This is not the start of a Flame-War, but an honest question:

Is any of the armies / fluff (in either Fantasy or 40K) original work? Or is it all just stuff that was regurgitated in one way or another?

We all know about the obvious - dark and light elves, dwarfs, demons, giants, etc. We know that armies are based off of different societies. ie - Lizardmen = Aztec, Bretonnia = Camelot, etc.

Just wanted to see if there was anything that I was missing and mainly just out of curiosity.

Thanks.

Knights in space. Totally original. Not starship troopers in space, that's been done. I'm talking about knights in space.

I'd like to say flying babies, as those are totally awesome, but they're merely cherubs in space. :(

Necrons? Skaven?

The enormous talking rat in the corner of my living room informs me that Skaven were totally ripped off.

Necrons are Terminators... with a sprinkling of Egypt.

Didn't Shakespeare have something to say about this?

To an extent nothing is every really original, because its all just an addition to our collective unconciouss : ).

That aside Necrons are basically the undead robots. The name gives it away. They look like skeletons. It' a mix between the shambling hordes idea and adding the uncaring emotionless but efficient robot concept.

Skaven? Can you say Master Splinter?

Skaven was pretty much the brain child of Jes Goodwin wasn't it.
I remember he did essentially all the art and all the minis when they were first released.

thing is GW has been around long enough and has been borrowed from often enough that it is hard to say.

Their gothic-ness, electropreists and servitors seem like their own invention to me.

Rogue Trader and 2nd 40k was pretty original stuff. Science fiction is a pretty knew genre, other than Frankenstein and themes borrowed from mythology. Especially non-steam punk stuff. Steam-punk as in "Victorian Sci-fi" as it is known. Pre transistors and nuclear power.

There is probably written sci-fi from the 50's, 60's and possibly even earlier that includes servitors etc. But as an image 40k was pretty leading edge, following as it did from the 80's and post 70's D&D stuff. I am thinking Heavy Metal and maybe some Anime. Which was presumably practically unheard of in Britain at the time.

Heavy Metal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Metal_%28magazine%29

------------
And necrons have nothing to do with Terminators . Egypt, yes. Undead, yes. Especially considering Space Hulk terminators are somehow derived from maintenance armour, are they not?

This is actually quite interesting to me, I may research this to completion within the next year or two. I am an expert in written science fiction (I know who Gernsback is, and I have read Wells), so if anyone has any information or wants to put their heads together please contact me.

Science Fiction really is a very new genre, at least the imagery. Fantasy too, for that matter, although Fantasy (and Science Fiction which follows Fantasy) obviously has roots in fairy tales etc.

Tacobake, I think he meant the Movie terminator, where the robots unskinned looked like necrons.

Giant walking cathedral fortresses w/ guns. I actually think that's all GW.

Ogre Kingdoms?

jfrazell wrote:Didn't Shakespeare have something to say about this?

as well as Ecclesiastes:

Nothing new under the sun.

Ungentle wrote:Necrons?
Skaven?

Terminator? (though the ancient undead thing about necrons has me guessing it is a huge conglomeration of themes)
Secret of Nimh/Wind in the willows/watership down?

Hellfury wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Didn't Shakespeare have something to say about this?

as well as Ecclesiastes:

Nothing new under the sun.

Churchie.

Skaskull wrote:To an extent nothing is every really original, because its all just an addition to our collective unconciouss : ).

I was thinking the same thing...

Skaskull wrote:Tacobake, I think he meant the Movie terminator, where the robots unskinned looked like necrons.

ah yes, my bad.

Actually the walking cathedral fortress is similar to the God Warriors of Nausicca of the Valley of Wind, Howl's Moving Castle and so on.

Skaven are remarkably similar to the rat-like Wombloid creatures in a series of children's books published in the mid-80s. I can't remember the name, and can't look up the books as they are in storage.

So no, nothing GW have done is really original. Still, originality is an over-rated virtue. They have pulled together material from a variety of sources to create an internally consistent universe.

Necrons bear a very close similarity to Cybermen from Dr Who and servitors are mentats from Dune. The RT era Space marines owe much to Sardaukar from Dune. 40k's Gothic imagery bears a resemblance Nemesis the Warlock.

Skaven owe a lot to James Herbert's Rats books.

malfred wrote:Churchie.

The concept of the warp as a place where souls/psychics have a presence, where people's souls go to die, and as well as this, the warp as faster-than-light mode of travel seems to be original to me. Has anybody seen that beyond warp-speed travel anywhere else?

legoburner wrote:The concept of the warp as a place where souls/psychics have a presence, where people's souls go to die, and as well as this, the warp as faster-than-light mode of travel seems to be original to me. Has anybody seen that beyond warp-speed travel anywhere else?

Lovecraft wrote about "The spaces that lie between" as in a place where nefarious things try to break into our world that are beyond human understanding and would drive a man insane trying to comprehend the whole idea.

His short stories such as The silver key and through the gates of the silver key come readily to mind.

The idea that space ships would traverse this space he also used, in a way. The "Metal brain case cylinders" of the mi-go were used to traverse this type of space.

I think GW's idea of the warp come more from a mixture of lovecraftian insanity, and theoretical physics. Black holes being a gateway into a place humans cannot comprehend (Warp = parallel universe), or possibly being able to use them to fold space (in the Frank Herbert's Dune "Spacing guild Navigator" sense) to go from one place to the other. To use fake scientific terminology, to "translate" from one point to another...

On the subject of GW originality though:

It is rather humorous how voraciously GW's defends its IP when one considers how truly little GW has actually created.
(Rogue trade was really cool, but make no illusions, it was heavily influenced by, and in some cases completely plagiarized from various popular fictional sources)

But then again, if you don't defend IP, then you lose it.

Which brings me to why GW is so zealous about that issue.

Perhaps they do it so that they can claim IP on other ideas they have plagiarized, as the originators let it slip away? Thus making GW, "original" atleast legally.

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the walking cathedral fortress is similar to the God Warriors of Nausicca of the Valley of Wind, Howl's Moving Castle and so on.

Well, the God Warriors didn't really resemble 40K Titans, except that they were big robots. Howl's Moving Castle came out recently, so obviously could not have inspired Titans.

Isn't it possible that on some of these instances that they came from GW without it being "Oh I read/saw this and I am going to steal it"? I imagine that just about anything can be scene as stealing from something older, what with storytelling going all the way back to the late 19th century. Just being similar doesn't always mean plagiarism. As with many things, the originality comes in how they utilized other things, in how they pulled together disparate elements into their own cohesive world.

Pariah Press wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the walking cathedral fortress is similar to the God Warriors of Nausicca of the Valley of Wind, Howl's Moving Castle and so on.

Well, the God Warriors didn't really resemble 40K Titans, except that they were big robots. Howl's Moving Castle came out recently, so obviously could not have inspired Titans.

Perhaps not, but Japan holds a nearly racial trademarking for the Giant Robot genre.

Examples would be too many and exhausting to cite.

Ahtman wrote:Isn't it possible that on some of these instances that they came from GW without it being "Oh I read/saw this and I am going to steal it"? I imagine that just about anything can be scene as stealing from something older, what with storytelling going all the way back to the late 19th century. Just being similar doesn't always mean plagiarism. As with many things, the originality comes in how they utilized other things, in how they pulled together disparate elements into their own cohesive world.

I agree that plagiarism is a strong and libelous word to banty around.

I understand that "Inspiration" comes from many sources. But this topic is about GW's originality, of which I have see very little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howl's_Moving_Castle

It was a novel.

I like the word plagiarism to describe GWs attitude, after all if it were inspiration as you say Hellfury they wouldn´t be copyrighting like crazy things like:

Varghulf ----> Old German for werewolf

or

Ushabti -----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushabti

M.

GW is not as slick about pulling inspiration/ripping crap off from other sources, but Star Wars has a lot more unoriginality than most people think. The good trilogy, at least, is heavily dependent on Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces, Flash Gordon (which is what George Lucas originally started writing, an updated Flash Gordon movie), World War II movies (Dam Busters in particular), and Akira Kurosawa's samurai movies (especially The Hidden Fortress). But, like GW, he managed to mash them together into something new and different.

I think those movies (at least the three original non-horrible ones) don't have as many sources of inspiration because it's just six hours worth of stuff, as opposed to Warhammer 40K, which is 20 years and dozens of rulebooks, scenarios, and codices. I know 40K and Star Wars both have sprawling expanded universes that probably have a lot more bad than good fluff (I've barely looked into either) but at heart I think they're comparable.

Hey, Episode one wasn't bad at all, in fact I think it was the best of the series. It had no bad acting, the things they were doing were rather in line with the original trilogy. It wasn't until the second movie that things started to suck. Seeing as that whole movie (except for the clones, everyone loves genetically modified soldiers) sucked horrible ass. Ditto on the third too. (though I think the reason for this would be Hayden Christiansens utter suckiness)

Though back to Games Workshop, I think they are rather ogirinal, maybe not in the individual cases but the way they have brought them all togther seems rather original to me seeing as I have not seen anything relatively like it. (though I do agree you can see that several items do seem to be "inspired" from other works)

I don't think its fair to say that Games Workshop has little originality. When it comes to truly new ideas pretty much everything has already been thought of by someone else.

At this point, all movies, literature, television, etc are just different iterations of the same ideas.

Where originality lies in this day and age is basically turning age-old themes into your own ideas by combining concepts together in fresh ways.

Games Workshop has had many years to flesh-out and refine their universes and imagery and I feel they have done an amazing job.

The Eldar in Rogue Trader were basically just a rough juxtaposition of the typical concept of elves mashed with science fiction.

Over the years GW has continually refined and added to both the style and history of the Eldar race that at this point what an Eldar looks like and the backstory of their race is very distinct.

The same is true of Space Marines. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of 40k can recognize a space marine as a games workshop space marine.

while no one particular individual aspect of GW's creations are particularilly original gigantic bipedal churches with enough firepower to deem them a strategic asset are p original imo

Hellfury wrote:On the subject of GW originality though:

It is rather humorous how voraciously GW's defends its IP when one considers how truly little GW has actually created.

Quoted for truth. I couldn't agree more. I was reading Dune a while back and was disgusted at how many things were so wholly copy-and-pasted into 40K.

Perhaps they do it so that they can claim IP on other ideas they have plagiarized, as the originators let it slip away? Thus making GW, "original" atleast legally.

It reminds me of The Hitchikers guide to the galaxy where it talks about a portion of the guide being copied word for word from a cereal box that had fallen through a time hole from the future. The editors of the guide then sued the cereal company for copyright.

Their character naming is not original by any means. It's just about all a mixture of existing names (Asmodai), other languages (Carnifex), or other such things as ranks/titles (Hyrophant).

I do love 40k for the way it incorporates alot of existing ideas into their own brand of homogeneity. Like many types of innovation it is built on the concepts of the previous designer to make it better.

But I also think it is not quite fair to to say that GW is original at all. You mistake originality for "inspired and 'possibly' innovative derivation".

To be original, you must be distinctive from previous works. Not to combine them into your own brand to a point where its so obviously unoriginal that you don't even change the names. I posit that GW for the most part is so derivative, that it is really a stretch to consider the core basis of the majority of their fluff to be original.

It is quite possible to be original nowadays while being considerably less derivative.
I think that GW realizes this and is getting better at balancing how much they are cloning in comparison to how much originality they are creating in areas that they are expanding their portion of the genre. Sadly, squats were a casualty of that war.

Like I said, I enjoy GW's brand of fiction, as it expounds on what the previous person who inspired it wrote, but there is one area where GW could stand to gain in being original, and that is in their rules.

As a preemptive note:

Many people may view this as a negative attitude. Many people here also make it painfully obvious that they mistake criticism for negativity and make the two interchangeable.

Doctor Thunder wrote:I was reading Dune a while back and was disgusted at how many things were so wholly copy-and-pasted into 40K.

I wouldn't be too disgusted if I were you.

Dune has been lauded as one of the best sci-fi's ever written. Since "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", 40K solidifies how good Frank Herbert was at writing an truly original work.

I don't think that it is bad for 40K to be unoriginal. In fact, I believe it to be one of its stronger points.

The reason being is that is is much easier for people to get into a game where they are somehow already familiar with the background on some level.

I would be willing to bet that Bryan Ansell thought of this when he made "Laserburn" (rogue trader's predecessor) and incorporated so much from previous bodies of works. Bryan was a very shrewd business man and I think he realized that for the purposes of getting a majority of people into the game, it was necessary for the game to be more widely acceptable.

Pariah Press wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the walking cathedral fortress is similar to the God Warriors of Nausicca of the Valley of Wind, Howl's Moving Castle and so on.

Well, the God Warriors didn't really resemble 40K Titans, except that they were big robots. Howl's Moving Castle came out recently, so obviously could not have inspired Titans.

The film was recent, the book it was based on was published in the mid-80s, before Titans were invented. (Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.)

"Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style."

Yah but you have to admit they did do it in style.

Style. That's the thing. GW's concepts may be a mish-mash of easily-identifiable cultural references, but they have a very unique visual style. 40K looks like nothing previous, due to the contributions of such artists as John Blanche, Ian Miller, Jes Goodwin, etc. I can spot a piece of Warhammer art from half a room away, even if I've never seen it before.

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.

Do we have any solid source on this or is it just a common belief? I don't really know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

Nothing in 40K is particularly original taken by itself. Genetically engineered supermen, giant walking robots of doom, ratmen, none of it really.

But taking characters and monsters from across genre fiction and creating a couple of semi-coherent universes is something closer to an original creation. If you then create models for those creatures and produce rulesets to have those models fight each other… that’s an original creation.

And GW knows all this by the way, it blows my mind when people try to point out that GW’s model lines come from a long line of genre writing as though it’s a big secret. The company is quite open that tyranids are about letting you play bug invaders from beyond universe like in those 50s sci fi movies, for example.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.

Do we have any solid source on this or is it just a common belief? I don't really know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

Adeptus titanicus was first made in 1988, while Battletech was first made in 1984.
They might have have made this game in response to the popularity of Battletech, which in turn also borrowed mech concepts from macross illegally. Hence the insane prices for very early macross styled battletech miniatures.

Both games revolved around rock em sock em robot style combat.

Ratbarf wrote:"Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style."

Yah but you have to admit they did do it in style.

The first version, Adeptus Titanicus, was rubbish. I don't know how it developed after that.

Hellfury wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.

Do we have any solid source on this or is it just a common belief? I don't really know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

Adeptus titanicus was first made in 1988, while Battletech was first made in 1984.
They might have have made this game in response to the popularity of Battletech, which in turn also borrowed mech concepts from macross illegally. Hence the insane prices for very early macross styled battletech miniatures.

Both games revolved around rock em sock em robot style combat.

To be fair to FASA, they thought they had acquired the right to use the Macross and Dougram designs derived from the Robotech TV series, but actually there was a licencing cock-up.

Macross/Robotech was the first mecha series really popular in the USA however there had been plenty of previous giant robot type anime in Japan, some of which were exported to Europe -- these others usually featured single combat rather than a war situation.

FASA took the basic designs and completely wrote the rules. They were popular enough that within a few years the basic set was followed by Aerotech, Mechwarrior RPG, a city fighting game, scenario packs, posters, Tech manuals, loads of miniatures and so on. Exactly the kind of franchise that GW like and have built up in 40K, and overlapping the target userbase of tabletop SF gamers.

Then Adeptus Titanicus appeared.

Whilst I have no documentary evidence, such as a memo from Steve Livingstone to Bryan Ansell telling him to get a walking robot tank game out because B'Tech is going gangbusters, the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling.

legoburner wrote:The concept of the warp as a place where souls/psychics have a presence, where people's souls go to die, and as well as this, the warp as faster-than-light mode of travel seems to be original to me. Has anybody seen that beyond warp-speed travel anywhere else?

B5 had hyperspace as well (I think it was called hyperspace). A lot of that was similar actually. Without beacons you would get lost forever, that sort of thing.OTT but Earth Destroyers are a nice comparable to BFG cruisers.

Kilgore Trout once wrote a book where the engines of
spaceships were powered by the stars in another universe.

Eventually they ran out of stars.

This is why I dont think it is a bad thing that GW have borrowed from so many sources. I have certainly had a lot of exposure to things that would have otherwise passed me by simply because I heard of them through GW and it's influences, and I do not know if I would have come across those things without GW since I got into 40k at a fairly young age.

jfrazell wrote:

legoburner wrote:The concept of the warp as a place where souls/psychics have a presence, where people's souls go to die, and as well as this, the warp as faster-than-light mode of travel seems to be original to me. Has anybody seen that beyond warp-speed travel anywhere else?

B5 had hyperspace as well (I think it was called hyperspace). A lot of that was similar actually. Without beacons you would get lost forever, that sort of thing.OTT but Earth Destroyers are a nice comparable to BFG cruisers.

Star Wars has Hyperspace as well, and calls it such.

jfrazell wrote:B5 had hyperspace as well (I think it was called hyperspace). A lot of that was similar actually. Without beacons you would get lost forever, that sort of thing.OTT but Earth Destroyers are a nice comparable to BFG cruisers.

What, like this?

Pah! Your puny Membari White stars cannot stand against the might of Slaughter Class Cruiser! Hail Hydra!


Who are you and what do YOU want?

Well, there's the obvious derivative one. FTL in 40k means going through "the warp", vs Star Trek's using their "warp drive" for FTL travel.

Also, I just thought of something about the walking fortress's of destruction. The original SDF-1 anyone?

I worded my post badly... What I meant was that although there are many instances of FTL travel (in things like star trek, star wars, etc), it was the combination of that 'warp space' with a place for souls and demons that I was curious about.

legoburner wrote:I worded my post badly... What I meant was that although there are many instances of FTL travel (in things like star trek, star wars, etc), it was the combination of that 'warp space' with a place for souls and demons that I was curious about.

Ironically, they cribbed that bit straight from the fountainhead of all things good: Asimov. In "I, Robot" one of the short stories involves a powerful robotic brain that freaks out about designing the first hyperdrive. The reason is that while people are in "hyperspace," they effectively don't exist and thus experience, in vivid detail, a form of death. One of the characters literally thinks he's in hell for the duration of the trip.

Of course, in ancient myth it wasn't uncommon to "descend to the underworld," where the "souls of the dead and monsters await" to "shorten journies." My point is, what the hell sort of originality does anybody actually want? the Pan-fo were original!

I had a friend once who talked about how there are only so many stories, and every story told is just a variation on those themes. I forget what they all were, but I have a different theory: that the only story worth telling is "boy becomes a man." Sure, it's probably better phrased as "a person, in overcoming obstacles learns more about himself and/or the world" but I like boy becomes a man better. Whether the Illiad or the Lord of the Rings, the best stories always involve personal growth.

In a similar vein, GW's stuff is cribbed from all over, notably from Dune. Of course, since that's mostly a re-telling of the Arab Revolt with a herbert stand in with psychedlic visions and a god complex replacing TE Lawrence, I'm not that moved. I love dune, but the mishmosh of ideas are pretty easy to trace back. "Feudalism! IN SPACE!!!!!" "This desert culture controls a powerful commodity that basically enables travel and trade. No, it's nothing like oil at all. shut up, it's DRUGS!!!!!!" And while personal body shields that only allow slow things to penetrate might be original (and allow for wicked awesome sword fights,) Seriously WTF???? I dont' even want to guess at those physics.

Ratbarf wrote:Hey, Episode one wasn't bad at all, in fact I think it was the best of the series.

Now you're just trolling.

The bits with Qui Gon Jin in them are very good, Liam Neeson brings similar qualities to the role that Alec Guinness brought to the original. Sadly these scenes are totally let down by the rest of the film.

40k's Strength is its willingness to crib from everything, bear in mind that 40k's fluff is just a setting in which to fight battles. Although it is a little galling when their pop culture references are so poorly blended (hidden).

Hellfury wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:I was reading Dune a while back and was disgusted at how many things were so wholly copy-and-pasted into 40K.

I wouldn't be too disgusted if I were you.

Dune has been lauded as one of the best sci-fi's ever written. Since "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", 40K solidifies how good Frank Herbert was at writing an truly original work.

I don't think that it is bad for 40K to be unoriginal. In fact, I believe it to be one of its stronger points.

The reason being is that is is much easier for people to get into a game where they are somehow already familiar with the background on some level.

I would be willing to bet that Bryan Ansell thought of this when he made "Laserburn" (rogue trader's predecessor) and incorporated so much from previous bodies of works. Bryan was a very shrewd business man and I think he realized that for the purposes of getting a majority of people into the game, it was necessary for the game to be more widely acceptable.

This series of books seems to have provided some inspiration, though with the publication dates, there may have been some cross-pollination going on too...

Still, a great read, if you haven't already!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_Adventures

"Now you're just trolling."

Am not, The Phantom Menace was probably the best of the whole series. Then followed by the Empire Strikes Back, A New Hope, Return of the Jedi, Revenge of the Sith, and Attack of the Clones.

Qui Gon Jin is my hero... and Darth Maul is probably one of the coolest baddies in the universe. (plus he brought dual bladed lightsabers to a lot of games!)

Alpharius wrote: though with the publication dates, there may have been some cross-pollination going on too...

Highly unlikely.

Dune was first published in 1965, and most of the prevalent concepts 40K borrowed from that univers were first printed in God emperor of dune in 1981.
Chapterhouse dune, Herberts last book was published in 1985.

While laserburn was published in 1980, it didn't include any of the Dunesque elements (God emperor, suspensors, etc.) found in Rogue trader printed in 1987.

Fredric Jameson (Marxist philosopher/cultural critic) would say that GW is a product of late capitalistic, or postmodern, culture and therefore incapable of original ideas- rather only pastiche.

Jameson even cites Star Wars, like other posters here, as doing the same.

And that's what I see most GW products as, a pastiche of all the "cool stuff" the designers liked or read. It may not even be a conscious move, but definitely pastiche. I don't see this as plagiarism, rather the originality is how the influences are placed together.

Hellfury wrote:On the subject of GW originality though:

It is rather humorous how voraciously GW's defends its IP when one considers how truly little GW has actually created.
(Rogue trade was really cool, but make no illusions, it was heavily influenced by, and in some cases completely plagiarized from various popular fictional sources)

But then again, if you don't defend IP, then you lose it.

Which brings me to why GW is so zealous about that issue.

Perhaps they do it so that they can claim IP on other ideas they have plagiarized, as the originators let it slip away? Thus making GW, "original" atleast legally.

First, I think it's a bit strong to say they plagiarized ideas, say rather "inspired". But that does (to an extent) explain their vigor in protecting their property; the more common, genre elements you use in your IP, the shallower your protection ends up. We can't, though, so easily dismiss what GW (though it's authors) has accomplished.

Clearly, Space marines and tyranids owe a lot to Heinlein's Startship Troupers, but even as close as there ideas are on some level, on another level they are very distinct. there is a book (the name of which I cannot for the life of me remember at the moment...) that posits that there are only something like 7 narrative arcs, endlessly retold, with the genius of the author in the telling. Just a few days ago, I saw an article where one author claimed that JK Rowling had cribbed from his work, justifying that comment with a synopses that fit both Harry Potter and his own material... except it also fits everything from Star Wars to Eragon (no surprise there). It's the things that fill in from the macro level components that make one book a dud, one profitable and one a world wide publishing phenomenon.

I mean, you can make a strong case that space marines are simply medievial knights crossed with space suits by way of dark ages plague doctor suits (the spiritual father of the beaky marine, anyone?). But so what? Those sources have been around (literally) for ages; in the 30's we had Lensman, in the 50s we had Startship Troopers, in the 70s Stormtroopers and in the 80s 40K. All involve many common elements, yet all have still more uncommon element, all are very different in tone, message and imagery.

So in a way there is very little originality, but a lot of distinctiveness, creativity and, yes, even a few completely new ideas (I'm sure they are there, I just can't think of them).

but the tyranids look nothing like the original designs of the bugs in starship troopers

Ratbarf wrote:Am not, The Phantom Menace was probably the best of the whole series.

Steal from 1 person for art, that's plagiarism.
Steal from 10 people for art, that's inspiration.
Steal from 100 people for art, that's creativity.
Steal from 1000 people for art, that's genius.

Or so they say.

HF wrote:but the tyranids look nothing like the original designs of the bugs in starship troopers

That is a good example of how ideas can be copied without plagiarising or infringing on copyrights. Ideas in themselves cannot be copyrighted or patented, only the form of expression can be protected.

Of course Tyrannids (especially Genestealers) clearly crib ideas from Alien, but then ideas in Alien are derived from the biology of various insects.

Ideas are there to be used and built on. Star Wars (the original film) was strongly inspired by the Japanese film Hidden Fortress. It's also an example of the basic plots of quest and rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood, from naivety to wisdom. And let's face it, the earliest literature ever, like the epic of Gilgamesh, covers similar ground.

It would have been more original if GW made the Tyrannids a species of interstellar slime moulds or something -- the insect alien theme has been so widely used -- though this idea was used in the SPI game "Star Soldier" published in the mid-70s.

Anyway, as another poster said, the point of 40K fluff is not to be original or artistic, it is to provide a game background that allows for constant low level warfare. The fluff is an assemblage of well-worn tropes from SF, fantasy and war literature or cinema. The worst that can be said of it is that is it more derivative than the work it is based on. That can lead fans back to the original sources and widen their horizons.

People are usually better off reading anything than reading nothing.

Kilkrazy wrote:

It would have been more original if GW made the Tyrannids a species of interstellar slime moulds or something .

that would be the easiest army in the world to do, all flock

Is there anything "original" with GW?

Dwarves. With. Mowhawks.

'Nuff said.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you're talking about the harlie-riding mohawk dwarves, those never existed.

stonefox wrote:I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you're talking about the harlie-riding mohawk dwarves, those never existed.

I know what you meant to say, but now eldar harlequins being ridden by mohawked dwarves is too cool of an image to care

Sweet, this is what I was looking for.

I really like the idea for the Lizardmen and I know that the man-lizard thing has been done. I also know a good deal about the Aztecs. But, combining them is rather cool.

How about the Tau? Besides the communist under tones combined with the Federation from Star Trek, what else is used for the Army of the Greater Good?

Hellfury wrote:

Alpharius wrote: though with the publication dates, there may have been some cross-pollination going on too...

Highly unlikely.

Dune was first published in 1965, and most of the prevalent concepts 40K borrowed from that univers were first printed in God emperor of dune in 1981.
Chapterhouse dune, Herberts last book was published in 1985.

While laserburn was published in 1980, it didn't include any of the Dunesque elements (God emperor, suspensors, etc.) found in Rogue trader printed in 1987.

Um, when I was talking about cross-pollination, I was talking about the STEN series, not the DUNE series, though I wasn't too clear sorry!

Surely someone on Dakka other than me has read this fine series, right?

Original: Yes. Although this is anecdotal, there is no other "universe/gaming system" where one can fire an IG battle cannon at a gaunt standing 1 inch away, it scatters 4 inches backwards, and blows up the tank while the gaunt scuttles away...

Kilkrazy wrote:

HF wrote:but the tyranids look nothing like the original designs of the bugs in starship troopers

That is a good example of how ideas can be copied without plagiarising or infringing on copyrights. Ideas in themselves cannot be copyrighted or patented, only the form of expression can be protected.

Of course Tyrannids (especially Genestealers) clearly crib ideas from Alien, but then ideas in Alien are derived from the biology of various insects.

Ideas are there to be used and built on. Star Wars (the original film) was strongly inspired by the Japanese film Hidden Fortress. It's also an example of the basic plots of quest and rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood, from naivety to wisdom. And let's face it, the earliest literature ever, like the epic of Gilgamesh, covers similar ground.

It would have been more original if GW made the Tyrannids a species of interstellar slime moulds or something -- the insect alien theme has been so widely used -- though this idea was used in the SPI game "Star Soldier" published in the mid-70s.

Anyway, as another poster said, the point of 40K fluff is not to be original or artistic, it is to provide a game background that allows for constant low level warfare. The fluff is an assemblage of well-worn tropes from SF, fantasy and war literature or cinema. The worst that can be said of it is that is it more derivative than the work it is based on. That can lead fans back to the original sources and widen their horizons.

People are usually better off reading anything than reading nothing.

Tyranids arn't really bug like though, they're supposed to be dinosaurish. The only thing that's really big like is the fact they have 6 limbs. I really don't see a comparison between genestealers and Alien either. And Starship Troopers? Only in it's most basic form of a horde of alien creatures vs humans could it compare. Neither the bugs in the book or the movie are really at all like the `Nids.

legoburner wrote:

stonefox wrote:I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you're talking about the harlie-riding mohawk dwarves, those never existed.

I know what you meant to say, but now eldar harlequins being ridden by mohawked dwarves is too cool of an image to care

Quoted for Awsomness.

As for the Tau question, I see a lot of robotech in the way their suits are designed. In fact the reason I even started collecting them is because they looked like Anime fighting robots. (with a little bit of the dolls from Gundam Wing)

legoburner wrote:

stonefox wrote:I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you're talking about the harlie-riding mohawk dwarves, those never existed.

I know what you meant to say, but now eldar harlequins being ridden by mohawked dwarves is too cool of an image to care

Well, I was trying to describe Trollslayers, but your version is better.

I've always thought Skaven owed a lot to Fritz Leiber.

brotherskeeper74 wrote:Sweet, this is what I was looking for.

I really like the idea for the Lizardmen and I know that the man-lizard thing has been done. I also know a good deal about the Aztecs. But, combining them is rather cool.

How about the Tau? Besides the communist under tones combined with the Federation from Star Trek, what else is used for the Army of the Greater Good?

The Tau were designed to appeal to fans of robot manga. The designs have taken inspiration from a variety of Japanese manga, Gundam is the most obvious but the clean futuristic lines are found in a lot of stuff.

The social and political elements of the Tau codex, funnily enough, has very little to do with communism beyond the most superficial (there’s an absence of capitalism and… that’s about it). There’s a lot of similarities with a lot of utopian writings, Moore’s Utopia comes to mind, though, and some elements of pre-war Japan are thrown in for good measure.

And that’s what GW does, take a popular archetype from fantasy or sci-fi and built a model range and ruleset for it. They don’t even pretend they’re doing otherwise. Look at the various IG armies, there’s Vietnam vets, arabic desert raiders, two kinds of Russian troops and Cadians could probably be likened to Colonial Marines at a stretch. Each army is an opportunity to play an archetype from sci-fi or fantasy.

People suggesting GW are copying are completely missing the point of what the company does. They take well established archetypes, fit them into their setting and give you a model range to paint and a ruleset to play them with.

The originality isn’t in the concept. The originality is in the model designs, the context they’re given in the various settings, and the rules they have.

Aduro wrote:Tyranids arn't really bug like though, they're supposed to be dinosaurish. The only thing that's really big like is the fact they have 6 limbs. I really don't see a comparison between genestealers and Alien either.

Genestealers - steal genetic code of other races and modify themselves with it.
Aliens - steal genetic code of other races and modify their offspring with it.

The only real difference is that Genestealers use this to infiltrate a species until their numbers are great enough to take over, while Aliens use this in a more blatant manner and it serves as their primary method of evolution. Both assimilate the species that they are in the process of conquering.

Aduro wrote:And Starship Troopers? Only in it's most basic form of a horde of alien creatures vs humans could it compare. Neither the bugs in the book or the movie are really at all like the `Nids.

On the contrary, the visual aspect is the only way in which the two are not similar (the visuals having been taken from Alien/Giger instead).
Collective Hive consciousness with a Brain-caste in control? Check
Biologically launching themselves through space to destroy/assimilate other species? Check

I have few problems with GW's choices for inspiration. there is very little in the world that is truely original.

Where I have problems is with 'folklore theft'. Taking inspiration then trademarking it claiming exclusive creativity rights.

GW are bad at this, and very hypocritical at times.

However White Wolf are a thousand times worse, mainly because their inspiration IS world folklore and culture. Packaged TM'ed and sold as World of Darkness supplements.

Saying that I get pretty irked when GW attempts to trademark names from public domain or historical sources, even from the Bible, which is arguably the most clear example of a public domain document you could get.
Abaddon TM, even once Goliath TM - you gotta be kidding me.

Orlanth wrote:I have few problems with GW's choices for inspiration. there is very little in the world that is truely original.

Where I have problems is with 'folklore theft'. Taking inspiration then trademarking it claiming exclusive creativity rights.

GW are bad at this, and very hypocritical at times.

However White Wolf are a thousand times worse, mainly because their inspiration IS world folklore and culture. Packaged TM'ed and sold as World of Darkness supplements.

Saying that I get pretty irked when GW attempts to trademark names from public domain or historical sources, even from the Bible, which is arguably the most clear example of a public domain document you could get.
Abaddon TM, even once Goliath TM - you gotta be kidding me.

I share your sense of disgust on this issue. However, no-one has ever challenged GW on their TMs. There's no way, for example, they would survive a legal challenge by the Tolkein Estate on the use of EldarTM in WHFB. That said, Tolkien Estate won't challenge because they have already licensed LoTR to GW.

To be honest, most of GW's TMs are not worth challenging.

To all you GW doubters out there, please name one other creative work in human history in which space troopers drive WWI-knockoff tanks that are named after a homo erotic space-Conan.

There. Undeniable proof that GW is original at all times, in every way. Good day to you, sir.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I have few problems with GW's choices for inspiration. there is very little in the world that is truely original.

Where I have problems is with 'folklore theft'. Taking inspiration then trademarking it claiming exclusive creativity rights.

GW are bad at this, and very hypocritical at times.

However White Wolf are a thousand times worse, mainly because their inspiration IS world folklore and culture. Packaged TM'ed and sold as World of Darkness supplements.

Saying that I get pretty irked when GW attempts to trademark names from public domain or historical sources, even from the Bible, which is arguably the most clear example of a public domain document you could get.
Abaddon TM, even once Goliath TM - you gotta be kidding me.

I share your sense of disgust on this issue. However, no-one has ever challenged GW on their TMs. There's no way, for example, they would survive a legal challenge by the Tolkein Estate on the use of EldarTM in WHFB. That said, Tolkien Estate won't challenge because they have already licensed LoTR to GW.

To be honest, most of GW's TMs are not worth challenging.

I heard it from a good source GW regional retail manager that GW had toned back a lot on their IP. This conversation was about four years old, but it has come true. By and large Gw are sticking to 40K for their primary IP and their legal team apparently regards Warhammer fantasy as mostly indefensible. Other than some proper names Gw have given up on securing fantasy properties. Some points on this:

1. GW were challenged, just not often and far too late. GW chaos is based almost entirely on Moorcocks work, including the eight pointed star symbol. They even went as far as admitting this in White Dwarf, not that a denail could do them any good. This is why they havev never attempted to trademark the eight pointed star of Chaos. according to inside GW rumour Moorcock was very angry at GW's plagiarism and hypocrasy but because he was unaware of Warhammer until relatively recently it was far too late to do anything about it.

2. GW eventually dropped all trademark claims to most biblical names. They havwe TM's Baal Predator, but no longer make a claim to Baal. No thing has nothing to do with Blizzard, but because Baal is a biblical demons name and is thus untrademarkable.

3. GW registered the trademark for Eldar. Its an R with a circle around it not a TM, a more advanced stage. They have even gone as far as to attempt to defend their IP against the Tolkien estate, but fell flat on their faces. This story regards a long disappeared Dakkaite called Swordguy, who was part of a theatre troupe performing a stage play based on the Silmarillion. GW objected to the name Eldar used in the plays, the troupe manager phoned the Tolkien estate, shortly after GW withdrew their demands.
GW managed to trademark Eldar, and also publish several editions of the high Elf army book (which bear many passing resemblances to the Appendix to Lord of the Rings in language style) simply because the Estate was not watching games companies back then and GW were simply under their radar.

4. An interview with Andy Chambers, again several years old, revealed that 80% of his design time was taken up cross referencing against other IP sources. Openly in order to ensure there are no infrigement claims.

5. GW has openly trademarked the IP of other companies too small to do anything about it. Even if the other company was a games company with a very similar name for a similar effect. To clarify this point I could make up stories about the Apple car company in a game background, becasue Apple is a generic word. However I would be treading on tioes if in my IP the company made computers. The Coca-Cola car company storyline gives me no excuse because of the unique nature of the name.
Now the example I have immediately in mind is the 'nova cannon', a spinal mounted spaceship weapon from Battlefleet gothic, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the 'nova cannon' which is a spinal mounted spaceship weapon from another game system, in this case GZG's Full Thrust. the name Nova cannon is trademarked in the front cover of the BFG rulebook, which was printed a decade after Full Thrust.

Orlanth wrote:
1. GW were challenged, just not often and far too late. GW chaos is based almost entirely on Moorcocks work, including the eight pointed star symbol. They even went as far as admitting this in White Dwarf, not that a denail could do them any good. This is why they havev never attempted to trademark the eight pointed star of Chaos. according to inside GW rumour Moorcock was very angry at GW's plagiarism and hypocrasy but because he was unaware of Warhammer until relatively recently it was far too late to do anything about it.

It is a good thing Poul Anderson was such a nice guy. Imagine if he had said "wait, law vs. chaos is mine, and so are regenerating trolls, and..."

Orlanth wrote:1. GW were challenged, just not often and far too late. GW chaos is based almost entirely on Moorcocks work, including the eight pointed star symbol. They even went as far as admitting this in White Dwarf, not that a denail could do them any good. This is why they havev never attempted to trademark the eight pointed star of Chaos. according to inside GW rumour Moorcock was very angry at GW's plagiarism and hypocrasy but because he was unaware of Warhammer until relatively recently it was far too late to do anything about it.

This doesn't sound right to me at all. GW did licensed miniatures based on Moorecock's IP back in the 80's. Several miniatures of the early High Elf line were originally repackaged Melniboneans. GW unapologetically stole the Chaos Star, and Moorecock simply didn't bother to defend his IP.

I think we've forgotten just how unique space marines are. I have my fair share of hurr spaz mariens rants but the uniqueness of the space marine is pretty awesome.

You see, you take your heroic, homoerotic space Arnold, give him space-knight armor, and have him yelling in space. That is an archetype that will be copied for millenia. It is not just the most-awesome-thing-ever which is why every 12 year old buys marine models. No, it is something more. It is manliness incarnate. It represents pure manliness in the form of roid rage and brotherly love - it transgresses all bounds. A proper, unique archetype. Generations from now, your children will read of space Beowulf who defeated Angron the large, cyclopean, veiny, muscular man. It will become legend.

SMs are Sparta with power armour.

Spartans are gay..... I mean it.

That's my point.

It was an institution with them.

Then SM are not spartans, only the DA are

M.

Kilkrazy wrote:SMs are Sparta with power armour.

How dare you imply that SMs are just another famous archetype in space. They have these things called "implants" which make them "perform better." Spartans never had those.

stonefox wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:SMs are Sparta with power armour.

How dare you imply that SMs are just another famous archetype in space. They have these things called "implants" which make them "perform better." Spartans never had those.

History relates that all trainee Spartan warriors received injections of geneseed from the veteran warriors as part of their training.

Just like SMs.

Make of it what you will...

Injection through penetration of a long, hard object that secretes fluid and often resulted in tears in the skin?

No wonder they had huge muscles.

The golden throne~

have you ever realized what othe meaning our lovely SM abrevation has. That could be original of GW, or at least of the english politicians if we get some fluff about how the high lords of terra like women underwear and plastic bags.

M.

Kroot?



Ghidorah