wouldn't be thrilled to play against someone who took his WW2 Space germans (Steel Legion are pretty close to German ww2 paratroops) and painted them up as SS either. Anyone dragging nazi iconography into fantasy or sci-fi gaming is going start with at least some incredulity and skepticism from me.

monders wrote:

Eilif wrote:

*snipped*

For the Crusader, this seems like someone who is being intentionally offensive. Considering how the Crusades functioned, it's the same as saying, "the answer to Jihadists is to kill as many muslims as possible". That's the kind of thing that Neo-Nazis and KKK members endorse.

The KKK had close ties to Malcolm X's islamic movement. They both wanted the Jews out of America.

I'm not sure where to start. Let me help you sort this out.

Malcom X was indeed part of the "Nation of Islam" (NOI), but he left and was actually moving away from much of the "hate" ideology as he formed his own group, before being murdered by members of the NOI.

To this day, the NOI has many anti-semetic views expressed by it's leaders and is currently led by Louis Farakkhan who has continued the trend.

As to a KKK connection, Malcom was clearly misguided about his view of Jews, and the NOI is a racist institution, but there's no evidence that suggests that himself or the Nation of Islam were tied to the KKK, whom they frequently spoke against. The NOI does not directly preach the removal of Jews from America, but it does blame them for much and there have been quotes that Farkkhan as suggested that muslims will destroy america, presumably including all white and jewish people as well.

The main teaching of NOI related to this is the "Black Sepratism that " preaches separation of Black people from Whites, Jews and other groups, in the form of a desire to state or separate area within America that will be populated and governed by only by Black people. The NOI's most controversial connections were to Omar Kadafi in Libya.

Note that I am not defending the NOI, or even Malcom I just wanted to help you get your facts strait.

Not sure what your point is though, since I haven't seen anyone do up an army dressed like the "Fruit of Islam".

 Desubot wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I personally couldn't give a toss unless the players themselves are spouting racist and similar remarks.

Im gonna ditto this.

Agreed. Nothing described in the OP would be the least bit bothersome to me. As long as the the other player has a decent attitude and temperment I'm not going to have a problem playing a game with him/her regardless of the models involved. Toys don't even register on my outrage meter.

Wait, so you are playing a game, set in a fantastic, futuristic setting where humanity is ruled by a corrupt, authoritarian regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred. Then you get offended because a player models their army, of the faction known and based on hubris, authoritarism, racism, prejudice and eternal hatred, by making references to the perfect historical example of a corrupt, authoritarian,regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred? You somehow love the fantasy version of it but hate the REAL world version of it? Is this the game where you can play a faction that is entirely fueled by the pain and suffering of others, (Dark Eldar, for example, which is an army of the most wicked and fragged up people imaginable), but are extremely offended by a guy that somehow relates that universe to the closest real world analogues?

I had a friend who had a Nazi themed IG army. People usually asked him about them, and to check his views on nazism, (it was funny because he is black). He always said the same thing. "Wait, the Imperium is a regime that oppress its citizens in a horrible manner, and kills anything that doesn't belong to their race, without mercy or exception. They are stinking, horrible nazis, and I paint them that way so you can really see what they truly are by referencing them to something you might understand in your historical background". The point is, the Imperial Army ARE Nazis, they are indoctrinated, prejudiced, genocidal bigots. It's funny how people get offended by the iconography, but not by the ideals the faction represents. My friend used to say that if someone should get offended by his Imperial Guard army's iconography, they should be offended by anyone rooting and cheering this faction at all.

I don't get offended by someone's army or miniatures. Honestly, I completely see the relation between fictional space nazis and real life nazis. If the player isn't a nazi, but paints his miniatures nazi, it's ok by me. I would get offended by a bigot, nazi player, but not because he paints something in some way, but because he's a bigot nazi bag of manure.

Regarding the Templar, the same rule apply. Are you really offended because someone painted a bigot, race supremacist crusader in space as a bigot race supremacist crusader in real life? It's not like he disguised his Tau as crusaders. Black Templars ARE crusaders, and they kill anything on their path with a genocidal zeal. I'd buy that model and play with it. If someone asks me about it, I'd say that the figure is killing a jihadist. If said someone would ask "Are you OK with the murder of muslims?", I'd say instantly that no, heck, I am not, that stating that would turn me into a monster. If that someone asks me if I approve the use of military force to eliminate jihadists with extreme prejudice, I'd say hell yes, because I am, and most if not all the nation leaders of the Western civilization agree with me (and that's why they are bombing ISIS positions). And I'd add that the banner states exactly that. Now, I'm not a genocidal bigot, and if the player playing that miniature was, I'd hate him for being a bigot, but the miniature per se is not such an issue.

Kithail wrote:
Wait, so you are playing a game, set in a fantastic, futuristic setting where humanity is ruled by a corrupt, authoritarian regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred. Then you get offended because a player models their army, of the faction known and based on hubris, authoritarism, racism, prejudice and eternal hatred, by making references to the perfect historical example of a corrupt, authoritarian,regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred? You somehow love the fantasy version of it but hate the REAL world version of it? Is this the game where you can play a faction that is entirely fueled by the pain and suffering of others, (Dark Eldar, for example, which is an army of the most wicked and fragged up people imaginable), but are extremely offended by a guy that somehow relates that universe to the closest real world analogues?

I had a friend who had a Nazi themed IG army. People usually asked him about them, and to check his views on nazism, (it was funny because he is black). He always said the same thing. "Wait, the Imperium is a regime that oppress its citizens in a horrible manner, and kills anything that doesn't belong to their race, without mercy or exception. They are stinking, horrible nazis, and I paint them that way so you can really see what they truly are by referencing them to something you might understand in your historical background". The point is, the Imperial Army ARE Nazis, they are indoctrinated, prejudiced, genocidal bigots. It's funny how people get offended by the iconography, but not by the ideals the faction represents. My friend used to say that if someone should get offended by his Imperial Guard army's iconography, they should be offended by anyone rooting and cheering this faction at all.

I don't get offended by someone's army or miniatures. Honestly, I completely see the relation between fictional space nazis and real life nazis. If the player isn't a nazi, but paints his miniatures nazi, it's ok by me. I would get offended by a bigot, nazi player, but not because he paints something in some way, but because he's a bigot nazi bag of manure.

Regarding the Templar, the same rule apply. Are you really offended because someone painted a bigot, race supremacist crusader in space as a bigot race supremacist crusader in real life? It's not like he disguised his Tau as crusaders. Black Templars ARE crusaders, and they kill anything on their path with a genocidal zeal. I'd buy that model and play with it. If someone asks me about it, I'd say that the figure is killing a jihadist. If said someone would ask "Are you OK with the murder of muslims?", I'd say instantly that no, heck, I am not, that stating that would turn me into a monster. If that someone asks me if I approve the use of military force to eliminate jihadists with extreme prejudice, I'd say hell yes, because I am, and most if not all the nation leaders of the Western civilization agree with me (and that's why they are bombing ISIS positions). And I'd add that the banner states exactly that. Now, I'm not a genocidal bigot, and if the player playing that miniature was, I'd hate him for being a bigot, but the miniature per se is not such an issue.

I agree entirely.

I'm still not sure why we need to be offended by the "I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade" banner anyway. The only way I can see it as offensive is if you are a supporter of religious war, in which case feth you I don't care if you're offended... OR if we are equating "jihadist" with "muslim" in which case that's a very ignorant view to take

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I'm still not sure why we need to be offended by the "I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade" banner anyway. The only way I can see it as offensive is if you are a supporter of religious war, in which case feth you I don't care if you're offended... OR if we are equating "jihadist" with "muslim" in which case that's a very ignorant view to take

Yeah, if someone tells me they are offended because they identify themselves with jihadists, maybe I shouldn't play with that someone to begin with.

In the second case, it's obvious. If the player with the templar starts spewing garbage about "towelheads" and how we should get rid of all "muslim filth" then I'd call him out based on his words. Making a violent joke inside a violent game against violent, nasty people in the real world that deserve military-based reprimand isn't too far. Funnily enough, if you get offended by the depiction of an execution of a jihadist, you should be offended by any miniature that depicts an execution, because executions are horrible, of any kind of human being. (Of course, executions of tyranid filth is sanctioned by me).

Geez this is a game where the objective is to kill the other guy. It is set in a world where genocide is not only practiced, it is the accepted way of dealing with planets that will not submit. Not to mention the so called "good guys" won't think twice about turning a brain to mush and hacking off limbs to replace them with weapons/tools/ect to make obedient slaves.

I'd think a paint job would be the last thing I find offensive here.

Honestly though if the guy paints and models things in such a way to mimic or even out right copy IRL things of such nature it brings into question what kinda person he is.

It was ether done that way to be inflammatory or they actually support the message that they are projecting onto there models.

Sure there is a lot of the same things in game lore. so why not leave it at that instead of trying to get a rise out of people.

But still i wouldnt care about how they do what until they start practicing what they paint.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fezman wrote:
Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.

See... I find comments like this more offensive and puerile than the actual models in question (given that we have no context for the models beyond the few short sentences we were given). But then that's just me, I find it offensive when people want to pigeon hole others off limited information.

And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.

The free speech argument is entirely circular.

In my ideal world people would show up with such an army wouldn't create a stir beyond peaceful conversation because we're all mature enough to know we're playing pewpewpew with little man dollies that aren't actually representative of what we ourselves support or condone.

When someone actually comes along and their miniatures have messages of hatred, racism, etc against their fellow humans and/or they themselves are acting with hatred, racism, etc THAT'S when I want to see a stir created.

Agreed that it's a circular argument.

But I nothing I wrote was "puerile" (don't worry, I'm not going to do that annoying thing where someone copies and pastes the dictionary definition). And I doubt you're really offended by what I wrote - I'm sure you can overlook some opinionated words on a forum.

It's just that the reason I don't want to see things like Nazi imagery shoehorned into a context where I don't think it belongs is because I assume one of three things: either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake, they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it, or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views. The first two I merely find tiresome; the last I want no part of. In all three cases I won't feel like finding out either way, I'll just find someone else to play.

i had the possibility to talk to the guy with the dkok army today.
he told me that his army was inspired by the movie iron sky where the nazis fled to the moon when loosing war and praising charly chaplin as the great dictator. he found it kind of .. humouros i think is the right word in english?
he also showed me what was the.. motiv? for his painting scheme. and his company commander is the dkok officer with the charly chaplin head from another miniature, very funny, didnt see that in the first moment.
i post the pic, if its not ok in any way maybe a mod can delete it, dont know if the symbols are forbidden in uk or us.

I'm never offended by models themselves. I wish I was just so I could know what you guys are talking about. I could, however, be offended by the person who uses the models. Lots of weirdos out there.

 Fezman wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fezman wrote:
Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.

See... I find comments like this more offensive and puerile than the actual models in question (given that we have no context for the models beyond the few short sentences we were given). But then that's just me, I find it offensive when people want to pigeon hole others off limited information.

And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.

The free speech argument is entirely circular.

In my ideal world people would show up with such an army wouldn't create a stir beyond peaceful conversation because we're all mature enough to know we're playing pewpewpew with little man dollies that aren't actually representative of what we ourselves support or condone.

When someone actually comes along and their miniatures have messages of hatred, racism, etc against their fellow humans and/or they themselves are acting with hatred, racism, etc THAT'S when I want to see a stir created.

Agreed that it's a circular argument.

But I nothing I wrote was "puerile" (don't worry, I'm not going to do that annoying thing where someone copies and pastes the dictionary definition). And I doubt you're really offended by what I wrote - I'm sure you can overlook some opinionated words on a forum.

It's just that the reason I don't want to see things like Nazi imagery shoehorned into a context where I don't think it belongs is because I assume one of three things: either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake, they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it, or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views. The first two I merely find tiresome; the last I want no part of. In all three cases I won't feel like finding out either way, I'll just find someone else to play.

I think shoehorning people in to "well, it's one of two things" based on nothing more than a sentence describing a model is a puerile thing to do (we don't even have pictures, the person isn't even here to explain themselves, we have no idea of the context, we have no idea of the intent).

either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake

...assuming intent based off limited information and without giving the person a chance to respond.

they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it

Again... we are playing a wargame... a game of war. If you have a problem with atrocities and trivialising of atrocities you're playing the wrong area.

Now granted there will be people who have been personally affected by those things and I feel very sorry for them, but we can't sanitise everything so no one personally affected is spared. I have Soviet WW2 models I'm painting up at the moment... my mate's Dad can tell you lots of wonderful stories of Soviet atrocities in Poland.

or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views

Or, ya know, it might not.

But you're right, I'm not really offended, I more swing between "amused" and "dismayed".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think shoehorning people in to "well, it's one of two things" based on nothing more than a sentence describing a model is a puerile thing to do (we don't even have pictures, the person isn't even here to explain themselves, we have no idea of the context, we have no idea of the intent).

Hm, well it seems we disagree on the use of "puerile," but let's not waste time on that or we'll be here forever with neither giving ground. In this context I certainly am relying on limited information, I've just got to go with what the OP gave me and as I already explained I don't approve of putting SS symbols in a fictional setting or making a "Tallarn=headdress guys=jihad" joke. People can do these things but I don't have to approve, and of course I can criticise if I wish to.

Maybe you're more tolerant than me, I've definitely become more stubborn recently.

either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake
...assuming intent based off limited information and without giving the person a chance to respond.

they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it[
Again... we are playing a wargame... a game of war. If you have a problem with atrocities and trivialising of atrocities you're playing the wrong area.

Now granted there will be people who have been personally affected by those things and I feel very sorry for them, but we can't sanitise everything so no one personally affected is spared. I have Soviet WW2 models I'm painting up at the moment... my mate's Dad can tell you lots of wonderful stories of Soviet atrocities in Poland.
or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views
Or, ya know, it might not.

Quite. In fact I can see why people might find the lore of 40K itself problematic what with its massacres, rampant bigotry, totalitarian murderers portrayed as if they're the "good guys" of the setting etc. But it does feel tongue in cheek - every faction is so awful and full of hate for the others that it just becomes absurd. I think putting the imagery of a group that was responsible for real atrocities probably pulls me up sharp and just leaves me with a sour taste.

A double standard, perhaps, as many of the Imperium's atrocities are so clearly inspired by real-life horrors...?

And it's also interesting you mention historical games. Believe it or not, I don't think people who play the Axis in WW2 games are fascists or racists (well, I'm sure some are, but I'm also sure they're a minority). I'd certainly be stuck if I did, because I wouldn't want to associate with such people but I play Bolt Action, so I'd be giving every Axis player a wide berth!

I play the US Army as I'm interested in its history as an organisation and how it developed during WW2, but I'm sure someone could take offence to that: either the idea of recreating battles of WW2, or even playing as Americans - as we know there were crimes committed by every side. What if I paint up my models as a division who were found to have had members who committed some of them? It's a potential minefield indeed, and as you say, if you worry about offending someone with everything you do, you'd quit the hobby. But I don't worry about it, perhaps because when I play Bolt Action I'm invested in a game with an historical inspiration, whereas with 40K I'm invested in an OTT fantasy world.

Interesting swapping views with you, and I respect your opinions of course. Thanks for the discussion.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
-snip-

So seriously, what is your actual point, here? If you don't object to the initial material, you don't object to people reacting to the material, and your only contribution to the thread outside those two things is to smugly declare how silly everyone else is for even discussing it in the first place, could you not just do that once and then go away, instead of popping in periodically to remind us how awesome you are because you don't care either way? I'd consider it a personal favour if you would. Go away, that is.

Its in pretty bad taste, but I would happily play against it, if only because I despise anything and everything to do with political correctness, even those two fething words annoy me.

 paulson games wrote:

Nazi symbols pop up in non-period sources like Captain America, Hellboy, or have modified versions for Red Skull, Hydra, the Hammer in Danger Girl. But that's cultural shift from how things were for several decades. There was a distinct period after the war where displaying those icons in the US was completely shunned and avoided (even if it were for historical purposes) but I think people have matured and realize that by not talking about what evils those symbols represent it ultimately does more harm. In order not to let history repeat itself we need to know about the horrible things that those were associated with so we can never forget why they were so bad.

It actually seems like those symbols were much more widely able to be used in the past (for villains or ridicule) than today. Star Trek, Monty Python, Hogan's Heroes, 'Allo 'Allo. the "Von Erichs" et al. These days, games and characters like Axis and Allies, Sniper Elite, Wolfenstein and even the Red Skull shy away from using/have been purged of the Swastika

 winterwind85 wrote:
Hi,

Had a game yesterday against a Black Templar Army.
The paintjob was beautiful, Lots of conversions, like every Templar had chainmail on the Arms a Chacon tabbard, a sword on the back etc.
What was alittle disturbing was his Champion of the emperor, very Great conversion showing a marine executing a tallarn warrior with a standard in the back with the letters on it
" i See your yihad and rise you a crusade". His Friends was playing a dkok Army That had the colours and insignias of an ss squadron and skulls painted on their greatcoate revers.
How do you feel about such Models and would You Play against them?

That'd be awesome, I'd get to kill some nazi's! What's not to love?

 quickfuze wrote:
Virtually all of the German Iconography was stolen from historical reference and use. The "SS" was a dual Sig rune of Armanen origin. The "deathshead" is a widely recognized representation of Baal and appears on a large portion of Catholic relics and religious devices.

The fact that you automatically associate it with the German war machine is a form of confirmation bias. So who is really not PC in this situation? How about you paint your little plastic men the way you want and he paints his the way he wants. Yes the Germans were guilty of some of the worst war crimes in history but from a tactical aspect there was a lot to learn from the Germans.....we Americans also wiped two entire cities in Japan basically off the map, but I bet if you saw an Ork bommer with Fat man and Little Boy painted on the two of the bombs you would not even associate it or find it offensive.

Well put

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
The crusader is just plain wrong, however, depending of the circumstances, the Germany thing might be tolerable.
If the player genuinely has just painted them to admire the German war machine's efficiency, that is better than them being a Neo-Nazi expressing them self on the tabletop.
The guy who runs my local games workshop said to me that if you think of the IG as WW2 Germans tactically, you cant go wrong, and I have to agree with him, however, if there are modeled Nazi salutes ect then he should be banned from wherever you are playing.
BTW, I'm a Jew if that helps lend perspective.

I'm in a similar boat. It really depends on the player and how he or she presents the army. For example, I think most space nazis are hilarious (looking at you, Dreamforge), but they might not be so funny when played by a serious skinhead. On the other hand, I was tempted to buy an old-style chaos dwarf army to play as the Eternal Jews, from the movie poster which apparently inspired the Chaos Dwarf line. Some Jews love telling Holocaust jokes; some find those jokes horribly offensive. Intention is the determining factor for me, but obviously not for everyone..

censorship, bringing unwarranted uncomfortableness and trouble since 2006

FFS, it's a pictoral reference to nazi's and such like, are you now telling me you cannot look at nazi art? if so i pity the world and expect the 23nd nazis soon.

put on blinkers and the world passes you by.

I don't see how using color schemes or camo patterns can be offensive. Nor really certain aesthetics, as I have a fairly large Blood Axe ork army which uses a lot of WW2 German uniform and look.

The actual symbols though, are a different matter, they both break the immersion of the game and project a statement. I'd find an imperial guard army painted in Wehrmacht or even SS colors fine, I'd be fairly off-put by an army using the swastika. I'd find an army painted in an arabic style fine, I'd find the flags of ISIL and modeled child beheadings in very poor taste.

I'd certainly play against someone with a color scheme using German WW2 or any other timeline inspired source and appreciate someone researching it, but there's a world of difference between German army inspired and Nazi inspired. I'm not sure I'd want to spend several hours of my free time playing against someone who was making a pro-Nazi statement with their toy soldiers though, unless it was to beat their army into the ground and then separate myself from having to talk to them afterwards, as I've better things to do then hang with a gakker with a nazi fixation.

TL;DR A game is just a game. I'm more concerned about a person's actual political and/or religious beliefs than their aesthetic taste in Wargaming miniatures. You like to paint your mini's as Nazi's? No Problem. You self identify as a Neo Nazi? GTFO.

The Catachan's are inspired by Vietnam War American soldiers. If Vietnamese people take offence, does that mean Catachan armies *"have no place in this hobby"? *

(*see the OP in the Chaos Land Raider with stripper girl sponsons thread).

If a player wants to model his fictional army of Warhammer 40,000 desert insurgents on the Taliban and other real world insurgents and somebody takes offence, does that mean his army "has no place in this hobby"?

If a person likes an army of demonic monsters (Chaos) that glorifies violence (Khorne) or sexual hedonism (Slaanesh), and puritanical Christians take offence, does that mean Chaos Daemon armies "have no place in this hobby"?

Being offended by something is a choice YOU make. Deciding whether or not "I" (i.e. the creator) care that you're offended is a choice "I" make.

You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to have your opinion and sense of morality respected, shared and obeyed by others.

What shadow captain said.

are you enforcing your wicked social warrior morals on soviet russia and not allowing anything that represents the killing of the kulaks? Also are you outlawing anything that refers to the slavery of africans in america because you dont like to hear it. this gak happened. people didn't paint it coz of how you think. you don't know.
maybe letting people know that blacks were slaves in america till very late is valid. my point you don't know the inferecnce, there is a lot worse gak out there...godwins is only so scary.....there is more scary


Automatically Appended Next Post:
much more scary

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".

I always had Khador down as steampunk Imperial Russia, rather than steampunk Soviets, myself.

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".

I always had Khador down as steampunk Imperial Russia, rather than steampunk Soviets, myself.

They're modeled after Imperial Russia. Their impress is like Catherine the Great. They're not Soviets. (Think Crimean War or WWI-pre revolution)

Except for the official, etc colour schemes. Because all Russia is every Russia, amirite?

Honestly I can see the humor in the OP's image of the Crusader army. Templars, crusaders, yadda yadda.. crusades joke is obvious.

The DKOK one... I'd have to see it in person I guess. I know the Totenkompf is a really old symbol, just got ruined by the SS.

 winterwind85 wrote:
i had the possibility to talk to the guy with the dkok army today.
he told me that his army was inspired by the movie iron sky where the nazis fled to the moon when loosing war and praising charly chaplin as the great dictator. he found it kind of .. humouros i think is the right word in english?
he also showed me what was the.. motiv? for his painting scheme. and his company commander is the dkok officer with the charly chaplin head from another miniature, very funny, didnt see that in the first moment.
i post the pic, if its not ok in any way maybe a mod can delete it, dont know if the symbols are forbidden in uk or us.

Oh, yeah, I've heard of this movie.

So now I'm curious. Now that you know the army was inspired by a B-grade satire film, with joke elements like Chaplin included, does that change your view of the army? Does this make the army better or worse in your eyes?

-S'Cipio

I don't get how people are so much more offended by the SS DKoK than the crusader executing the jihadist. That seems worse to me, maybe it's just because related things have been in the news lately.