Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 07:40:18


Post by: Flipsiders


I was reading the back-catalogue of the "chaos as a non-threat" discussion Dakka has been collectively having over the past few days, and I found a really interesting point made by Tyel within the first few pages:

Tyel wrote:
I think its clear the fanbase (or online obsessives anyway) are divided on where they want the fluff to be or go.

Which could arguably be tied up with the tonal differences of "Grimdark but its ironic and funny", "Grimdark but VERY SERIOUS and grim. Seriously grim." and "Grimdark but isn't this awesome? Who doesn't like death everywhere. All the death!!! Also Guilliman is my spirit animal."

Filling in gaps is always difficult, because you potentially fill them in with something lame. Or just blatant contradictions. Which some people might not care about, but nerds are generally alienated by.


This idea is, in my opinion, a major point of difference between a lot of 40k fans, and deserves a thread of its own. We often talk about how 40k should be or how it was better or worse in the past, but a lot of our ideas may be coming from entirely different ideas of what the tone of the setting should be. Therefore, I want to ask: What should the 40k setting try to achieve, tone-wise, and why? Should it be a super-serious sci-fi war story, or a satirical and (dare I say it) politically-oriented depiction of humanity's future? Or is the fun of 40k just watching the big armor men fight with the angry green guys?

In addition, there is a serious argument to be made that no matter what the tone of 40k "should" be, GW has been fast approaching a solution which no one wants, which could be an interesting discussion in and of itself.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 07:46:41


Post by: Cynista


I personally prefer the gothic horror and bleak dystopia face of 40k but isn't one of the best things about it that there are many sides of the coin?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 08:00:37


Post by: tauist


I think the main appeal of 40K is the ambiguity of the setting itself. Everyone has their own idea of what 40K should be, and I think everyone's vision should be valid, at least to themselves. Some like it epic to the max and absurd af, some like it "as realistic as possible" stiff upper lip nightmare dystopia with no hope, ever, some like it like the script writer of The Boys penned the storyline, with as much nihilistic humour as possible.. it's all good.

If you ask me, GW should try to remain as ambiguous about the tone of the setting as possible. That's why I liked it better in the 90's era because 40K was just a setting back then. There was ample room for any interpretation.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 08:04:36


Post by: JohnnyHell


There still is.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 08:35:32


Post by: Apple fox


I think one thing in a lot of media with a dark and realistic theme, is that the audience says they want it.
But really doesn’t want it, 40k seems to be getting the best response when it drops it’s grim dark for more power fantasy.

I find warmachine is a more Grim dark setting than 40k has been for years. And a lot of colourful sci fi settings look at themes that are way darker than the 40k setting really does.
40k is for most of its themes more a pulp horror feel to it, than the grim dark it is often herald as.
Modern 40k i often think of being shocking, but never wanting to touch on any themes that a more mature setting would.

Just how I feel about the modern setting of 40k, more comic book dark than anything really thoughtful or grim.


Edit for extra thoughts.
Also should be noted that you can do tone shifts in any setting, you could write some good horror in most mini and RPG games. If they focused on the setting narrative they could have a grim dark setting and still heroic individuals for those that like that.
It doesn’t help that 40k as a game has been bad for narrative play in most part, which tends to push players into more heroic style play with a focus on characters being centre stage all the time.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 09:38:16


Post by: Strg Alt


40K 2nd era did it right. Dystopian future in which everybody was more or less serious with the Orks acting as comic relief. Although once they squatted the Orks' humour in 3rd the tone of the setting went downhill fast because everybody was seemingly in a competition for being a stone-faced mudstick.
At least you had the Catachans emulating 80s action movie heroes for entertainment. Though I also need to give credit for the Imperial propaganda material in 3rd which explained the environment to the players. Special mention goes to the info letters every citizen of the IoM was given in case of Tyranid incursion. Those were pretty heartless.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 09:47:36


Post by: some bloke


I like the idea of the tone of the game to be defined by the lens of the narrator you choose.

The imperial propaganda machine needs to churn out fluff on how the aliens and mutants are evil and must be destroyed. The orks need to talk about how awesome life is 'cos there's fightin', in their generally carefree attitude. The tyranids need to be documented by every other race (I much preferred when the nid codex still kept everything as being from other races views, leaving things as supposition and guesswork) in the style of the other races. The t'au need to see the universe as having hope, the Eldar need to see the universe through their unique perspective, and so on.

Whilst "there is only war", what that means to the setting is different for each faction. Necrons and daemons view war as a means to an end, rather than anything particularly bad. Orks view it as fun, space marines view it as their duty, imperial guard view it as hell or as opportunity, depending on how the individual is inclined. The inquisition and super-fanatical emperor worshippers view it as a righteous crusade and a test for all their subjects. Nids view it as an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Summary - I think the tone of 40k should depend on the faction that is viewing it, and that this will better separate the feel of the armies from one another in a way that different numbers on a sheet can never do.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 10:01:47


Post by: hobojebus


There's a place for humour such as with orks misadventures, or tzeenchian guys screwing themselves over with the complexity of their own plans.

But dark and gritty should be the norm for most factions.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 10:25:28


Post by: Jidmah


 some bloke wrote:
I like the idea of the tone of the game to be defined by the lens of the narrator you choose.

The imperial propaganda machine needs to churn out fluff on how the aliens and mutants are evil and must be destroyed. The orks need to talk about how awesome life is 'cos there's fightin', in their generally carefree attitude. The tyranids need to be documented by every other race (I much preferred when the nid codex still kept everything as being from other races views, leaving things as supposition and guesswork) in the style of the other races. The t'au need to see the universe as having hope, the Eldar need to see the universe through their unique perspective, and so on.

Whilst "there is only war", what that means to the setting is different for each faction. Necrons and daemons view war as a means to an end, rather than anything particularly bad. Orks view it as fun, space marines view it as their duty, imperial guard view it as hell or as opportunity, depending on how the individual is inclined. The inquisition and super-fanatical emperor worshippers view it as a righteous crusade and a test for all their subjects. Nids view it as an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Summary - I think the tone of 40k should depend on the faction that is viewing it, and that this will better separate the feel of the armies from one another in a way that different numbers on a sheet can never do.


This really nails it. I think reading the same lore from the view of the Orks, the Imperial Guard, Space Marines and Death Guard really is what makes 40k interesting.
Orks are there to have fun, build a new insane tech thing or to compete with another ork over something of little relevance to anyone else. Unchecked, they fight, drink, race and tinker just for the sake of doing it until the become a huge flood of orks in search of something to do, evolve into almost unstoppable fighting machines and create wonders of technology that not even best tech priests of Mars can hope to imitate , with the entire galaxy eventually just ending up as collateral damage.

The guard is there because they have to, many of them don't even want to be there but have been drafted or even believe that they are doing it for some sort of greater plan. They view Space Marines as mythical beings that are somehow above them and are essentially just throwing tacticians, material and people at enemies that humans with guns and tanks would normally not be able to defeat. It's the grimdark truth that every single one of them is going to die in battle before long and that none will every be able to go back and live in peace to reap the rewards from battles that were won under heavy casualties.

From a third view the Death Guard are competing for the cruel care of their god, for attention of their insane Primarch or for personal gain and power. They take the justification for their deeds and hatred from a conflict that most of the imperial citizens they are slaughtering by the billions aren't even allowed to know about and they care little, if at all, for their brethren if they die. On the other hand, they still try to uphold the legional structures that the emperor created, share his hate for xenos and traitors and operate as if the heresy had never happened, essentially making them all huge hypocrites, with Mortarion being the biggest one of them all. Hilariously, there is a scene where Gulliman tells him exactly that

So yes, the tone of 40k can be any of the above, depending on who is telling them.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 10:37:57


Post by: BrianDavion


I tghink there's room for everything in 40k. I mean just because Ciaphas Cain is a thing doesn't mean you can't have grim and dark things like... Eisenhorn, both have their value


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 11:00:07


Post by: Goose LeChance


Gothic, Grimdark, Ironic, Unironic, Horror, Action, whatever.

Anything but Marvel or Disney please.




What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 11:36:45


Post by: Sunny Side Up


(For me) definitely should embrace the absurdity, (often) dark humour and parody elements.

It's ultimately too silly to try to be all-in on serious, and IMO fails when it tries to be go down the (often seen in FW books, Heresy, etc..) road of de-saturated colours and "we're taking this dead serious".


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 11:52:25


Post by: Sim-Life


Ciaphas Cain hits it for me. Dark, gothic, horrific but with a sardonic tone. Honestly it really too broad of a setting to really give it a rigid structure too. That said the nobledark look they've been kind of edging towards is the last thing they should be doing. When Dark Imperium happened and Guilliman came back I reconciled its stupidity with the idea that Guilliman is fighting a doomed battle and he knows it, he hates what the Imperium has become but his sense of duty will push him to accept it despite himself and they cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy will destroy him in the end. But from what I understand that isn't really the case anymore and he's gone from "the ecclesiarchy is gak" to "the ecclesiarchy is neccessery so I won't let it bother me".

Likewise, I dislike A LOT about space marines and I'd hoped some interesting conflict would arise between the chapters with some rejecting them altogether and causing some strife but again, everyone just seems okay with it.

The human followers of the T'au creating a new warp entity also seems to have been swept under the rug.

It's weird to me that GW set up a bunch of tense situations within a bunch of factions at the launch of 8th only to sweep them under the rug.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 12:07:26


Post by: Gert


 Sim-Life wrote:

The human followers of the T'au creating a new warp entity also seems to have been swept under the rug.

TBF it was a Dark Angels focussed book and T'au haven't had their 9th release yet. It also wasn't "swept under the rug" when it's specifically noted that the 4th Sphere T'au have slaughtered all of their auxiliary forces and many have had to be sent back to the Empire for therapy and re-education.

It's weird to me that GW set up a bunch of tense situations within a bunch of factions at the launch of 8th only to sweep them under the rug.

What kind of situations were set up? I'm not trying to be a prat but nothing has particularly stood out as anything more than the usual slow eating away of the Imperium by numerous enemies.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 12:10:29


Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


Tone? Nuln oil over Lead Belcher.

Oh right, fluff.

I think its a real mixture, but always warped into dystopian and darker themes.

Dan Abnetts Eishenhorn and Ravenor series painted a picture of different cultures and worlds, people is completely opposite sectrums of life and cultures but the same miasma of decay, or stagnation and hopelessness.

I love the bright candles of hope in 40k, and the knowledge its a rare island of calm which will soon by under siege by limitless horrors and machinations but they'll keep on fighting since as we know, in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 12:35:29


Post by: G00fySmiley


Personally I am in the "grimdark, but its ironic and funny" side of things.

Its genetically engineered super soldiers who either worship a golden guy on life support who might also be a god now in the warp because people collectively believe, or worship emotions made manifest in hell. Hell is a place you can physically go, also faster than ligth travel is accomplished by making a soap bubble of reality and poking a hole in reality to move through said hell.

a long time ago there were basically gods (old ones) but they refused to help other sentient being (Necrontier) so they found another form of god willing to help them at a price (Cthans) and turned themselves into robots to fight the selfish other gods.

Old ones make or at least influence space elves who then make their own actual gods through collective belief that are distinct from the other bad emotional gods in the warp. (borrowing from greek mythology basically) They also make fungus monsters who know how to keep multiplying and fighting through programmed biology, but that biology forgets the brain boyz part because its funnier that way.

The old ones get taken out and their maybe creations, maybe manipulated people (eldar) create a new god of hedonism and split into 4 factions (3 represented on table tiop, where are my exodites GW?) spiky pain elves live in between reality which is apparently a thing now, monk elves live in a few celestial system or planet space ships (depending on the author) that have limited popultions except when they need it to seem more dire or less dire (also dependant on the author). The last group of elves live in a library and preform plays around the galaxy (the actual heroes of the story)


The human cattle that serve the administratum also get organized into non genetically modified soldiers to have thier lives thrown away be it on a battle field or making weapons armor and other things to feed and arm the constant battles. There are religious power armored women in nuns due to a legal technicality of no men in arms serving the church of the golden corpse. Also (later in the game) stompy robots for everybody and they remember planes exist. Also, Also there is a cult of priest that have a machine fetish and get thier own army later but they were always there.

Then some anime battle suits and fish people show up for some reason pretending to be good guys but turns out they have ulterior movies (surprise) and want to basically become the new administratum over the galaxy in a captain planet or avatar the last air bender type elemental caste system.

Now we also have super hungry alien bugs who just want to eat everything (truly the heroes they deserve) and spear out spies to weaken forces to make sure dinner isn't spoiled too badly by losses due to indigestion.

In short that is all just so terribly awfully bad (except the harlequins, they are cool). Honerable mentions of not being "Bad" are orks due to being genetically programmed for this, and they Tyranids who just want lunch. Its grim dark to the point of humerous as if the tyranids win and eat everything not in the webway (which would mayeb wipe out everything including the sadist elves who could not longer feed off those in the real world). what replaces it can't possibly be worse as life starts again at the guidance of the harliquins.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 12:55:25


Post by: Tyran


40k has the freedom to have different tones depending on the story. But the general setting for the tabletop? Should be funny, it is a game and the purpose of a game is to have fun.

Moreover grimdark doesn't really work with a serious tone, and I would argue that most of the stories set in 40k are not really grimdark, but "only" dark (which can work with a serious tone).


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 13:13:06


Post by: xerxeskingofking


I think their is room for multiple tones within the greater banner of 40K. One thing i would like to see more of is a greater push away form "absolute" truths towards "relative" truths. I feel their has been a move in many settings towards a single, defined and immutable truth, that cannot be deviated form. and honestly, I dont like it. i feel that a little wiggle room is good, it lets other add to and improve the narrative in creative ways that enrich the work as a whole.

Events and history should be blatantly biased by the storytellers viewpoint, and ideally their should be alternate versions of the event form another viewpoint that directly contradict some parts of the 1st narrative, reinforcing that these tales are just that, TALES, that details large and small might be wrong. One side should record a battle as being a defeat, form which they withdrew in good order, to conserve their forces and continue the war, while the other records the same battle as them vanquishing a fleeing and broken enemy, who never troubled the area again, etc, etc.

It would require a bit of work, namely a central "clearing house" to ensure that books written years apart can match up to report on the same events, but it would be awesome. it would add back in that ambiguity about what actually happened, allow for wiggle room in the lore, etc. Did Abaddon really launch 13 crusades, or have the efforts of his allies and underlings been blamed on him? Do most marines strictly adhere to the Codex, or do most deviate to some greater or lesser degree? are the Tau as nice as they make out or just the Imperium with better PR? you get the picture.

Also, the inherit absurdities of the girmdark setting should be acknowledged and explored. A inquisitor might crack down hard on a chaos cult in a hive, but cause such collateral damage that thousands of hivers are driven into the arms of chaos, as anything would be an improvement on their current situation, etc.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 13:28:13


Post by: Andilus Greatsword


Gimme grimdark but ironic any day. Not necessarily saying that they have to be winking at us outright with everything, but when the universe is at its most miserable it should feel like they're leaning into pitch-black humour rather than being like "OMG this is so dark and gritty, unlike other sissy stories for babies, doesn't this miserable universe reflect how mature I am?"

I think of it similarly to how in the 70s and 80s Judge Dredd was blatantly satirical and used its dark humour to show how Mega City One was a crapsack world. But then in the 90s edgelord writers like Mark Millar and Garth Ennis took away a lot of the irony in stories like Judgement Day and Inferno and it just felt like it was glorifying the fascism at that point.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 14:00:36


Post by: Da Boss


Tone wise I think it's best when it's walking a line between satire and pulp. Kind of like the best 2000AD stories. It should be saying something about it's universe that is meaningful but also not taking itself too seriously. The odd joke to the reader (but not to the people in the setting) is perfectly fine and clues us in on the fact that these very serious people in this very grim future are not really to be taken seriously in themselves.

Edit to add: It should also have the feeling of being vast and mysterious, with lots of space for people to make up their own stuff and lots of room to interpret things within the setting.

I think the worst tone for 40K is the excited fanboy tone that some of the writing has, where heroes are made out to be completely over the top and superlative like some shounen anime protagonist. This is pretty common for a good long while now and is the main lens that a lot of people view the setting through. Having an ongoing narrative with a small collection of super powered heroes and villains they always beat but never kill leads itself naturally to this sort of storytelling which gradually infects the rest of the tone.

I still like reading the odd novel set in the 40K universe and thinking about the setting, but I feel more and more alienated from the official setting as presented by GW and the discussions online that rely on an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of mediocre to poor novels.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 14:04:23


Post by: The_Real_Chris


The 80s! But in sppaaacceee..

You know, like Rogue trader

The 80's were a terrible time for much of the world...


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 20:55:54


Post by: BrianDavion


Goose LeChance wrote:
Gothic, Grimdark, Ironic, Unironic, Horror, Action, whatever.

Anything but Marvel or Disney please.




wtf does "disney or marvel" mean?

cause the Marvel Marinus Calgar comic actually was suprisingly good


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 21:22:05


Post by: Tawnis


In a universe as vast as 40k, I'm constantly baffled by the concept that it's supposed to have a single tone.

I mean Grim/Dark is all well and good, but every inhabitant in every tiny corner of the galaxy can't possibly be miserable all the time.

It's great to be dark and serious, and I love that kind of thing, but one of my favorite series is the Caiaphas Cain books, because damn it, we need some humor from time to time. How else does anyone survive the madness of the 41st Millennium?

Also having an ostensible "Good Guy" or "Good Faction" doesn't make the universe not Grim/Dark. The closest we have now are the Tau, but with the what the Ethereal caste's deal likely is, that's probably not the case. Honestly, if someone told me to list all the characters I'd consider actual "Good Guys" at the moment, it would literally just be Commander Farsight. Sure some would be within the ballpark like Guilliman they are constrained within the systems that they live.

Sorry, I guess I got a little of topic. What I mean, is that it should be everything. 40k should be a setting, not a theme. It should have its Grim/Dark, but also have it's Adventure, Comedy, Mystery, dare I say Romance? It's all out there, and none of it invalidates the other themes/tones that are out there. It's a big Galaxy.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 22:23:26


Post by: Goose LeChance


What isn't romantic about a chainsword ripping through the chest of a Hormagaunt under the pale moonlit sky?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 22:31:49


Post by: Thargrim


I did prefer things back between the dawn of war 1 and 2 era. The game was more of a setting then, like a sandbox for the players. Now GW is trying to drive the narrative and is altering things (like blowing up biel-tan). I personally didn't like the change of necrons from their more intimidating and creepy lore into space tomb kings (loss of pariahs too). There was some good things though like the artistic revamp of dark eldar.

I personally like the really serious and grim stuff. But there is room for some tongue in cheek humor here and there. But it also depends on the army, Orks can get away with being comical but Drukhari not so much, that would ruin them.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 22:44:08


Post by: Goose LeChance


 Thargrim wrote:
I did prefer things back between the dawn of war 1 and 2 era. The game was more of a setting then, like a sandbox for the players. Now GW is trying to drive the narrative and is altering things (like blowing up biel-tan). I personally didn't like the change of necrons from their more intimidating and creepy lore into space tomb kings (loss of pariahs too). There was some good things though like the artistic revamp of dark eldar.

I personally like the really serious and grim stuff. But there is room for some tongue in cheek humor here and there. But it also depends on the army, Orks can get away with being comical but Drukhari not so much, that would ruin them.


I think GW took a lot of influence from Warmachine/Hordes, a constantly evolving story lends itself well to DLC-like sales schemes. A never ending churn of new models and rules.

Captain Victoria Haley mk5 Prime 2.0 : The Returnining


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 22:45:02


Post by: Tawnis


 Thargrim wrote:
I did prefer things back between the dawn of war 1 and 2 era. The game was more of a setting then, like a sandbox for the players. Now GW is trying to drive the narrative and is altering things (like blowing up biel-tan). I personally didn't like the change of necrons from their more intimidating and creepy lore into space tomb kings (loss of pariahs too). There was some good things though like the artistic revamp of dark eldar.


Yeah, I miss Pariah's too and the good old green plastic rods.

I wasn't a big fan of the Necron lore revamp at first, but they more I thought about it, the more I realized that originally, they were basically just machine version of the Tyranids; which was cool, but not really unique. Now they really do feel like their own thing. I guess you could say their lore has grown on me.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 23:15:45


Post by: Arachnofiend


I honestly really hate the old Necron lore. There's the fact that they basically filled the same thematic niche as Tyranids being the Inevitable End, but for me the biggest sticking point is the C'tan being the "leader" units of the faction. I like Necrons. I want the army to be run by Necrons, not this completely separate thing with a completely different aesthetic. The revamped lore does a much better job of fulfilling the Undead Legions theme.

Some of the post-5e vehicles are pretty bad, Tomb Blades and such getting in the way of a plodding skeleton army feel, though the 9e releases have all been pretty spot on with what I want the army to look like.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 23:19:17


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Goose LeChance wrote:
Gothic, Grimdark, Ironic, Unironic, Horror, Action, whatever.

Anything but Marvel or Disney please.


Same for me. I like the many versions of 40k tone, but please don't Marvel/Disney-fy it. Space Marines aren't the Avengers and the Imperium aren't the good guys and yet the marketing is chasing that.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/23 23:52:15


Post by: Tygre


My preference is like the dark days of WW2, when Europe was overrun. Times are tough, everything is directed to the war effort, and it looks like we may be overrun. But we are holding them off, at cost, for now. There is hope but it is slim, hard, costly, and distant.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 09:22:53


Post by: Grimtuff


Goose LeChance wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
I did prefer things back between the dawn of war 1 and 2 era. The game was more of a setting then, like a sandbox for the players. Now GW is trying to drive the narrative and is altering things (like blowing up biel-tan). I personally didn't like the change of necrons from their more intimidating and creepy lore into space tomb kings (loss of pariahs too). There was some good things though like the artistic revamp of dark eldar.

I personally like the really serious and grim stuff. But there is room for some tongue in cheek humor here and there. But it also depends on the army, Orks can get away with being comical but Drukhari not so much, that would ruin them.


I think GW took a lot of influence from Warmachine/Hordes, a constantly evolving story lends itself well to DLC-like sales schemes. A never ending churn of new models and rules.

Captain Victoria Haley mk5 Prime 2.0 : The Returnining


The problem with that is 40k was never an ongoing story like it is now. WMH is. This is why it works in AOS too as it was that from the outset. 40k never was so all of sudden there is this dramatic shift in narrative style to morph it into something it was never designed to be.

Sure, there were isolated stories within the setting and big events (like the EOT campaign or Armageddon 3) that moved the narrative forward but these are nowhere near the almost weekly jerking forward of the timeline by two dozen of so big damn heroes we have now.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 10:15:08


Post by: Apple fox


 Grimtuff wrote:
Goose LeChance wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
I did prefer things back between the dawn of war 1 and 2 era. The game was more of a setting then, like a sandbox for the players. Now GW is trying to drive the narrative and is altering things (like blowing up biel-tan). I personally didn't like the change of necrons from their more intimidating and creepy lore into space tomb kings (loss of pariahs too). There was some good things though like the artistic revamp of dark eldar.

I personally like the really serious and grim stuff. But there is room for some tongue in cheek humor here and there. But it also depends on the army, Orks can get away with being comical but Drukhari not so much, that would ruin them.


I think GW took a lot of influence from Warmachine/Hordes, a constantly evolving story lends itself well to DLC-like sales schemes. A never ending churn of new models and rules.

Captain Victoria Haley mk5 Prime 2.0 : The Returnining


The problem with that is 40k was never an ongoing story like it is now. WMH is. This is why it works in AOS too as it was that from the outset. 40k never was so all of sudden there is this dramatic shift in narrative style to morph it into something it was never designed to be.

Sure, there were isolated stories within the setting and big events (like the EOT campaign or Armageddon 3) that moved the narrative forward but these are nowhere near the almost weekly jerking forward of the timeline by two dozen of so big damn heroes we have now.


40k could have seen setting progress just the same as WMH did. It’s story’s follow that progress and are set within it, 40k was mostly just mishandled in that regard and no one had any sense of the setting it was set in that could manage that.
AOS kinda works since they just left a lot of that up in the air, than really put in any effort.

Things like Cadia can be very important, without changing the setting “forever” Even if they effectively change the setting forever. Worlds and sectors change hands over years of battles, chaos grows and wanes across the imperium.

Even the big world ending events can be great fun to set battles in, which GW only does if they can sell something.
They just don’t treat the setting as valuable, and it ends up being kinda meh since so much of the setting leaps over interesting points with no balance or thought.
It may be asking a lot from GW, but some effort here sets the whole setting up for good story’s that may actually be a little more than fan fodder.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 11:02:19


Post by: JohnnyHell


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Goose LeChance wrote:
Gothic, Grimdark, Ironic, Unironic, Horror, Action, whatever.

Anything but Marvel or Disney please.


Same for me. I like the many versions of 40k tone, but please don't Marvel/Disney-fy it. Space Marines aren't the Avengers and the Imperium aren't the good guys and yet the marketing is chasing that.


This correlation you’re seeing… does not exist.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 11:15:30


Post by: Blackie


 Strg Alt wrote:
40K 2nd era did it right. Dystopian future in which everybody was more or less serious with the Orks acting as comic relief. Although once they squatted the Orks' humour in 3rd the tone of the setting went downhill fast because everybody was seemingly in a competition for being a stone-faced mudstick.


I hated orks as a comic relief and still can't stand those unit/models that look silly. I prefer a very grim dark tone for 40k, with a very tragic and dramatic vibe, where orks are supposed to be ugly, dirty and scary. I don't think humor should fit the 40k environment, at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I like the many versions of 40k tone, but please don't Marvel/Disney-fy it. Space Marines aren't the Avengers and the Imperium aren't the good guys and yet the marketing is chasing that.


Yeah, I'd hate that too. But note that even the Avengers or the US governments portrayed in Marvel movies aren't the good guys, not all of them at least .


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 13:46:01


Post by: Crimson


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Gimme grimdark but ironic any day. Not necessarily saying that they have to be winking at us outright with everything, but when the universe is at its most miserable it should feel like they're leaning into pitch-black humour rather than being like "OMG this is so dark and gritty, unlike other sissy stories for babies, doesn't this miserable universe reflect how mature I am?"

I think of it similarly to how in the 70s and 80s Judge Dredd was blatantly satirical and used its dark humour to show how Mega City One was a crapsack world. But then in the 90s edgelord writers like Mark Millar and Garth Ennis took away a lot of the irony in stories like Judgement Day and Inferno and it just felt like it was glorifying the fascism at that point.

Amen to that! Vey well said.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 14:12:44


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Tawnis wrote:40k should be a setting, not a theme. It should have its Grim/Dark, but also have it's Adventure, Comedy, Mystery, dare I say Romance? It's all out there, and none of it invalidates the other themes/tones that are out there. It's a big Galaxy.
This. 40k doesn't need a single theme, let it be a setting unto itself, and people can insert whatever theme they like into it.

Goose LeChance wrote:Anything but Marvel or Disney please.
Define what that means?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 19:36:36


Post by: moreorless


I feel like part of the way GW balanced things more sucessfully back in the day was the way they used illustrations personally, so much of the atmosphere of the setting came via those classic pencil drawings from people like Ian Miller. It was easier to vary the tone in that fashion than it was in a setting with more extensive lore, you could have some epic Hieronymus Bosch like image imperial gothic excess but then also some punky Ork comedy or Eldar looking like a 70's Italian prog rock album cover.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/24 20:29:19


Post by: jeff white


 Strg Alt wrote:
40K 2nd era did it right. Dystopian future in which everybody was more or less serious with the Orks acting as comic relief. Although once they squatted the Orks' humour in 3rd the tone of the setting went downhill fast because everybody was seemingly in a competition for being a stone-faced mudstick.
At least you had the Catachans emulating 80s action movie heroes for entertainment. Though I also need to give credit for the Imperial propaganda material in 3rd which explained the environment to the players. Special mention goes to the info letters every citizen of the IoM was given in case of Tyranid incursion. Those were pretty heartless.

Agreed.
Life within and as a more or less cognizant contributing member of a genocidal propaganda machine worshipping some husk taking a 10k year dump on chaos was an angle now lost even on the Regimental Standard. Tropes and memes were exploited, successfully, in indirect commentary of then-contemporary culture. 40k was inclusive as a landscape for sci-fantasy narrative forging. Now everything is spelled wrong and is universe specific such that one might expect cow elves in space to be next.
The current iteration reflects also current sensitivities to satire, being that none is tolerated and all is literal e.g. the wokification of 40k e.g. gender and racial representation, as if the idea wasn’t to imagine a completely unjust world and along with it all the bureaucratic absurdities needed to support it in the first place. Next we know, the emperor will offer tyrannids green cards and public support due to their being underrepresented in the all too human corpus of the imperium


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Gimme grimdark but ironic any day. Not necessarily saying that they have to be winking at us outright with everything, but when the universe is at its most miserable it should feel like they're leaning into pitch-black humour rather than being like "OMG this is so dark and gritty, unlike other sissy stories for babies, doesn't this miserable universe reflect how mature I am?"

I think of it similarly to how in the 70s and 80s Judge Dredd was blatantly satirical and used its dark humour to show how Mega City One was a crapsack world. But then in the 90s edgelord writers like Mark Millar and Garth Ennis took away a lot of the irony in stories like Judgement Day and Inferno and it just felt like it was glorifying the fascism at that point.

This seems right to me, too.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 01:09:48


Post by: Apple fox


 jeff white wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
40K 2nd era did it right. Dystopian future in which everybody was more or less serious with the Orks acting as comic relief. Although once they squatted the Orks' humour in 3rd the tone of the setting went downhill fast because everybody was seemingly in a competition for being a stone-faced mudstick.
At least you had the Catachans emulating 80s action movie heroes for entertainment. Though I also need to give credit for the Imperial propaganda material in 3rd which explained the environment to the players. Special mention goes to the info letters every citizen of the IoM was given in case of Tyranid incursion. Those were pretty heartless.

Agreed.
Life within and as a more or less cognizant contributing member of a genocidal propaganda machine worshipping some husk taking a 10k year dump on chaos was an angle now lost even on the Regimental Standard. Tropes and memes were exploited, successfully, in indirect commentary of then-contemporary culture. 40k was inclusive as a landscape for sci-fantasy narrative forging. Now everything is spelled wrong and is universe specific such that one might expect cow elves in space to be next.
The current iteration reflects also current sensitivities to satire, being that none is tolerated and all is literal e.g. the wokification of 40k e.g. gender and racial representation, as if the idea wasn’t to imagine a completely unjust world and along with it all the bureaucratic absurdities needed to support it in the first place. Next we know, the emperor will offer tyrannids green cards and public support due to their being underrepresented in the all too human corpus of the imperium


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Gimme grimdark but ironic any day. Not necessarily saying that they have to be winking at us outright with everything, but when the universe is at its most miserable it should feel like they're leaning into pitch-black humour rather than being like "OMG this is so dark and gritty, unlike other sissy stories for babies, doesn't this miserable universe reflect how mature I am?"

I think of it similarly to how in the 70s and 80s Judge Dredd was blatantly satirical and used its dark humour to show how Mega City One was a crapsack world. But then in the 90s edgelord writers like Mark Millar and Garth Ennis took away a lot of the irony in stories like Judgement Day and Inferno and it just felt like it was glorifying the fascism at that point.

This seems right to me, too.


GW doesn’t really want to deal with any of those social issues, it’s pulp edgy rather than handle anything with grace or care. I would say it was a great deal of players that pushed it that way.
Over the years players never talked about the satire or anything of the sort in the setting, more hyping it up as the best setting ever.
The edgy story’s really are what a lot of the boys seem to want, and push for.
I would say the pure power fantasy that space marines get now, makes it almost impossible to go back.
The shows that are more Woke, since people throw that word up, are the ones that are doing what seem to be wanted. Dealing with these issues and pushing them though narrative, jokes and humour.
It’s the fear of there main demographic not responding to it well that means GW is hesitant to follow though with there themes.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 01:33:49


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
40K 2nd era did it right. Dystopian future in which everybody was more or less serious with the Orks acting as comic relief. Although once they squatted the Orks' humour in 3rd the tone of the setting went downhill fast because everybody was seemingly in a competition for being a stone-faced mudstick.
At least you had the Catachans emulating 80s action movie heroes for entertainment. Though I also need to give credit for the Imperial propaganda material in 3rd which explained the environment to the players. Special mention goes to the info letters every citizen of the IoM was given in case of Tyranid incursion. Those were pretty heartless.

Agreed.
Life within and as a more or less cognizant contributing member of a genocidal propaganda machine worshipping some husk taking a 10k year dump on chaos was an angle now lost even on the Regimental Standard. Tropes and memes were exploited, successfully, in indirect commentary of then-contemporary culture. 40k was inclusive as a landscape for sci-fantasy narrative forging. Now everything is spelled wrong and is universe specific such that one might expect cow elves in space to be next.
The current iteration reflects also current sensitivities to satire, being that none is tolerated and all is literal e.g. the wokification of 40k e.g. gender and racial representation, as if the idea wasn’t to imagine a completely unjust world and along with it all the bureaucratic absurdities needed to support it in the first place. Next we know, the emperor will offer tyrannids green cards and public support due to their being underrepresented in the all too human corpus of the imperium


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Gimme grimdark but ironic any day. Not necessarily saying that they have to be winking at us outright with everything, but when the universe is at its most miserable it should feel like they're leaning into pitch-black humour rather than being like "OMG this is so dark and gritty, unlike other sissy stories for babies, doesn't this miserable universe reflect how mature I am?"

I think of it similarly to how in the 70s and 80s Judge Dredd was blatantly satirical and used its dark humour to show how Mega City One was a crapsack world. But then in the 90s edgelord writers like Mark Millar and Garth Ennis took away a lot of the irony in stories like Judgement Day and Inferno and it just felt like it was glorifying the fascism at that point.

This seems right to me, too.


GW doesn’t really want to deal with any of those social issues, it’s pulp edgy rather than handle anything with grace or care. I would say it was a great deal of players that pushed it that way.
Over the years players never talked about the satire or anything of the sort in the setting, more hyping it up as the best setting ever.
The edgy story’s really are what a lot of the boys seem to want, and push for.
I would say the pure power fantasy that space marines get now, makes it almost impossible to go back.
The shows that are more Woke, since people throw that word up, are the ones that are doing what seem to be wanted. Dealing with these issues and pushing them though narrative, jokes and humour.
It’s the fear of there main demographic not responding to it well that means GW is hesitant to follow though with there themes.


Woke garbage ruined star wars


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 01:41:44


Post by: Tyran


Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.




What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 02:17:52


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 02:28:56


Post by: Arachnofiend


I mean one of the things that made the final movie so bad was an unwillingness to commit to their neo-nazi/school shooter antagonist because of how popular he turned out to be with young 'uns, instead scrambling to put together an anemic and uninspiring "redemption". Being more committed to a political message would have made for a better story.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 02:29:28


Post by: PenitentJake


I think many have hit it on the head; 40k is too big to have a single, unified tone. There are crime stories, horror stories and war stories, all coexisting within the background. I hope this will continue, and I think it will; the press around Warhammer+ seems to suggest that they are looking to show the galaxy from all angles- from points of view and narrators of every species and all points on the spectrum of reliability.

As for notions of satire, they are often in the eye of the beholder. If you believe that the world is becoming too PC for satire, chances are you aren't going to see it even when it is present. I mean, we're in the late stages of our Pandemic here in the really real world, and over in Charadon, it's Papa Nurgle who's rocking the Imperium. Many of the contagions are accelerated by the systemic incompetence of the Imperial response.

And yet satire is dead because... What? Because Sisters are getting air time and there's a black guy on the cover of a BL book? Because Guilliman?



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 02:43:16


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 02:58:16


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:09:59


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:18:37


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


Yeah of course Rey is a deep, well written character and the films show a deep and clear character development.

No really Luke wokewalker makes sense being an abject emo coward


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:24:32


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


Yeah of course Rey is a deep, well written character and the films show a deep and clear character development.

No really Luke wokewalker makes sense being an abject emo coward


Very first movie, like the one Lucas made…


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:26:12


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


You believe the satire of 40k doesn't work because you personally make toxic generalised assumptions about the fanbase.

How do you want me to address that other than you REALLY don't understand satire?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:31:32


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


You believe the satire of 40k doesn't work because you personally make toxic generalised assumptions about the fanbase.

How do you want me to address that other than you REALLY don't understand satire?


Some of the fan base are just that, not all. In fact a lot aren’t, but a very loud portion are.
And you should tell me why I don’t understand satire, or which Satire I don’t understand.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:31:38


Post by: Tyran


The sequel trilogy has notable writing issues, mostly a product of a lack of an unified creative vision (and that JJ Abrams is a hack), but that has nothing to do with "wokeness".

Funnily enough, Lucas' obsession with political exposition is an issue in the prequel trilogy, so you could actually say wokeness is an issue of the prequels. Thinking about it, in many ways Lucas is the stereotypical woke author: a man of vision, well aware of political issues he wants to address, but with no real ability to write about those issues.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:35:55


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:


Very first movie, like the one Lucas made…


I find your posts very zen

When you have no argument - state the premise without stating the premise





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:
The sequel trilogy has notable writing issues, mostly a product of a lack of an unified creative vision (and that JJ Abrams is a hack), but that has nothing to do with "wokeness".


Yeah I'm sure the mary sue syndrome comes down to "creative vision" and not directly from wokeness.........


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:40:22


Post by: Apple fox


 Tyran wrote:
The sequel trilogy has notable writing issues, mostly a product of a lack of an unified creative vision (and that JJ Abrams is a hack), but that has nothing to do with "wokeness".

Funnily enough, Lucas' obsession with political exposition is an issue in the prequel trilogy, so you could actually say wokeness is an issue of the prequels. Thinking about it, in many ways Lucas is the stereotypical woke author: a man of vision, well aware of political issues he wants to address, but with no real ability to write about those issues.


Lucas I think worked best when he had someone there who understands his ideas, but to direct him and offer up other alternatives.
If you look at interviews back then, it seems often that the Star Wars we got was a huge group effort rather than a single person making it happen. (Well all movies are a huge group effort, but in the creative from the top down I mean. English is hard lol )* edit*
I actually really like him, even if he stumbles a lot. JJ Abrams I don’t think I like his work, didn’t he do the Star trek films as well. I didn’t like those so much ether >.< felt like he didn’t like Star Trek.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:46:38


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Tyran wrote:
Funnily enough, Lucas' obsession with political exposition is an issue in the prequel trilogy, so you could actually say wokeness is an issue of the prequels. Thinking about it, in many ways Lucas is the stereotypical woke author: a man of vision, well aware of political issues he wants to address, but with no real ability to write about those issues.

Is it? The collapse of a democracy into fascism was the good part of the prequels. "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause" is one of the best lines in the whole series. It was... pretty much everything else that fell flat. Particularly the romance plot. Gotta love when a romance plot is so bad it doubles as character assassination for the female participant.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:50:14


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


You believe the satire of 40k doesn't work because you personally make toxic generalised assumptions about the fanbase.

How do you want me to address that other than you REALLY don't understand satire?


Some of the fan base are just that, not all. In fact a lot aren’t, but a very loud portion are.
And you should tell me why I don’t understand satire, or which Satire I don’t understand.


You don't understand satire because you subscribe and insist upon a belief that it only "works" if a target audience "gets it". Basically you're saying that audience is more important aspect of satire than the content of satire itself. Which is a rubbish argument which makes no sense.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 03:51:58


Post by: Tyran


 GoldenHorde wrote:

Yeah I'm sure the mary sue syndrome comes down to "creative vision" and not directly from wokeness.........

I'm pretty sure you don't even know what a Mary Sue is.

But yes, Rey's issues as a character come from conflicting creative visions, with the most obvious one being her search of her origin going from a mystery box, to coming from nothing, to suddenly Palpatine's granddaughter.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 04:12:43


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


You believe the satire of 40k doesn't work because you personally make toxic generalised assumptions about the fanbase.

How do you want me to address that other than you REALLY don't understand satire?


Some of the fan base are just that, not all. In fact a lot aren’t, but a very loud portion are.
And you should tell me why I don’t understand satire, or which Satire I don’t understand.


You don't understand satire because you subscribe and insist upon a belief that it only "works" if a target audience "gets it". Basically you're saying that audience is more important aspect of satire than the content of satire itself. Which is a rubbish argument which makes no sense.


If the target audience don’t get it, then it doesn’t matter if it was good. They will just be confused of miss it.
It’s why all these big corps don’t use it, the groups and there main audience are not really understanding of the social issues of the satire itself.
It’s also requires a heavy social commentary which often is at odds with big corporate goals.
The Audience is a huge aspect of importance when discussing why 40k tones down there setting.
It’s also why a lot of the old stuff falls a bit flat now, in some cases it’s out of date, in others it’s people not understanding there subject well enough.
40k is way more serious now, and comes of really edgy. It’s all about that Rule of Cool.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 04:13:37


Post by: PenitentJake


RE: Star Wars:

Anyone who complains about Rey's lack of depth or anyone's acting ability really needs to watch A New Hope again.

Luke's character is the most vapid construct I've ever seen, and Hamill's acting was at least as bad as Jake Lloyd's or Hayden Christensen's. This is because the fault in Star Wars movies is more Lucas' directing than anyone's acting.

Lucas should have stuck to writing and producing- he is excellent at both of these, and producing in particular.

I remember seeing the teaser trailer for Force Awakens. When we saw Skywalker's silent brooding in the trailer, I remember turning to my wife and saying, "Hamill just did more acting in fifteen seconds without speaking a single word than he did in the entire classic trilogy."

I had trouble with Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith- and none of that trouble had anything to do with political correctness- it was all in the directing. Other than that? I've liked every Star Wars movie I've ever seen. I thought the Disney Trilogy was fine- certainly liked it better than the last two in the prequel trilogy.

I think a lot of people saw the classic trilogy in their formative years, and "grew up with the movies." As such, we related to the characters; the growth we think we saw in the characters is our own growth which we projected onto them. By the time we saw any of the work that came after, we were no longer projecting.

Most of the kids in the theatre with us, who were going through their formative years at the time? Well, they'll probably remember the prequel and Disney movies the same way we remember the classic trilogy.





What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 04:26:25


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


You believe the satire of 40k doesn't work because you personally make toxic generalised assumptions about the fanbase.

How do you want me to address that other than you REALLY don't understand satire?


Some of the fan base are just that, not all. In fact a lot aren’t, but a very loud portion are.
And you should tell me why I don’t understand satire, or which Satire I don’t understand.


You don't understand satire because you subscribe and insist upon a belief that it only "works" if a target audience "gets it". Basically you're saying that audience is more important aspect of satire than the content of satire itself. Which is a rubbish argument which makes no sense.


If the target audience don’t get it, then it doesn’t matter if it was good. They will just be confused of miss it.
It’s why all these big corps don’t use it, the groups and there main audience are not really understanding of the social issues of the satire itself.
It’s also requires a heavy social commentary which often is at odds with big corporate goals.
The Audience is a huge aspect of importance when discussing why 40k tones down there setting.
It’s also why a lot of the old stuff falls a bit flat now, in some cases it’s out of date, in others it’s people not understanding there subject well enough.
40k is way more serious now, and comes of really edgy. It’s all about that Rule of Cool.


I have been playing 40k for a long long time and the presumption that satire was inserted into 40k with a "target audience" misses the point entirely.
I contend that the satire that was put into the game was never done with an intention to directly speak to an audience. Think of it as a tangential inclusion or feature.

The satire in the lore largely has remained unchanged over the years..The fact that the satire may have hit its threshold or peak does not mean it is not there.

You confuse audience with content.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 04:34:40


Post by: Goose LeChance


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I mean one of the things that made the final movie so bad was an unwillingness to commit to their neo-nazi/school shooter antagonist because of how popular he turned out to be with young 'uns, instead scrambling to put together an anemic and uninspiring "redemption". Being more committed to a political message would have made for a better story.


By young 'uns, I assume your talking mostly about teen girls, women, the "shipper" community and such. The demographic that gave Twilight billions of dollars.

Kylo Ren certainly wasn't appealing to the male demographic, neither were most of the new movies.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 04:35:53


Post by: dream archipelago


Goose LeChance wrote:
Gothic, Grimdark, Ironic, Unironic, Horror, Action, whatever.

Anything but Marvel or Disney please.




I'd edit that to add "Anything but Marvel or Disney or Hasbro/WotC please" myself.

I like the old Mad Max/2000 AD tone. Grim and serious but over the top with a healthy dollop of humor. That said I like where it is now. I'm a huge Nurgle fan nd love that a fair amount of the fluff reminds me of old Carcass lyrics.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 04:47:04


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Kinda hard for "woke garbage" to have ruined Star Wars, when the sequel trilogy is pretty much the definition of a corporation playing it safe, at least when it comes to social issues.

I mean, what is so woke about the sequel trilogy? Is it that a woman is the protagonist? is this the 1800's? Is it that there is a black guy (who btw is criminally underutilized)? Have you been living under a rock since the end of WW2? Under that definition 40k always has been woke.

Really, in what sense of the world is the sequel trilogy woke? Little reminder that the sequel trilogy was released on both Russia and China, which are socially far more conservative than anywhere in the western hemisphere, and that Disney really wants that Russian and Chinese money.





Basically the self confused woke agenda absolutely shitted on the SW universe, the characters and the lore in every way imaginable.


Lol nope, for satire and tone to work. The people targeted need to understand social issues. Star Wars was playing it safe, and too many nerds have little to no understanding of social issues as it is.
40k and GW are the same, you cannot have satire if the target audience don’t understand the issues presented.
It’s why so many players think of the imperium as the good guys, and the horror that is space marines is really just a power fantasy now.
40k wasn’t the best for it back in the day, but you can’t go back if a huge portion of that group don’t even understand it.


I think there's a strong projection on your part here in terms of social awareness when you generalise upon "nerds".
Perhaps your comments regarding a lock of social awareness apply mostly to yourself?


Starwars is impressively Woke from the very first movie, the prequel trilogy is full off it.
And nerds, well I am rather Nerdy but nope. I understand a lot of social issues, it’s why I made that response. For the Grim dark setting and satire that was 40k to work, the target audience. Which I am not actually not in. Needs to understand it.

Your none reply doesn’t really address anything I said.


You believe the satire of 40k doesn't work because you personally make toxic generalised assumptions about the fanbase.

How do you want me to address that other than you REALLY don't understand satire?


Some of the fan base are just that, not all. In fact a lot aren’t, but a very loud portion are.
And you should tell me why I don’t understand satire, or which Satire I don’t understand.


You don't understand satire because you subscribe and insist upon a belief that it only "works" if a target audience "gets it". Basically you're saying that audience is more important aspect of satire than the content of satire itself. Which is a rubbish argument which makes no sense.


If the target audience don’t get it, then it doesn’t matter if it was good. They will just be confused of miss it.
It’s why all these big corps don’t use it, the groups and there main audience are not really understanding of the social issues of the satire itself.
It’s also requires a heavy social commentary which often is at odds with big corporate goals.
The Audience is a huge aspect of importance when discussing why 40k tones down there setting.
It’s also why a lot of the old stuff falls a bit flat now, in some cases it’s out of date, in others it’s people not understanding there subject well enough.
40k is way more serious now, and comes of really edgy. It’s all about that Rule of Cool.


I have been playing 40k for a long long time and the presumption that satire was inserted into 40k with a "target audience" misses the point entirely.
I contend that the satire that was put into the game was never done with an intention to directly speak to an audience. Think of it as a tangential inclusion or feature.

The satire in the lore largely has remained unchanged over the years..The fact that the satire may have hit its threshold or peak does not mean it is not there.

You confuse audience with content.


And how does that relate to 40k now, the satire in 40k hasn’t changed. But it’s ideas and concepts have changed around it. Making a lot of it irrelevant or not even make sense under current ideas of the setting.
The same with parody, a lot of it doesn’t make any sense so the setting had to change to stay fun and interesting to a new audience. GW survives on that new audience, or fantasy would still be rocking now.

I confuse nothing, you make content aimed at an audience. Even if that audience is just people like you that like what you like.
When GW got big, a lot of that had to go. The setting has to reference itself more, and be insular as not everyone has the same reference of point.
Or GW can lean into it and get better writing and push more satire, but based on your very posts. You wouldn’t like that at all.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 04:52:13


Post by: GoldenHorde


I wish these woke people would just go and feth right off to be quite honest and do something productive instead of demanding changes to other peoples ficitonal universes and thereby ruining creative license.

The reason that they demand these moronic changes is because they actually lack the ability to write subversive literary works themselves, which also explains why their woke agenda fall flat every single time.

A woke 40k makes as much sense as a woke conan the barbarian.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 05:12:33


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
I wish these woke people would just go and feth right off to be quite honest and do something productive instead of demanding changes to other peoples ficitonal universes and thereby ruining creative license.

The reason that they demand these moronic changes is because they actually lack the ability to write subversive literary works themselves, which also explains why their woke agenda fall flat every single time.

A woke 40k makes as much sense as a woke conan the barbarian.


The reason 40k is like this, is entirely to appeal to people like you. As political and social commentary is very important for satire. Not entirely, but important.

Also, that comment makes it seem like you haven’t read Conan the barbarian. In it’s time and even now it’s actually quite Woke. It’s mostly the art that brings it down, if you take into account a lot of it’s context.

40k would probably be better if it leaned into its social commentary, as that was traditionally where I think it was most interesting in it’s passed.
And where a lot of its competitors draw there strength of setting now, even if they are similar to keep that tone quiet.

(Also this is like 3 points on a bingo card from this post)


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 05:46:11


Post by: Tyran


Wokeness has nothing to with tone, but with themes and messaging.

You can address social and political issues with a dark and gritty tone, or with rainbows and cute animals, or with anything in between.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 05:51:21


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
I wish these woke people would just go and feth right off to be quite honest and do something productive instead of demanding changes to other peoples ficitonal universes and thereby ruining creative license.

The reason that they demand these moronic changes is because they actually lack the ability to write subversive literary works themselves, which also explains why their woke agenda fall flat every single time.

A woke 40k makes as much sense as a woke conan the barbarian.


The reason 40k is like this, is entirely to appeal to people like you. As political and social commentary is very important for satire. Not entirely, but important.

Also, that comment makes it seem like you haven’t read Conan the barbarian. In it’s time and even now it’s actually quite Woke. It’s mostly the art that brings it down, if you take into account a lot of it’s context.

40k would probably be better if it leaned into its social commentary, as that was traditionally where I think it was most interesting in it’s passed.
And where a lot of its competitors draw there strength of setting now, even if they are similar to keep that tone quiet.

(Also this is like 3 points on a bingo card from this post)


Here's the bingo.

#1 - The realm and scope of 40'ks social commentary has been established based on the games origin of cold war 80's. You appear to suggest, but do not explicitly say you want an updated social commentary? Not quite sure.

#2 - We obviously have different definitions of the term 'woke'. The woke I refer to and will now offer to define is the trend of insisting fiction be altered from outside influences to suit political and social preferences regardless of the effects. Conan the barbarian by that definition is impossible to be 'woke'

#3. But the setting already has an established commentary which has not been retconned. The commentary's tone is not borne from today's world. You need to flesh out what you are suggesting in a little more detail for me to understand what you mean


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 05:53:01


Post by: CEO Kasen


No conversation that tries to use 'wokeness' as a pejorative is going to go anywhere productive.

The Star Wars movies sucked because they were bad movies; the last especially was condensed movie loaf made from the corpse-starch of the original trilogy. It would have been just as bad if the entire cast had been white dudes as it would have been if they were all transgender ponies, or sandwiches.

Actually, I take that back, sandwiches would have at least been novel.

Now, how the hell did we get here from 40K?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 05:57:19


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Tyran wrote:
Wokeness has nothing to with tone, but with themes and messaging.

You can address social and political issues with a dark and gritty tone, or with rainbows and cute animals, or with anything in between.



You can but you need to remember its a wargame not 1984. It doesn't need to socially or politically comment as a primary objective, because that's not the point.

The themes and messaging do affect tone thats why people don't like it when you ram wokeness down their throat.

40k's universe already has long running themes and doesn't have a message. If you want messaging go watch captain planet. There's no need to meddle.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 05:57:29


Post by: Flipsiders


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Spoiler:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
I wish these woke people would just go and feth right off to be quite honest and do something productive instead of demanding changes to other peoples ficitonal universes and thereby ruining creative license.

The reason that they demand these moronic changes is because they actually lack the ability to write subversive literary works themselves, which also explains why their woke agenda fall flat every single time.

A woke 40k makes as much sense as a woke conan the barbarian.


The reason 40k is like this, is entirely to appeal to people like you. As political and social commentary is very important for satire. Not entirely, but important.

Also, that comment makes it seem like you haven’t read Conan the barbarian. In it’s time and even now it’s actually quite Woke. It’s mostly the art that brings it down, if you take into account a lot of it’s context.

40k would probably be better if it leaned into its social commentary, as that was traditionally where I think it was most interesting in it’s passed.
And where a lot of its competitors draw there strength of setting now, even if they are similar to keep that tone quiet.

(Also this is like 3 points on a bingo card from this post)


Here's the bingo.

#1 - The realm and scope of 40'ks social commentary has been established based on the games origin of cold war 80's. You appear to suggest, but do not explicitly say you want an updated social commentary? Not quite sure.

#2 - We obviously have different definitions of the term 'woke'. The woke I refer to and will now offer to define is the trend of insisting fiction be altered from outside influences to suit political and social preferences regardless of the effects. Conan the barbarian by that definition is impossible to be 'woke'

#3. But the setting already has an established commentary which has not been retconned. The commentary's tone is not borne from today's world. You need to flesh out what you are suggesting in a little more detail for me to understand what you mean



There's been a lot of conversation on the political messages of Star Wars and Warhammer 40k. Do you mind telling me what, in your opinion, they are? In a single sentence, if you will.

For example; "The political message of To Kill a Mockingbird is that you shouldn't morally judge people based off the color of their skin."

I ask because I'm frankly uncertain the new Star Wars movies (with the possible exception of Episode VIII) have any message to them at all. People just assume they have a message because there are a lot of prominent characters who aren't white and/or men.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 06:00:00


Post by: CEO Kasen


Okay, So on topic; Some Bloke said the various lenses allow for a range of tones, and that's part of the brilliance of the setting, so in terms of the overall argument, he's spot on. But the lens I like to see personally?

40K to me can be summed up in a single model.

Spoiler:


Look at this thing. This thing is utterly ridiculous. It has a gun for a mouth, and it has guns for hands, which are also mouths. It is decorated with enough arrows to fill two Ikeas and has the derpiest possible expression that anything with teeth that big could have.

It is physically impossible for me to take a universe in which this thing exists with total straight-faced seriousness. And yet it is still awesome.

It is the kind of over-the-top that combined with pitch-black humor marks 40K to me acting at its finest.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 06:08:53


Post by: Flipsiders


 CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay, So on topic; Some Bloke said the various lenses allow for a range of tones, and that's part of the brilliance of the setting, so in terms of the overall argument, he's spot on. But the lens I like to see personally?

40K to me can be summed up in a single model.

Spoiler:


Look at this thing. This thing is utterly ridiculous. It has a gun for a mouth, and it has guns for hands, which are also mouths. It is decorated with enough arrows to fill two Ikeas and has the derpiest possible expression that anything with teeth that big could have.

It is physically impossible for me to take a universe in which this thing exists with total straight-faced seriousness. And yet it is still awesome.

It is the kind of over-the-top that combined with pitch-black humor marks 40K to me acting at its finest.


If we're going back to the main topic, I've always been a bigger fan of the plasma rifle as a symbol of 40k. On the one hand, it's a big cool gun that shoots energy blasts which fry people. On the other, it has a chance to malfunction and kill whatever sap happens to be using it, but despite this glaring design flaw, and the fact that other factions have plasma which actually works, the Imperium has decided that the current model is fine out of a combination of an absurdist adherence to tradition and a complete disregard for human life.

Plasma is fun because it's big and dumb, but it's also a darkly comedic look into the hyper-traditionalist mindset of the Imperium. When Chaos uses them, it's the same thing, only the joke is instead that all CSMs are mentally unstable and don't care about accidentally killing themselves if it means getting revenge for a 10,000 year old chip on their shoulder. It's great.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 06:17:27


Post by: GoldenHorde


Personally i miss the back banner spam of early 40k.

Bring it BACK!


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 06:28:02


Post by: Racerguy180


The whole game is about killing each other.....and have fun doing it.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 06:47:39


Post by: Apple fox


 CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay, So on topic; Some Bloke said the various lenses allow for a range of tones, and that's part of the brilliance of the setting, so in terms of the overall argument, he's spot on. But the lens I like to see personally?

40K to me can be summed up in a single model.

Spoiler:


Look at this thing. This thing is utterly ridiculous. It has a gun for a mouth, and it has guns for hands, which are also mouths. It is decorated with enough arrows to fill two Ikeas and has the derpiest possible expression that anything with teeth that big could have.

It is physically impossible for me to take a universe in which this thing exists with total straight-faced seriousness. And yet it is still awesome.

It is the kind of over-the-top that combined with pitch-black humor marks 40K to me acting at its finest.


I don’t think this is particularly unique to 40k.

I don’t even think it’s that ridiculous considering some of history and what we have seen, and now with advances we may see some really crazy stuff.
But I really like the plasma weapon idea of the setting, within the imperium it’s a good weapon. For us looking in, it’s probably bordering on insane.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 06:52:34


Post by: Flipsiders


Apple fox wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay, So on topic; Some Bloke said the various lenses allow for a range of tones, and that's part of the brilliance of the setting, so in terms of the overall argument, he's spot on. But the lens I like to see personally?

40K to me can be summed up in a single model.

Spoiler:


Look at this thing. This thing is utterly ridiculous. It has a gun for a mouth, and it has guns for hands, which are also mouths. It is decorated with enough arrows to fill two Ikeas and has the derpiest possible expression that anything with teeth that big could have.

It is physically impossible for me to take a universe in which this thing exists with total straight-faced seriousness. And yet it is still awesome.

It is the kind of over-the-top that combined with pitch-black humor marks 40K to me acting at its finest.


I don’t think this is particularly unique to 40k.

I don’t even think it’s that ridiculous considering some of history and what we have seen, and now with advances we may see some really crazy stuff.
But I really like the plasma weapon idea of the setting, within the imperium it’s a good weapon. For us looking in, it’s probably bordering on insane.



If you meant to respond to my comment, I agree that plasma isn't too ridiculous given some of the things humans have done historically; that's what gives it some of its satirical edge. There have been plenty of political ideologies throughout earth's history which have seen humans as expendable, and having your protagonists hand their foot soldiers obscene suicide lasers is a great way to parody those ideas.

If you were responding to Kasen, I would legitimately love to see the historical precedent for the giant laser demon with gun mouth. It sounds hilarious.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 06:56:16


Post by: Arachnofiend


Who could forget the giant laser demon with gun mouth famously deployed by French demonologists in WWI in an effort to break the never-ending stalemate of trench warfare, only for it to immediately die to machine gun fire. 5++ just isn't what it used to be.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 07:00:24


Post by: Apple fox


 Flipsiders wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay, So on topic; Some Bloke said the various lenses allow for a range of tones, and that's part of the brilliance of the setting, so in terms of the overall argument, he's spot on. But the lens I like to see personally?

40K to me can be summed up in a single model.

Spoiler:


Look at this thing. This thing is utterly ridiculous. It has a gun for a mouth, and it has guns for hands, which are also mouths. It is decorated with enough arrows to fill two Ikeas and has the derpiest possible expression that anything with teeth that big could have.

It is physically impossible for me to take a universe in which this thing exists with total straight-faced seriousness. And yet it is still awesome.

It is the kind of over-the-top that combined with pitch-black humor marks 40K to me acting at its finest.


I don’t think this is particularly unique to 40k.

I don’t even think it’s that ridiculous considering some of history and what we have seen, and now with advances we may see some really crazy stuff.
But I really like the plasma weapon idea of the setting, within the imperium it’s a good weapon. For us looking in, it’s probably bordering on insane.



If you meant to respond to my comment, I agree that plasma isn't too ridiculous given some of the things humans have done historically; that's what gives it some of its satirical edge. There have been plenty of political ideologies throughout earth's history which have seen humans as expendable, and having your protagonists hand their foot soldiers obscene suicide lasers is a great way to parody those ideas.

If you were responding to Kasen, I would legitimately love to see the historical precedent for the giant laser demon with gun mouth. It sounds hilarious.


It was actually supposed to be response to both, I just failed at quoting and half my post was eaten.
If I get the chance I will post some pictures!
It’s hard to collect and post on my iPad :(
Some people got ideas :9

But it’s also with technology advances, with the way computers and Ai move. Just ad demon and yup, that’s a monster!


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 07:44:34


Post by: Formosa


what it should be, I am not sure, sometimes I like that down to earth (relatively its still 40k) gritty feel from novels such as Eisenhorn which do have a kind of "social message" in that even the best intentions and goals can lead to damnation if you become so extreme that you end up becoming the very evil you tried to fight, or the Heresy series where even the "best" of us can be damned as the perceptions of others forces you down the wrong path.

Then you have the warhammer Horror series, an excellent series in my opinion, they are as serious in tone as you can get in this setting.


but I do not always want that, sometimes I want noblebright, a hero actually winning, the odds being beaten and when I do want that kind of thing 40k is not it, I go to Star Trek, Star Wars (up to Ep 7), Terry Pratchett, but not 40k as it is not what it was, it is a serious in tone setting with a small amount of silliness and satire, it used to be big satire with a small amount of serious, those days are gone.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 09:50:40


Post by: Galas


I have to say I have always find funny how many people complain about political messages in videogames and media like thats something new.

Not many works lack some kind of political under-message. At least, most of the ones that are worth a dam.

The only difference is that now, some products have political messages they disagree with.

Spoiler:




What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 10:18:34


Post by: BrookM


Off-topic posts and posts quoting / referring to said posts have been removed, kindly stay on topic and polite to one another.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 11:16:16


Post by: Tyel


I tend to see "wokeness" as militant political correctness. Inevitably this does lean on GW's writing team - but I see very little evidence of it.

Its not woke to go "wait, women are a potential market for our product? They are as open to the whole *power fantasy/being a nerd* we've been flogging to men and boys for decades? Clearly we should include some female characters/minis that they can associate with in the same way as the boys." That's just... market research? Capitalism?

The problem with the Star Wars sequels wasn't that it was "woke", its that they went nowhere with the characters. Kylo was the only interesting one - possibly because Driver was the best actor of the bunch, but also because they *tried* to give him something approaching an arc - i.e. identifiable character growth and change. You might not have liked it - but essentially every other character got nothing. If Finn and Poe had both been killed at the end of the first film, its unclear it would have made any meaningful difference to the next two films. This is bad writing.

On tone - the point I was trying to make is the one people made about Judge Dredd. The point is that you, as the intelligent reader, are meant to realise the Imperium is quite a bad place. And I think when we talk about Grimdark we do really mean "how is the Imperium conceived." I don't think for example that Orks can be "Grimdark". They can be written to be more funny or more brutal and menacing - but they don't really send anything up. There isn't really a subtext. "A society of football hooligans who just like to fight would be bad" isn't really a message that resonates.

To go with another example, taking a clip from Starship Troopers (the film not the book, which is quite different).

"Mobile infantry made me the man I am today".
Its ironic. Cynical. We are reminded that the consequences of war are often quite bad for those involved. Its having your legs blown off rather than triumphantly raising your banners over the enemy. It cuts through the romance of war which we are pushing (tongue in cheek) in other scenes.

The other way of shooting that scene would be a very stonefaced - "life is suffering and then you die. Everyone dies here. Isn't this so bleak." But this tends to veer into edgelord stupidity. For instance Grey Knights murdering Sisters of Battle to bathe in their blood isn't "grimdark". I mean its "grim" and its "dark" - but its not in any way "clever". The intelligence I referred to above is gone. There is no subtext, you are not sending something up, you are just being miserable for the sake of it. You quickly start veering into "isn't it cool I can write all these horrible things". But it forgets that the horrible things are not the point in themselves. The world doesn't become more "Grimdark" if the Emperor needs to eat five, ten, or a million psykers a day. Its just adding to the supposed misery of this fictional universe.

The third way - which is probably 8th and 9th edition - is that the guy then stands up (on Cawl made metal legs) and say's "...you're going to be a Space Marine, Space Marines are awesome, lets go smash the bugs, yay, yay". Again very different tone to the scene - there's nothing grimdark about this really - you are just cosplaying it because the world got set up decades ago.

The problem with satire though is that its hard to get right.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 12:31:53


Post by: Apple fox


That was a good post Tyel.

A thought occur as well, that 40k was sorta starting to get a lot of its tone before the big advertising change.
In the 90s the way marketing was ramped up and very targeted at boys as the new consumer.

It’s still seen as effecting things today, Lego has a fair bit on how they didn’t just spend a lot of money to get boys to buy there toy.
But spent a lot telling girls it wasn’t a toy for them by mistake.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 12:44:33


Post by: GoldenHorde


Tyel wrote:
I tend to see "wokeness" as militant political correctness. Inevitably this does lean on GW's writing team - but I see very little evidence of it.

Its not woke to go "wait, women are a potential market for our product? They are as open to the whole *power fantasy/being a nerd* we've been flogging to men and boys for decades? Clearly we should include some female characters/minis that they can associate with in the same way as the boys." That's just... market research? Capitalism?.



They did that representation in the 90's with SOB. The association = sales formula doesn't work. It needs appeal. Those are two different things


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:02:09


Post by: Iracundus


Actually one issue I see now is GW doing "tokenism" rather than actual true diversity. What do I mean by this? For example, it seems to have almost become formulaic in some of the latest Black Library novel covers. Portray 1 (and only one) woman significant character, 1 (and only one) non-white significant character, with one novel cover combining both seeming quotas into a single non-white female character. However this kind of quota representation is really skin deep and superficial, though it is better than nothing.

As an example, the Gate of Bones novel in the Dawn of Fire series has on the front cover an Asian Custodes (which also has the requisite 1 female significant character), and there is mention once (and only once) of his Asian features. However aside from that, there is nothing at all to make him really different as a character from other Custodes culturally. He's more interested in the common person, sure, but if not for that one mention of his features, I would never have guessed he was Asian background or any different at all from other Custodes (yes, I know there is also the problem when the "default" is assumed to be Caucasian). Yes I know in the far future of 40K, the modern definitions of ethnicities and cultures can be completely obsolete and one could argue the Custodes spend their whole formative periods on Terra so would end up being similar. Why then make a special point of pointing out his Asian features in the first place? I guess it's better than White Scars, which are really a caricature of the Mongols, but that's a low bar to clear.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:03:29


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I tend to see "wokeness" as militant political correctness. Inevitably this does lean on GW's writing team - but I see very little evidence of it.

Its not woke to go "wait, women are a potential market for our product? They are as open to the whole *power fantasy/being a nerd* we've been flogging to men and boys for decades? Clearly we should include some female characters/minis that they can associate with in the same way as the boys." That's just... market research? Capitalism?.



They did that representation in the 90's with SOB. The association = sales formula doesn't work. It needs appeal. Those are two different things


SoB was never made to appeal to women or girls. They where highly fetishised at that point and this post would ignore entirely there quite successful reboot as well. It was hardly Representation then.
And I would even say, they are more popular with the men now.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:21:21


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I tend to see "wokeness" as militant political correctness. Inevitably this does lean on GW's writing team - but I see very little evidence of it.

Its not woke to go "wait, women are a potential market for our product? They are as open to the whole *power fantasy/being a nerd* we've been flogging to men and boys for decades? Clearly we should include some female characters/minis that they can associate with in the same way as the boys." That's just... market research? Capitalism?.



They did that representation in the 90's with SOB. The association = sales formula doesn't work. It needs appeal. Those are two different things


SoB was never made to appeal to women or girls. They where highly fetishised at that point and this post would ignore entirely there quite successful reboot as well. It was hardly Representation then.
And I would even say, they are more popular with the men now.




Right...so your theory is they were overly sexualised......right....


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:23:31


Post by: Apple fox


Iracundus wrote:
Actually one issue I see now is GW doing "tokenism" rather than actual true diversity. What do I mean by this? For example, it seems to have almost become formulaic in some of the latest Black Library novel covers. Portray 1 (and only one) woman significant character, 1 (and only one) non-white significant character, with one novel cover combining both seeming quotas into a single non-white female character. However this kind of quota representation is really skin deep and superficial, though it is better than nothing.

As an example, the Gate of Bones novel in the Dawn of Fire series has on the front cover an Asian Custodes (which also has the requisite 1 female significant character), and there is mention once (and only once) of his Asian features. However aside from that, there is nothing at all to make him really different as a character from other Custodes culturally. He's more interested in the common person, sure, but if not for that one mention of his features, I would never have guessed he was Asian background or any different at all from other Custodes (yes, I know there is also the problem when the "default" is assumed to be Caucasian). Yes I know in the far future of 40K, the modern definitions of ethnicities and cultures can be completely obsolete and one could argue the Custodes spend their whole formative periods on Terra so would end up being similar. Why then make a special point of pointing out his Asian features in the first place? I guess it's better than White Scars, which are really a caricature of the Mongols, but that's a low bar to clear.


This is probably a issue with gaming, not just GW. Even if employees consider it importent to do right, executives at the company will be look at the Value.
But it goes both ways, they may only get one space to put the charecter. Since other charecters must be there as well, as to try not to alienate another customer group.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:31:34


Post by: Formosa


Spoiler:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I tend to see "wokeness" as militant political correctness. Inevitably this does lean on GW's writing team - but I see very little evidence of it.

Its not woke to go "wait, women are a potential market for our product? They are as open to the whole *power fantasy/being a nerd* we've been flogging to men and boys for decades? Clearly we should include some female characters/minis that they can associate with in the same way as the boys." That's just... market research? Capitalism?.



They did that representation in the 90's with SOB. The association = sales formula doesn't work. It needs appeal. Those are two different things


SoB was never made to appeal to women or girls. They where highly fetishised at that point and this post would ignore entirely there quite successful reboot as well. It was hardly Representation then.
And I would even say, they are more popular with the men now.




Right...so your theory is they were overly sexualised......right....


Um... ok, the only way someone could say the sisters are fetishised is if they find the female form a fetishisation in and of itself, it makes total sense why the armour would accentuate the female form due to the decree of "no men under arms" but that is in no way a fetishisation.

agreeing with Horde on this, its a stretch.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:36:24


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:
I guess it's better than White Scars, which are really a caricature of the Mongols, but that's a low bar to clear.


You forgot rough riders of Attila too,

and while you think it is a caricature to me its a homage and nod just like many others in 40k.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:38:35


Post by: Apple fox


 Formosa wrote:
Spoiler:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I tend to see "wokeness" as militant political correctness. Inevitably this does lean on GW's writing team - but I see very little evidence of it.

Its not woke to go "wait, women are a potential market for our product? They are as open to the whole *power fantasy/being a nerd* we've been flogging to men and boys for decades? Clearly we should include some female characters/minis that they can associate with in the same way as the boys." That's just... market research? Capitalism?.



They did that representation in the 90's with SOB. The association = sales formula doesn't work. It needs appeal. Those are two different things


SoB was never made to appeal to women or girls. They where highly fetishised at that point and this post would ignore entirely there quite successful reboot as well. It was hardly Representation then.
And I would even say, they are more popular with the men now.




Right...so your theory is they were overly sexualised......right....


Um... ok, the only way someone could say the sisters are fetishised is if they find the female form a fetishisation in and of itself, it makes total sense why the armour would accentuate the female form due to the decree of "no men under arms" but that is in no way a fetishisation.

agreeing with Horde on this, its a stretch.


The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.
It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.
And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.
They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.
New sisters are cleaning that up even more.

Also, the lore excuse gets rather tiring when it’s basically the same all the time. Even if GW back then where probably quite clever in there use of it


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:44:23


Post by: Iracundus


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
I guess it's better than White Scars, which are really a caricature of the Mongols, but that's a low bar to clear.


You forgot rough riders of Attila too,

and while you think it is a caricature to me its a homage and nod just like many others in 40k.


The Huns are an extinct cultural group. The Mongols still exist. Also White Scars artwork, just as past portrayals of Tallarns, are basically Caucasians playing other ethnicities like how you see in movies from the 1950's. For example:

https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Jaghatai_Khan?file=JaghataiKhanPencil.jpg

That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol. If the White Scars were more consistently portrayed in art as say...actually Mongolian in appearance then that's not so much of an issue.

Similarly I disliked the change of Salamanders from dark skinned African phenotype to literally coal black skin, but still Caucasian face features, which if anything can seem like blackface.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:49:47


Post by: Formosa


The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.


Sorry but no, I lived through the times when sisters were released and there was no mainstream "nun fetish" just as there is none now, black leather and other such things sure but not nuns, also do not forget that Marines and Guard also had similar depictions but are not considered fetishised, this appears to me to be a projection of the persons own desires onto the artistic style rather than the intent of the creators but I could be wrong I grant you.


It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.


Have you ever visited Tumblr or deviant art, woman create some pretty spicy things much ... spicier that battle sisters so you do cannot say on the one hand its fetishised for just men when woman do the exact same things of their own free will, so who are we to say it was not designed for them.

And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.


This one is a clear fetishisation I grant you but a body horror one similar to Geigar
Spoiler:
BDSM/horror


They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.


they already are represented in the setting perfectly in my entirely subjective opinion, no one should be treated better in 40k, if anything everyone should be dropped down a notch (again subjective)

New sisters are cleaning that up even more.


the new warsuits are garbo but the new sword and board ones are amazingly epic and that is the direction I would like to see sisters go down, also needs more weird added back into the force.

Also, the lore excuse gets rather tiring when it’s basically the same all the time. Even if GW back then where probably quite clever in there use of it


Sorry you think that, the lore explanation is not an excuse, its a valid in universe internally consistent reason, not an outside morally subjective one that has little relevance when discussing the lore, as for GW being clever with their use of it, they made the universe so of course it fits with their concept of it and seems like an odd criticism to be honest especially when discussing the tone of the universe.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 13:53:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Apple fox wrote:
And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.
Repentia have repeatedly been shown as horrific, not fetishised.

Apple fox wrote:
They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.
Are you kidding? Apart from a couple of very specific organisations, the Imperium doesn't care if you're a man or a woman. Gender and (especially) race matter not one iota in the Imperium.

They only care that you are:

1. Not an alien.
2. Not a mutant.
3. Not a heretic.

Pass all three of those criteria, and you're golden.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 14:01:31


Post by: Apple fox


 Formosa wrote:
The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.


Sorry but no, I lived through the times when sisters were released and there was no mainstream "nun fetish" just as there is none now, black leather and other such things sure but not nuns, also do not forget that Marines and Guard also had similar depictions but are not considered fetishised, this appears to me to be a projection of the persons own desires onto the artistic style rather than the intent of the creators but I could be wrong I grant you.


It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.


Have you ever visited Tumblr or deviant art, woman create some pretty spicy things much ... spicier that battle sisters so you do cannot say on the one hand its fetishised for just men when woman do the exact same things of their own free will.

And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.


This one is a clear fetishisation I grant you
Spoiler:
BDSM


They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.


they already are represented in the setting perfectly in my entirely subjective opinion, no one should be treated better in 40k, if anything everyone should be dropped down a notch (again subjective)

New sisters are cleaning that up even more.


the new warsuits are garbo but the new sword and board ones are amazingly epic and that is the direction I would like to see sisters go down, also needs more weird added back into the force.


It was quite the trope here and in some gaming, it doesn’t mean that all are nuns ether just following certain designs. And just since women do, does not mean the design was for.
The sisters as a whole fit a lot of tropes, it’s why I responded.
I quite like sisters, but there has not been models for women other than a few examples elsewhere in the setting.
40k is probably the worst offender now, and this is a issue with tone as you say. There are painfully few in the setting where they should be. And in places where they are treated badly, Oh boy did GW get creative at times.
But modern GW does seem to agree with me, if the setting wants to treat everyone badly. They need to treat the female characters well first.
Or it just ends up edgy.

Also, I do like that repentia art. And like the new models for representation off it. But ohh boy
When we get some more models that represent us on the table, I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
This comes with more characters that are named where they should be, armor suits. Mechs, tank comanders. That adds a lot, even if they end up eaten by tyranids on the table.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 14:29:12


Post by: Galas


Most GW use of other cultures back in the day was , by today standards, insensitive. They were middle class british nerds in the late 70-80, thats why the humans were always the europeans (empire, bretonnia, estalia, tilea, the imperium, etc...) and the non-european cultures were used for other races.

Thats was a reality but one that has been left behind. GW has been much better than many others in making substantial changes both for different ethnicities and female representation in their media, art, and miniatures in a way that doesnt feel intrusive, like the female stormcasts, the new sisters of battle, etc... kudos for them.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 14:37:07


Post by: Iracundus


 Galas wrote:
Most GW use of other cultures back in the day was , by today standards, insensitive. They were middle class british nerds in the late 70-80, thats why the humans were always the europeans (empire, bretonnia, estalia, tilea, the imperium, etc...) and the non-european cultures were used for other races.

Thats was a reality but one that has been left behind. GW has been much better than many others in making substantial changes both for different ethnicities and female representation in their media, art, and miniatures in a way that doesnt feel intrusive, like the female stormcasts, the new sisters of battle, etc... kudos for them.


Well one could argue that the Imperium is a (among other things it borrows from) a caricature of the European Dark Ages mixed with Roman and Victorian influences in a science fantasy setting. The other alien races then are the non-European cultures.

For example, the Eldar thematically draw from multiple sources. Of these, Japan is one of them. Direct evidence of aesthetc borrowings include: the symbol of Iyanden includes a shrine gate design directly analogous to Japanese Shinto torii shrines. The back banners Jes Goodwin was fond of including in Eldar design (and which was present in many 2nd ed. models) matched the back banners worn by Japanese samurai and soldiers during the Japanese Warring States period and are even named as sashimono banners in Jes Goodwin's sketches and notes.

However, the Eldar also have influences from Greek,Celtic, even Egyptian sources. The Corinthian design of Eldar helms, particularly Dire Avenger ones, for example is clear Greek influence. Eldar Craftworld names of Biel-tan and Saim-han are direct copies of the real world Celtic festivals/holidays. The false chin beards on certain Eldar helms such as the Dire Avenger Exarch borrows from the Egyptians (see Egyptian funeral masks), and the Ulthwe design is based off the historical Egyptian Eye of Horus. The chiseled Eldar runes are based off Egyptian hieroglyphs while the more fluid Eldar runes look like those that might be written with a brush, and are either a reference to Egyptian Demotic or Asian brush writing. The Yin/Yang symbols on Eldar transfer sheets or Eldar Titans and Wraithknights is a take on the Chinese concept of Yin and Yang. The seals on the Wraith constructs is referred to by Jes Goodwin in his sketches as tugra, which is a Turk/Ottoman thing. Overlying all of this is the theme of Tolkien elves.

Thematically each of these cultures served as epitome of alien, inscrutable menace to one of the component influences on the Imperium. The Imperium is part Roman, part-medieval and part-Victorian. Romans were simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by the Greeks and Egyptians, medieval western Europeans by the Byzantines (and later Turks) and the Victorians by the Chinese. Fu Manchu, the quintessential "Yellow Peril" villain is pretty much how the Imperium pictures Eldar Farseers.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 16:06:11


Post by: Karol


Iracundus 799882 11181913 wrote:

That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol. If the White Scars were more consistently portrayed in art as say...actually Mongolian in appearance then that's not so much of an issue.

But he doesn't have to be be a mongol. Uygurs and Türküt did the same things as mongols, often being part of the mongolian army, and they sure as hell did not look like mongols do to day. And efter the sacking of Kiev the mongolian army that pushed in to middle europe had whole contingents of Rus troops.
Timur was the leader of the Golden Horde appointed by Kubilai himself, but his mother and a large portion of his troops were slavic and turkish/tatar mixed with mongols. And he was no less succesful then Tamujin. Why can't the Khan of the WS or his sons look more like that? Specially when the geneseed slowly makes all marines look like their gene sire.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 16:16:38


Post by: Gert


Karol wrote:
Specially when the geneseed slowly makes all marines look like their gene sire.

That's not true at all. There is a chance an Astartes will share some characteristics of their Primarch such as a Blood Angel being beautiful but it's not even close to common.
Gene-seed can do all manner of things to a human especially the ones with certain mutations. Depending on which Chapter a scion of Sanguinius comes from they could look like New Testament Angels or the could look like Nosferatu vampires with pointed ears and pale skin. The only Chapters that very specifically always end up looking like their Primarchs are the Salamanders (because coal skin and fire eyes) and the Raven Guard (because super pale skin and pitch-black eyes) although this is again seen in varying degrees stages. A Salamander might have slightly grey skin rather than coal-black and a Raven Guard might have dark eyes but have non-pale skin.
Having dark skin and being implanted with Guillimans gene-seed doesn't mean you turn white and get blonde hair.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 16:22:58


Post by: Karol


All salamanders have jetblack skin just as their gene sire. Every other type of marines, aside for those that have a damaged specific organ practically have no stable skin colour, because it changes depending on the radition level they are in and can be changed very fast with use of drugs. In high radition zones, the marine skin can even produce a jelly like substance that covers the marines entire body as an additional layer of protection.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 16:31:13


Post by: Gert


Which affects the point how exactly? As soon as the Astartes is out of said high sunlight environment, provided they even remove their helmet in the first place, their skin will return to its original pigmentation. This doesn't even consider the fact that a Chapter like the Raven Guard or Salamanders could have a malfunctioning Melanchromic Organ which means this ability might be lost.
Your point about all Astartes turning into images of their Primarchs isn't true.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 16:37:12


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Gert wrote:
Which affects the point how exactly? As soon as the Astartes is out of said high sunlight environment, provided they even remove their helmet in the first place, their skin will return to its original pigmentation. Your point about all Astartes turning into images of their Primarchs isn't true.

Wouldn't all of the melanin be removed from their skin as part of the marine creation process, to avoid conflict with the melanochrome? I would think it would be easier to start from 0 when using an organ that's supposed to control the amount of melanin in response to environmental conditions.
This would also mean that all marines would look like Raven guard upon "birth" until the melanochrome kicks in and puts some colour back, as there is always a bit of ambient radiation. Well, unless you're Raven Guard that is. In that case you're stuck at being a pale boi.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 16:38:47


Post by: Karol


They do. That is why space sharks are pale white. Any other differences to the original skin tone of a chapter are due to further mutation of the gene seed, losing the ability to produce or implant a specific organ, the way imperial fist scions can't spit acid or chew through metal bars, or deus ex machina Cawl making non albion RG succesors. And I suppose there are also the rare mutants of the XIIIth founding, where organs and gene seed from more then one chapter resulted in some specific and strange mutation. Like the bone crests Black Dragons space marines have. That is why I don't really understand the whole marine skin colour thing. They are either fixed and unchangable with very specific mutations, like the infra red sight salamanders have. Or they are fluid.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 17:15:01


Post by: Tyran


 GoldenHorde wrote:

40k's universe already has long running themes and doesn't have a message. If you want messaging go watch captain planet. There's no need to meddle.


40k has a message, or at the very least it used to have one. That is, the IoM is basically a representation of everything that is wrong with humanity, a negative example of what one never has to do.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 17:35:13


Post by: Racerguy180


It was described as the most brutal regime in humanity's existence. So pretty self explanatory if you ask me.

So it seems that the equation used to be:

War(WWI+WWII)+(helenistic×roman)+(dystopia×lovecraft)=40k

Now it's more like

Noblebright+war+vapidness= 40k


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 17:42:02


Post by: Karol


Why do people think that the lore right now is noblebright? Is it because of the Cawl deus ex machina stuff? To me Cawl stuff is less non grimdark or bright, and more just bad writing. Specially after the squeeze of 200years of crusade in to 12 years, which makes for some crazy numbers like creating whole marine chapters in a week and taking planets under 24h if they were to fit in to 12 terran years, with how much the crusade reconquered.

So maybe the lore didn't change, it is just worse writers working on it.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 18:05:01


Post by: Formosa


Karol wrote:
Why do people think that the lore right now is noblebright? Is it because of the Cawl deus ex machina stuff? To me Cawl stuff is less non grimdark or bright, and more just bad writing. Specially after the squeeze of 200years of crusade in to 12 years, which makes for some crazy numbers like creating whole marine chapters in a week and taking planets under 24h if they were to fit in to 12 terran years, with how much the crusade reconquered.

So maybe the lore didn't change, it is just worse writers working on it.


Because its going that way it "Seems", for example the new Plague war book has a marines commenting on the fact the primaris are more progressive than their older marine brothers when it comes to new technology and tactics, then throw in the deus ex machina of mary sue cawl and the resurgence of new (not re discovered) tech for the space marines and imperium at large, it "seems" like its not longer teetering on the edge but having a massive resurgence.

This is purely down to GW mishandling as usual though, Chaos being the big bad but always losing and having a joke of a codex really does not help either, they need to hand some permanent and severe defeats to the imperium, kill of Dante, Calgar or some other major characters or a major world like Fenris, give the bad guys some damned teeth


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 20:35:18


Post by: jeff white


The lore changed the universe, bad writing is beside the point. Cawl is a heretic. This is clear to anyone loyal to the Emperor. But, he is not recognized as such. Thus, the universe is either noble and bright or chaos has already won.

My money is on chaos has won.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
It was described as the most brutal regime in humanity's existence. So pretty self explanatory if you ask me.

So it seems that the equation used to be:

War(WWI+WWII)+(helenistic×roman)+(dystopia×lovecraft)=40k

Now it's more like

Noblebright+war+vapidness= 40k


To the old equation, I might add Heinlein and maybe some Kubrick both Clockwork Orange (og marines were thugs as in the end of that story) and Space Odyssey, plus metal music.

To the new one, I might put vapid in bold, war in quotations, and add collectible cards.




What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 20:41:34


Post by: RaptorusRex


5th-7th Edition is the ideal to me. That's what I was drawing crude pictures of as a kid.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 20:46:51


Post by: Arachnofiend


 jeff white wrote:
The lore changed the universe, bad writing is beside the point. Cawl is a heretic. This is clear to anyone loyal to the Emperor. But, he is not recognized as such. Thus, the universe is either noble and bright or chaos has already won.

My money is on chaos has won.

Chaos won when the Imperium decided Lorgar was right, frankly.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 20:51:21


Post by: Tyran


Chaos hasn't won, but that is more because Chaos eventually will have to fight the Orks, Necrons and Tyranids over who gets the corpse of the IoM.

But humanity? yeah it is basically FUBAR, they just hadn't quite realized it yet.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 21:19:04


Post by: Strg Alt


 Galas wrote:
Most GW use of other cultures back in the day was , by today standards, insensitive. They were middle class british nerds in the late 70-80, thats why the humans were always the europeans (empire, bretonnia, estalia, tilea, the imperium, etc...) and the non-european cultures were used for other races.

Thats was a reality but one that has been left behind. GW has been much better than many others in making substantial changes both for different ethnicities and female representation in their media, art, and miniatures in a way that doesnt feel intrusive, like the female stormcasts, the new sisters of battle, etc... kudos for them.


Age of Wonders: Planetfall includes a Russian space dwarf faction. No one was insulted because of this. I think people are getting too easily offended these days, if they think there was a nefarious, ulterior motive behind GW choosing humans for the Europeans in the Old World.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 22:56:55


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Strg Alt wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Most GW use of other cultures back in the day was , by today standards, insensitive. They were middle class british nerds in the late 70-80, thats why the humans were always the europeans (empire, bretonnia, estalia, tilea, the imperium, etc...) and the non-european cultures were used for other races.

Thats was a reality but one that has been left behind. GW has been much better than many others in making substantial changes both for different ethnicities and female representation in their media, art, and miniatures in a way that doesnt feel intrusive, like the female stormcasts, the new sisters of battle, etc... kudos for them.


Age of Wonders: Planetfall includes a Russian space dwarf faction. No one was insulted because of this. I think people are getting too easily offended these days, if they think there was a nefarious, ulterior motive behind GW choosing humans for the Europeans in the Old World.

They also chose Americans for Dark Elves.
You know, the race of murder loving slavers


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/25 23:40:15


Post by: Arachnofiend


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Most GW use of other cultures back in the day was , by today standards, insensitive. They were middle class british nerds in the late 70-80, thats why the humans were always the europeans (empire, bretonnia, estalia, tilea, the imperium, etc...) and the non-european cultures were used for other races.

Thats was a reality but one that has been left behind. GW has been much better than many others in making substantial changes both for different ethnicities and female representation in their media, art, and miniatures in a way that doesnt feel intrusive, like the female stormcasts, the new sisters of battle, etc... kudos for them.


Age of Wonders: Planetfall includes a Russian space dwarf faction. No one was insulted because of this. I think people are getting too easily offended these days, if they think there was a nefarious, ulterior motive behind GW choosing humans for the Europeans in the Old World.

They also chose Americans for Dark Elves.
You know, the race of murder loving slavers

As an American, yeah that's pretty fair.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 00:03:11


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 00:12:15


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Tyran wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

40k's universe already has long running themes and doesn't have a message. If you want messaging go watch captain planet. There's no need to meddle.


40k has a message, or at the very least it used to have one. That is, the IoM is basically a representation of everything that is wrong with humanity, a negative example of what one never has to do.


and that would be a characteristic of the setting not a message. You could even call it a tone which involves satire and caricature


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 00:46:21


Post by: Galas


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 01:00:23


Post by: Karak Norn Clansman


40k should be science fiction gone wrong. It should be a mixture of Mad Max and Star Wars. It should draw upon the most depraved aspects of human history.

Warhammer 40'000 should be grimdark, bonkers and unrelentingly inhumane and cruel with no sane alternatives anywhere to be seen. It should be a place of unavoidable, mechanistic cruelty. It should be an era of lost hope and hypocrisy on every side, all presented with deliciously ironic humour and endless historical references and glorious aesthetics.

40k should be dark. 40k should never be dry and dull. And the Imperium should be a fortified madhouse, a hopeless dead-end of interstellar human galactic civilization and a monster on the prowl in its own right.

Note that the Tau fulfill an important function in such a setting: You need a naïve and optimistic, technologically advanced upstart to be shocked and traumatized by all the insanity and unrelenting horror reigning from end to end of the Milky Way galaxy. Contrast is key. Anyone who thinks the Tau breaks 40k's tone need to think it all over again. If everything is solidly dark everywhere, then nothing is dark. Only by contrasting the Age of Imperium against stuff like the Tau and humanity's lost golden era in the Dark Age of Technology can you hope to get the point across on just how regressed, tyrannical and murderous the dark future truly is.





What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 01:13:40


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.


Sorry but no, I lived through the times when sisters were released and there was no mainstream "nun fetish" just as there is none now, black leather and other such things sure but not nuns, also do not forget that Marines and Guard also had similar depictions but are not considered fetishised, this appears to me to be a projection of the persons own desires onto the artistic style rather than the intent of the creators but I could be wrong I grant you.


It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.


Have you ever visited Tumblr or deviant art, woman create some pretty spicy things much ... spicier that battle sisters so you do cannot say on the one hand its fetishised for just men when woman do the exact same things of their own free will.

And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.


This one is a clear fetishisation I grant you
Spoiler:
BDSM


They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.


they already are represented in the setting perfectly in my entirely subjective opinion, no one should be treated better in 40k, if anything everyone should be dropped down a notch (again subjective)

New sisters are cleaning that up even more.


the new warsuits are garbo but the new sword and board ones are amazingly epic and that is the direction I would like to see sisters go down, also needs more weird added back into the force.


It was quite the trope here and in some gaming, it doesn’t mean that all are nuns ether just following certain designs. And just since women do, does not mean the design was for.
The sisters as a whole fit a lot of tropes, it’s why I responded.
I quite like sisters, but there has not been models for women other than a few examples elsewhere in the setting.
40k is probably the worst offender now, and this is a issue with tone as you say. There are painfully few in the setting where they should be. And in places where they are treated badly, Oh boy did GW get creative at times.
But modern GW does seem to agree with me, if the setting wants to treat everyone badly. They need to treat the female characters well first.
Or it just ends up edgy.

Also, I do like that repentia art. And like the new models for representation off it. But ohh boy
When we get some more models that represent us on the table, I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
This comes with more characters that are named where they should be, armor suits. Mechs, tank comanders. That adds a lot, even if they end up eaten by tyranids on the table.


The "fetishism" you're annoyed about was actually popularised by the subvertive punk feminism of Siouxsie Sioux. It's been reclaimed, who cares

These guys would make a pretty sick harlie troupe...fit right into grim dark somehow?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


But what's the actual problem with that?
It's a influenced recycle of elements, to me these things are homages and nod to the steppe warriors. It's cool asf

It's no more offensive than space romans...

and when you say "mongols" you actually mean steppe warriors b/c mongols weren't the only steppe warriors.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 02:42:03


Post by: Iracundus


 Galas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


Indeed. Just like how no one would really contest that Ultramarines and Guilliman are Space Romans. I also don't buy the "But but they are representing a less popularly well known steppe group's leader". GW is not known for being that subtle or obscure in its references. Guilliman's adoptive father was Space Julius Caesar. The Necromunda Ratskins were Native Americans and the original Deathwing with feathers were Native American. It's pretty obvious the White Scars are meant to evoke to the average reader Space Mongols, not Space Kyrghyz. Yes we mean Space Mongols.

The issue is less White Scars being Space Mongols in a universe of Space Romans and Space Vikings, but more of they are Space Mongols being portrayed in art as white guys playing Mongols, like out of the 1950's. The modern term is "racebending" or whitewashing, where the ethnicity of a character is either changed in the story or is portrayed by someone not of that ethnicity (and often not even adjacent or remotely close). Often the issue when it has come to things like movies, it has been accompanied by convoluted or unconvincing arguments about why for example in a movie like Aloha, a character 1/4 Chinese 1/4 native Hawaiian is best portrayed by a lily white red haired actress of Swedish background mixed with German, English, Scottish, and Irish with not a trace of anything from Asia or Oceania. I.e. the criticized reasoning of "European stories are best portrayed by European background actors. Non-European stories are still best portrayed by European background actors."

Now I am not screaming for GW to be crucified for the White Scars, but I think it would be helpful and low hanging fruit if GW is trying for a more diverse image (as I mentioned earlier from its apparent new book cover policy) if they portray the Primarch whose whole theme is Space Mongols to be at least Asian in appearance. Now before people try to claim that the Space Mongol story doesn't have to be portrayed by an Asian, then why does Space Roman Guilliman have to be shown in appearance as a take off of Roman emperors like Augustus? Why not show Guilliman as African phenotype or Asian? Again GW is not known for being subtle with these kinds of historical references. If someone is trying to argue why it is somehow so necessary for Guilliman to be shown as European/Caucasian appearance to match the Roman theme but somehow Jaghatai Khan does not need to be shown as Asian despite the Mongol theme, then I refer you back above to the racebending/whitewashing issue and its double standards.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 03:03:44


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


Indeed. Just like how no one would really contest that Ultramarines and Guilliman are Space Romans. I also don't buy the "But but they are representing a less popularly well known steppe group's leader". GW is not known for being that subtle or obscure in its references. Guilliman's adoptive father was Space Julius Caesar. It's pretty obvious the White Scars are meant to evoke to the average reader Space Mongols, not Space Kyrghyz. Yes we mean Space Mongols.

The issue is less White Scars being Space Mongols in a universe of Space Romans and Space Vikings, but more of they are Space Mongols being portrayed in art as white guys playing Mongols, like out of the 1950's. The modern term is "racebending" or whitewashing, where the ethnicity of a character is either changed in the story or is portrayed by someone not of that ethnicity (and often not even adjacent or remotely close). Often the issue when it has come to things like movies, it has been accompanied by convoluted or unconvincing arguments about why for example in a movie like Aloha, a character 1/4 Chinese 1/4 native Hawaiian is best portrayed by a lily white red haired actress of Swedish background mixed with German, English, Scottish, and Irish with not a trace of anything from Asia or Oceania. I.e. the criticized reasoning of "European stories are best portrayed by European background actors. Non-European stories are still best portrayed by European background actors."




I'm not seeing what you claim

Not going to lie he looks like my uncle Kaan, features are rounded as you would expect.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 03:34:16


Post by: Iracundus


You've just proven the whole racebending point. Space Mongols...being led by white guy with topknot, not Space Temujin, while the Space Romans get to be led by Space Augustus.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 03:50:58


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:
You've just proven the whole racebending point. Space Mongols...being led by white guy with topknot, not Space Temujin, while the Space Romans get to be led by Space Augustus.



There's no racebending. Steppe warriors have mixed characteristics including mongols.
There's some very pale mongolians and turkic people.

The preconception of what skin tone is appropriate for mongols you have set in your mind is laughable idea.
The notion you have is backwards to reality




Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way I wouldn't call the blanche depiction being "white skinned". Not that I give a toss about the skin colour


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 04:07:45


Post by: Iracundus


Yet again more proof of the racebending "logic". An Asian themed story is somehow fine to be led by a white looking guy (and by white I don't mean Central Asian even)...and demanding people should stop being so sensitive about having an Asian guy feature. Yet when it comes to white European stories, I'm sure the logic will be oh no we can't cast a non-white non-European person because then it wouldn't be thematically matching or accurate. I'm sure there wouldn't be objection to Idris Elba lookalike as Guilliman then? Such hypocrisy and double standards.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 04:11:46


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You must really struggle with Lizardmen.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 04:14:49


Post by: Iracundus


No because the Aztecs are an extinct culture just like the Huns. Though there may be Nahuatl speakers they are not culturally Aztec.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 04:24:47


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:
Yet again more proof of the racebending "logic". An Asian themed story is somehow fine to be led by a white looking guy (and by white I don't mean Central Asian even)...and demanding people should stop being so sensitive about having an Asian guy feature. Yet when it comes to white European stories, I'm sure the logic will be oh no we can't cast a non-white non-European person because then it wouldn't be thematically matching or accurate. I'm sure there wouldn't be objection to Idris Elba lookalike as Guilliman then? Such hypocrisy and double standards.



The blanche artwork has very rounded facial features as you would expect to see from central asian populations, the skin tone is not pale and the top knot you're crying about...



You're seeing a problem that isn't there

The hair was commonly mostly shaved save for various styles according to tribes, especially for horseback steppe warriors.

Also we're not talking about acting, actors or film making - just irrelevant


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iracundus wrote:
No because the Aztecs are an extinct culture just like the Huns. Though there may be Nahuatl speakers they are not culturally Aztec.


Yeah but in the same hand you brought up and complained about thousand sons being ancient egpytian ...a dead culture.

I cannot keep up with all these silly rules which do not apply in a consistent manner.

When was the last time steppe warriors rode into battle? The steppe warriors are also a dead culture.

At the very least, even if I am dead wrong I have a consistent, cohesive and logical position.

These influences and borrowings from cultures both existing and dead is not racebending. They are inspired homage and nods.

You're just slapping a buzzword onto stuff which has no relation. Is there a scoring system for you to find things to get offended about or something?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 05:03:57


Post by: Iracundus


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
Yet again more proof of the racebending "logic". An Asian themed story is somehow fine to be led by a white looking guy (and by white I don't mean Central Asian even)...and demanding people should stop being so sensitive about having an Asian guy feature. Yet when it comes to white European stories, I'm sure the logic will be oh no we can't cast a non-white non-European person because then it wouldn't be thematically matching or accurate. I'm sure there wouldn't be objection to Idris Elba lookalike as Guilliman then? Such hypocrisy and double standards.



The blanche artwork has very rounded facial features as you would expect to see from central asian populations, the skin tone is not pale and the top knot you're crying about...




It's not about the topknot. That boy looks Central Asian. If Jaghatai looks like an adult version of that, then no issues. However that is not what Jaghatai Khan is shown as in that FW sketch, which is anything but Asian or Central Asian. That sketch looks Western European.

The things about racebending in film are relevant as a portrayal of different cultures or ethnicities in media and art.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iracundus wrote:
No because the Aztecs are an extinct culture just like the Huns. Though there may be Nahuatl speakers they are not culturally Aztec.


Yeah but in the same hand you brought up and complained about thousand sons being ancient egpytian ...a dead culture.

I cannot keep up with all these silly rules which do not apply in a consistent manner.

When was the last time steppe warriors rode into battle? The steppe warriors are also a dead culture.


I never once complained about ancient Egyptians. Reread the thread more carefully and attribute posts to their correct posters. It was another poster who was basically saying for you to stop trying to kid yourself. White Scars are thematic Space Mongols just as Thousand Sons are thematically Space Ancient Egyptians, a niche that the Necrons also have.

Mongolian steppe culture is not dead. The fact you think so shows your cultural ignorance. The most cursory online search will easily show many images of people living mostly traditional lifestyles. Just because they may have some modern technology alongside their traditional items or horses does not mean their culture is dead. Likewise, just because they are not literally going to shoot people with arrows or hack them with sabers doesn't mean their traditional culture is dead. Temujin is a very core and sensitive point of pride for Mongolians. They clearly view themselves as having a link so Mongolian culture is a living culture, not a dead one. This is not about dead cultures like the Aztecs, Huns, or ancient Egyptians. Once again I do not count linguistic remnants alone like Nahuatl speakers as the original culture living on.

My position is consistent. You need to read more carefully.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 05:19:03


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:


I never once complained about ancient Egyptians. Reread the thread more carefully and attribute posts to their correct posters. It was another poster who was basically saying for you to stop trying to kid yourself. White Scars are thematic Space Mongols just as Thousand Sons are thematically Space Ancient Egyptians, a niche that the Necrons also have.

Mongolian steppe culture is not dead. The fact you think so shows your cultural ignorance. The most cursory online search will easily show many images of people living mostly traditional lifestyles. Just because they may have some modern technology alongside their traditional items or horses does not mean their culture is dead. Likewise, just because they are not literally going to shoot people with arrows or hack them with sabers doesn't mean their traditional culture is dead. Temujin is a very core and sensitive point of pride for Mongolians. They clearly view themselves as having a link so Mongolian culture is a living culture, not a dead one. This is not about dead cultures like the Aztecs, Huns, or ancient Egyptians. Once again I do not count linguistic remnants alone like Nahuatl speakers as the original culture living on.

My position is consistent. You need to read more carefully.



Reading more carefully, I SPECIFICALLY said Steppe warrior[ culture is dead, not steppe culture. Try again.
White scars are based on steppe warriors
.
You can't see the rounded features in the artwork but I can. You may or may not be ignorant to the fact that porcelain skin mongols IS A THING. But stick to the script of false outrage...

So what if the primarch looks a bit more Turkic than western idealised Mongol....

At the end of the day, you're way way off mark and dumbing it down to suit your silly agenda

You're literally getting pissed that he doesn't look like the western stereotype concept of a mongol

Your stereotype of a mongolian steppe warrior. The one that's in YOUR HEAD



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 05:52:06


Post by: Formosa


Iracandus here is an Altai throat singer.



This is where Altai is



not sure what your trying to claim though mate, white skinned people can come from all over the world, I have pale white skin and my father is 5th gen Singaporian and mother is mixed welsh Chinese, so I look European but am not, I come across as English as I lived here so long but I am not English, perhaps we should not judge people and make assumptions based on skin tone


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 06:08:59


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.


Sorry but no, I lived through the times when sisters were released and there was no mainstream "nun fetish" just as there is none now, black leather and other such things sure but not nuns, also do not forget that Marines and Guard also had similar depictions but are not considered fetishised, this appears to me to be a projection of the persons own desires onto the artistic style rather than the intent of the creators but I could be wrong I grant you.


It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.


Have you ever visited Tumblr or deviant art, woman create some pretty spicy things much ... spicier that battle sisters so you do cannot say on the one hand its fetishised for just men when woman do the exact same things of their own free will.

And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.


This one is a clear fetishisation I grant you
Spoiler:
BDSM


They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.


they already are represented in the setting perfectly in my entirely subjective opinion, no one should be treated better in 40k, if anything everyone should be dropped down a notch (again subjective)

New sisters are cleaning that up even more.


the new warsuits are garbo but the new sword and board ones are amazingly epic and that is the direction I would like to see sisters go down, also needs more weird added back into the force.


It was quite the trope here and in some gaming, it doesn’t mean that all are nuns ether just following certain designs. And just since women do, does not mean the design was for.
The sisters as a whole fit a lot of tropes, it’s why I responded.
I quite like sisters, but there has not been models for women other than a few examples elsewhere in the setting.
40k is probably the worst offender now, and this is a issue with tone as you say. There are painfully few in the setting where they should be. And in places where they are treated badly, Oh boy did GW get creative at times.
But modern GW does seem to agree with me, if the setting wants to treat everyone badly. They need to treat the female characters well first.
Or it just ends up edgy.

Also, I do like that repentia art. And like the new models for representation off it. But ohh boy
When we get some more models that represent us on the table, I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
This comes with more characters that are named where they should be, armor suits. Mechs, tank comanders. That adds a lot, even if they end up eaten by tyranids on the table.


The "fetishism" you're annoyed about was actually popularised by the subvertive punk feminism of Siouxsie Sioux. It's been reclaimed, who cares

These guys would make a pretty sick harlie troupe...fit right into grim dark somehow?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


But what's the actual problem with that?
It's a influenced recycle of elements, to me these things are homages and nod to the steppe warriors. It's cool asf

It's no more offensive than space romans...

and when you say "mongols" you actually mean steppe warriors b/c mongols weren't the only steppe warriors.


Sisters of battle are not a good representation as they follow a lot of tropes that have a lot of negative ideas on them, they are not a great representation.
Being reclaimed or anything of the sort comes with the ability not to engage in those things, not for the ideas to be pushed now as the representation when other parts of the setting neglect it.
It’s a pop culture setting. Where the culture changed and GW was very slow to notice and adapt.

Hell, sisters are great. They way better now than space marines for tone and thought, but as the point of here is your representation they fall way off.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 06:23:03


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.


Sorry but no, I lived through the times when sisters were released and there was no mainstream "nun fetish" just as there is none now, black leather and other such things sure but not nuns, also do not forget that Marines and Guard also had similar depictions but are not considered fetishised, this appears to me to be a projection of the persons own desires onto the artistic style rather than the intent of the creators but I could be wrong I grant you.


It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.


Have you ever visited Tumblr or deviant art, woman create some pretty spicy things much ... spicier that battle sisters so you do cannot say on the one hand its fetishised for just men when woman do the exact same things of their own free will.

And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.


This one is a clear fetishisation I grant you
Spoiler:
BDSM


They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.


they already are represented in the setting perfectly in my entirely subjective opinion, no one should be treated better in 40k, if anything everyone should be dropped down a notch (again subjective)

New sisters are cleaning that up even more.


the new warsuits are garbo but the new sword and board ones are amazingly epic and that is the direction I would like to see sisters go down, also needs more weird added back into the force.


It was quite the trope here and in some gaming, it doesn’t mean that all are nuns ether just following certain designs. And just since women do, does not mean the design was for.
The sisters as a whole fit a lot of tropes, it’s why I responded.
I quite like sisters, but there has not been models for women other than a few examples elsewhere in the setting.
40k is probably the worst offender now, and this is a issue with tone as you say. There are painfully few in the setting where they should be. And in places where they are treated badly, Oh boy did GW get creative at times.
But modern GW does seem to agree with me, if the setting wants to treat everyone badly. They need to treat the female characters well first.
Or it just ends up edgy.

Also, I do like that repentia art. And like the new models for representation off it. But ohh boy
When we get some more models that represent us on the table, I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
This comes with more characters that are named where they should be, armor suits. Mechs, tank comanders. That adds a lot, even if they end up eaten by tyranids on the table.


The "fetishism" you're annoyed about was actually popularised by the subvertive punk feminism of Siouxsie Sioux. It's been reclaimed, who cares

These guys would make a pretty sick harlie troupe...fit right into grim dark somehow?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


But what's the actual problem with that?
It's a influenced recycle of elements, to me these things are homages and nod to the steppe warriors. It's cool asf

It's no more offensive than space romans...

and when you say "mongols" you actually mean steppe warriors b/c mongols weren't the only steppe warriors.


Sisters of battle are not a good representation as they follow a lot of tropes that have a lot of negative ideas on them, they are not a great representation.
Being reclaimed or anything of the sort comes with the ability not to engage in those things, not for the ideas to be pushed now as the representation when other parts of the setting neglect it.
It’s a pop culture setting. Where the culture changed and GW was very slow to notice and adapt.

Hell, sisters are great. They way better now than space marines for tone and thought, but as the point of here is your representation they fall way off.


40k isn't about positive representation. If you think it is, you miss the point. It's a hellish dystopian nightmare future.

You haven't explained ANYTHING except that you want to gatekeep tight fitting clothes and heels...okay..lol...just lol

I'm glad someone has stepped upto the plate to patronise females and decide for them!


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 06:36:16


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.


Sorry but no, I lived through the times when sisters were released and there was no mainstream "nun fetish" just as there is none now, black leather and other such things sure but not nuns, also do not forget that Marines and Guard also had similar depictions but are not considered fetishised, this appears to me to be a projection of the persons own desires onto the artistic style rather than the intent of the creators but I could be wrong I grant you.


It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.


Have you ever visited Tumblr or deviant art, woman create some pretty spicy things much ... spicier that battle sisters so you do cannot say on the one hand its fetishised for just men when woman do the exact same things of their own free will.

And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.


This one is a clear fetishisation I grant you
Spoiler:
BDSM


They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.


they already are represented in the setting perfectly in my entirely subjective opinion, no one should be treated better in 40k, if anything everyone should be dropped down a notch (again subjective)

New sisters are cleaning that up even more.


the new warsuits are garbo but the new sword and board ones are amazingly epic and that is the direction I would like to see sisters go down, also needs more weird added back into the force.


It was quite the trope here and in some gaming, it doesn’t mean that all are nuns ether just following certain designs. And just since women do, does not mean the design was for.
The sisters as a whole fit a lot of tropes, it’s why I responded.
I quite like sisters, but there has not been models for women other than a few examples elsewhere in the setting.
40k is probably the worst offender now, and this is a issue with tone as you say. There are painfully few in the setting where they should be. And in places where they are treated badly, Oh boy did GW get creative at times.
But modern GW does seem to agree with me, if the setting wants to treat everyone badly. They need to treat the female characters well first.
Or it just ends up edgy.

Also, I do like that repentia art. And like the new models for representation off it. But ohh boy
When we get some more models that represent us on the table, I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
This comes with more characters that are named where they should be, armor suits. Mechs, tank comanders. That adds a lot, even if they end up eaten by tyranids on the table.


The "fetishism" you're annoyed about was actually popularised by the subvertive punk feminism of Siouxsie Sioux. It's been reclaimed, who cares

These guys would make a pretty sick harlie troupe...fit right into grim dark somehow?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


But what's the actual problem with that?
It's a influenced recycle of elements, to me these things are homages and nod to the steppe warriors. It's cool asf

It's no more offensive than space romans...

and when you say "mongols" you actually mean steppe warriors b/c mongols weren't the only steppe warriors.


Sisters of battle are not a good representation as they follow a lot of tropes that have a lot of negative ideas on them, they are not a great representation.
Being reclaimed or anything of the sort comes with the ability not to engage in those things, not for the ideas to be pushed now as the representation when other parts of the setting neglect it.
It’s a pop culture setting. Where the culture changed and GW was very slow to notice and adapt.

Hell, sisters are great. They way better now than space marines for tone and thought, but as the point of here is your representation they fall way off.


40k isn't about positive representation. If you think it is, you miss the point. It's a hellish dystopian nightmare future.

You haven't explained ANYTHING except that you want to gatekeep tight fitting clothes and heels...okay..lol...just lol

I'm glad someone has stepped upto the plate to patronise females and decide for them!


No I want alternatives, you are the one that is pushing it as a good representation with no understanding of why that may or may not be the case. And please, 40k has not really been that in years. They say it is, but it’s rather shallow.
It’s why the tone has shifted so much, GW doesn’t really want to try and deal with the social issues that setting really would require. As it’s really hard to get right.
Also Turns out, I am female. I lived though this in the hobby for 20 years. But good thing you are here to tell me I cannot represent myself in this.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 06:43:46


Post by: Gert


Does nobody know how to spoiler stuff so each page isn't 10 times as long as it needs to be.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 06:46:11


Post by: GoldenHorde


Spoiler:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
The models are better than the art was back then, but the nun fetish killer is already a trope. The heals on some art, tight corset. And form fit armor.


Sorry but no, I lived through the times when sisters were released and there was no mainstream "nun fetish" just as there is none now, black leather and other such things sure but not nuns, also do not forget that Marines and Guard also had similar depictions but are not considered fetishised, this appears to me to be a projection of the persons own desires onto the artistic style rather than the intent of the creators but I could be wrong I grant you.


It wasn’t a design for women and girls, it was for men.


Have you ever visited Tumblr or deviant art, woman create some pretty spicy things much ... spicier that battle sisters so you do cannot say on the one hand its fetishised for just men when woman do the exact same things of their own free will.

And repentia both concept and design, did not fall out of that as well.


This one is a clear fetishisation I grant you [spoiler]BDSM


They could be a interesting part of representation if, 40k had treat women in setting better.


they already are represented in the setting perfectly in my entirely subjective opinion, no one should be treated better in 40k, if anything everyone should be dropped down a notch (again subjective)

New sisters are cleaning that up even more.


the new warsuits are garbo but the new sword and board ones are amazingly epic and that is the direction I would like to see sisters go down, also needs more weird added back into the force.


It was quite the trope here and in some gaming, it doesn’t mean that all are nuns ether just following certain designs. And just since women do, does not mean the design was for.
The sisters as a whole fit a lot of tropes, it’s why I responded.
I quite like sisters, but there has not been models for women other than a few examples elsewhere in the setting.
40k is probably the worst offender now, and this is a issue with tone as you say. There are painfully few in the setting where they should be. And in places where they are treated badly, Oh boy did GW get creative at times.
But modern GW does seem to agree with me, if the setting wants to treat everyone badly. They need to treat the female characters well first.
Or it just ends up edgy.

Also, I do like that repentia art. And like the new models for representation off it. But ohh boy
When we get some more models that represent us on the table, I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
This comes with more characters that are named where they should be, armor suits. Mechs, tank comanders. That adds a lot, even if they end up eaten by tyranids on the table.


The "fetishism" you're annoyed about was actually popularised by the subvertive punk feminism of Siouxsie Sioux. It's been reclaimed, who cares

These guys would make a pretty sick harlie troupe...fit right into grim dark somehow?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
That's from Forge World, not fan art. It's a white guy playing Mongol.
That's neither a white guy, nor is it a Mongol. It's an unnaturally created genetic creature that scarcely counts as 'human', let alone a 'white guy'. And 38,000 years into the future, I'd say there are probably no Mongols left, much like there would be no English, Americans, French, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and so on.


Yeah but... the white scars are like, totally mongols. Just like the Thousand Sons are totally egiptian and egiptian looking. Lets not be obtuse and put fluff over common sense and how something is designed.


But what's the actual problem with that?
It's a influenced recycle of elements, to me these things are homages and nod to the steppe warriors. It's cool asf

It's no more offensive than space romans...

and when you say "mongols" you actually mean steppe warriors b/c mongols weren't the only steppe warriors.


Sisters of battle are not a good representation as they follow a lot of tropes that have a lot of negative ideas on them, they are not a great representation.
Being reclaimed or anything of the sort comes with the ability not to engage in those things, not for the ideas to be pushed now as the representation when other parts of the setting neglect it.
It’s a pop culture setting. Where the culture changed and GW was very slow to notice and adapt.

Hell, sisters are great. They way better now than space marines for tone and thought, but as the point of here is your representation they fall way off.


40k isn't about positive representation. If you think it is, you miss the point. It's a hellish dystopian nightmare future.

You haven't explained ANYTHING except that you want to gatekeep tight fitting clothes and heels...okay..lol...just lol

I'm glad someone has stepped upto the plate to patronise females and decide for them!


No I want alternatives, you are the one that is pushing it as a good representation with no understanding of why that may or may not be the case. And please, 40k has not really been that in years. They say it is, but it’s rather shallow.
It’s why the tone has shifted so much, GW doesn’t really want to try and deal with the social issues that setting really would require. As it’s really hard to get right.
Also Turns out, I am female. I lived though this in the hobby for 20 years. But good thing you are here to tell me I cannot represent myself in this.


That's the thing, it's its own universe, not a socio-political projection pinboard. It never has been that and never will be. Stop trying to make it a thing.
That whole concept of representing everyone and pleasing everyone is arrogant and toxic delusion.

The factions in the game represents THEMSELVES not YOU OR I.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote:
But good thing you are here to tell me I cannot represent myself in this.
[/spoiler]

Literally no one is saying that.

What I am saying is that this whole cult of demanding to crush an author's agency is just toxic, cancerous nonsense.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 06:55:20


Post by: Grimtuff


 Gert wrote:
Does nobody know how to spoiler stuff so each page isn't 10 times as long as it needs to be.


It's like I'm flying over a bunch of ziggurats...


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 06:58:03


Post by: Apple fox


 Gert wrote:
Does nobody know how to spoiler stuff so each page isn't 10 times as long as it needs to be.


I actually have struggle to get it to work on dakka. Not sure if I doing it wrong or that the iPad format makes it hard or what :(

As for above, where you not lamenting the loss of satire within the setting? Satire is almost entirely in response to social politics. One of the big issues with the imperium is that so many don’t understand the satire.
The same way marines are the Cool power fantasy faction and nearly every negative is downplayed and given exceptions.
Space wolves have almost become the Space Marines But Faction.


“I'm glad someone has stepped upto the plate to patronise females and decide for them! “
Literally condescending and trying to remove my ability to respond as equal and speaking for others.

People are asking for GW to do things better, GW is trying. There is no cult, and criticism of a setting or written work cannot be brushed away like that.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:06:26


Post by: Gert


@GoldenHorde Yeah that's not even close to true. "Your Dudes" and making a version of yourself in your army had been a pretty big thing for 40k since like always. The current options for a woman/female hobbyist to give themselves a character that represents them without having to explain background is to play Drukhari, SoB, GSC and possibly Craftworlds. SoB are absolutely superior to their previous iteration and have definitely seen a boost in status to "competent faction" rather than "murder bait" but that's only in the last year or so and the models still very much fall into a prickly issue regarding sculpted corsets and breasts. So if a female/woman hobbyist doesn't like Space Elves, SoB or GSC, there isn't a whole lot of ways they can put themselves into their army for 40k from GW sources.
People enjoy things more when they can represent themselves properly in said things. The part about it being arrogant or toxic is un-needed and rude.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:08:02


Post by: Iracundus




That Altai person shows Central Asian/Eurasian features. I don't see what your point is. That's again not what FW's Jaghatai Khan sketch looks like. I am aware of the appearance of the people n the various "Stan" countries, and yes you can find pale skinned Mongolians. However even then their facial features are clearly Asian or Eurasian, with epicanthic folds. That FW sketch does not look Central Asian/Eurasian. He does not look Altaic.

The point is White Scars are Space Mongols thematically. Show it to a random player and they are not likely to think Space Kazakhs or <insert other Central Asian culture>. They are going to think Space Mongols. That's just how it is right now as the Mongols have had higher historical visibility thanks to the actions of Temujin in conquering the largest land empire on Earth. So all attempts to try to claim the White Scars are not Space Mongols are really just denial or deliberately being obtuse.

Once again the issue is if the Space Romans have Space Augustus, why not give the Space Mongols their Space Temujin? If one culture has a stereotypical leader why not the other? And if not Space Temujin, why is it fine for the Space Romans to have their Space Augustus? Temujin is one of the most defining historical figures of Mongolian culture, so why not let them have it if it's supposed to be a homage? Why this sudden insistence on "Oh we don't have to follow the stereotypes or history" which also just happens to coincidentally remove possibility of portrayal of a defining person from that cultural history in a way that actually looks like people from that culture? Look at portraits of Temujin and they look "stereotypical" Mongolian. Nothing wrong with that just as portraits of Chinese emperors show them to be stereotypically Chinese in appearance. If the White Scars are meant to be a homage then might as well complete it by giving them Space Temujin. If you can give people Space Viking+++ with Russ and Goth Poe quoting Primarch, then Space Temujin is no worse.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:08:34


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Does nobody know how to spoiler stuff so each page isn't 10 times as long as it needs to be.


I actually have struggle to get it to work on dakka. Not sure if I doing it wrong or that the iPad format makes it hard or what :(

As for above, where you not lamenting the loss of satire within the setting? Satire is almost entirely in response to social politics. One of the big issues with the imperium is that so many don’t understand the satire.
The same way marines are the Cool power fantasy faction and nearly every negative is downplayed and given exceptions.
Space wolves have almost become the Space Marines But Faction.


“I'm glad someone has stepped upto the plate to patronise females and decide for them! “
Literally condescending and trying to remove my ability to respond as equal and speaking for others.

People are asking for GW to do things better, GW is trying. There is no cult, and criticism of a setting or written work cannot be brushed away like that.



You decided that corsets and tight fitting armour etc was "treating women poorly","for the benefit of men" or some such nonsense.That's patronising to the core.

What you are saying is you want imposed artistic censorship and don't believe the authors can stand behind their own agency.

I have taboos and all artists must cater , TO MEEEE!!!!


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:09:06


Post by: Gert


Apple fox wrote:

I actually have struggle to get it to work on dakka. Not sure if I doing it wrong or that the iPad format makes it hard or what :(

Superior Samsung engineering all the way


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:10:02


Post by: BrianDavion


the primarchs are being created in test tubes on Terra using the DNA of two people. assuming Jaghati Khan MUST look asian because he landed on an asian world is honestly insanely racist. Why? because it conflates culture with race.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:15:28


Post by: Iracundus


When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey

As I posted though before, I think GW did not do so out of deliberate malice, and their portrayal of an Asian Custodes, even if an example of tokenism, suggests there was no specific ideological racism or malice. But that is why it would be low hanging fruit for a tale of Space Mongols to actually feature a leader figure that looks like the historical person they were copying. It would even be easier than the earlier other thread discussion of female SM. GW wouldn't even need to retcon or insert new changes to anything other than the art portrayals. The existing text could remain as is.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:25:48


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Does nobody know how to spoiler stuff so each page isn't 10 times as long as it needs to be.


I actually have struggle to get it to work on dakka. Not sure if I doing it wrong or that the iPad format makes it hard or what :(

As for above, where you not lamenting the loss of satire within the setting? Satire is almost entirely in response to social politics. One of the big issues with the imperium is that so many don’t understand the satire.
The same way marines are the Cool power fantasy faction and nearly every negative is downplayed and given exceptions.
Space wolves have almost become the Space Marines But Faction.


“I'm glad someone has stepped upto the plate to patronise females and decide for them! “
Literally condescending and trying to remove my ability to respond as equal and speaking for others.

People are asking for GW to do things better, GW is trying. There is no cult, and criticism of a setting or written work cannot be brushed away like that.



You decided that corsets and tight fitting armour etc was "treating women poorly","for the benefit of men" or some such nonsense.That's patronising to the core.

What you are saying is you want imposed artistic censorship and don't believe the authors can stand behind their own agency.

I have taboos and all artists must cater , TO MEEEE!!!!


You like it or not, that clothing has been accociated to certen themes. Not everyone likes it, I have SoB. But, since you ignore this, They are not a great point of representation.
Space marines get to be cool, and they are bared from women. Since you seem to dislike that, but you call more and a desire for alternatives for my fantasy censorship.
This is classic, it’s all fantasy until the point women want something. Then the setting and it’s grimdark nature are important.
Because I want more, and that doesn’t fit into your ideas I guess. There is no censorship here.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:27:58


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 GoldenHorde wrote:


You decided that corsets and tight fitting armour etc was "treating women poorly","for the benefit of men" or some such nonsense.That's patronising to the core.

What you are saying is you want imposed artistic censorship and don't believe the authors can stand behind their own agency.

I have taboos and all artists must cater , TO MEEEE!!!!

Corsets have been used for at least 500 years to specifically shape a woman's body to decrease waist size and increase breast/bottom size. There are of course corsets that were designed to reduce back pain or ones that were basically just a sort of midriff shirt but the majority were absolutely to encourage beauty standards.
It's not really patronising to suggest that the "women only" that has sculpted breast armour and form fitting armour is sexualised when there are little to no options for more androgynous designs even in factions that are supposed to have women in them like Astra Militarum.
Its not censorship to suggest that there should be more androgynous or less sexualised options for the representation of female/women in 40k. Its not a taboo when roughly 50% of the human race is female/women.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:33:10


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK

When your toxic lens itself is racist and you are unaware of the fact


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
Spoiler:
 GoldenHorde wrote:


You decided that corsets and tight fitting armour etc was "treating women poorly","for the benefit of men" or some such nonsense.That's patronising to the core.

What you are saying is you want imposed artistic censorship and don't believe the authors can stand behind their own agency.

I have taboos and all artists must cater , TO MEEEE!!!!

Corsets have been used for at least 500 years to specifically shape a woman's body to decrease waist size and increase breast/bottom size. There are of course corsets that were designed to reduce back pain or ones that were basically just a sort of midriff shirt but the majority were absolutely to encourage beauty standards.
It's not really patronising to suggest that the "women only" that has sculpted breast armour and form fitting armour is sexualised when there are little to no options for more androgynous designs even in factions that are supposed to have women in them like Astra Militarum.
Its not censorship to suggest that there should be more androgynous or less sexualised options for the representation of female/women in 40k. Its not a taboo when roughly 50% of the human race is female/women.


Got it. Authors not allowed agency. Have to write to tick boxes of representation agenda.
Get angry at people who see this as a cultural stifle cult


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:41:45


Post by: Jidmah


Apple fox wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Does nobody know how to spoiler stuff so each page isn't 10 times as long as it needs to be.


I actually have struggle to get it to work on dakka. Not sure if I doing it wrong or that the iPad format makes it hard or what :(


Nope, it's just super intuitive for people not used to code or markup language. Essentially, you have to find the first closing bracket ] and then select everything afterwards EXCEPT the final /quote tag. Hit the spoiler button afterwards.

Alternatively, you can type the spoiler and /spoiler tags manually where you want them.

Be aware that you cannot properly spoiler posts which already contain spoilers - in that case it usually would be better to just delete all quotes from the original post and just leave whatever the person you are responding to wrote last.

Spoiler:


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:47:27


Post by: GoldenHorde


I honestly think instead of actually being a free thinker and deciding for yourself whether something is racist or not, you're just following canned paradigm-models that other people made up with no semblance to reality or rationality.\

If you go scapel cherry picking around and squish stuff into these canned paradigms, everything is racist

Good luck with that pure sophistry.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:47:53


Post by: Iracundus


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:48:57


Post by: Karol


Iracundus wrote:
You've just proven the whole racebending point. Space Mongols...being led by white guy with topknot, not Space Temujin, while the Space Romans get to be led by Space Augustus.


Why does it have to be Tamujin though, why not Timur or Möngkeg? Why the fixation that is has to be one specific guy that represents an entire history of people. Same with the roman example. There were Iberian emperor, even ones from Afrika Concsular, there were part Tracians on the throne and that is just the western empire, because with east you get Asian Minor guys, with strong links to semitic people. Saying that Romans=Augustus makes no sense. Why not Marius or even Cezar himself .


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:49:00


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

Got it. Authors not allowed agency. Have to write to tick boxes of representation agenda.
Get angry at people who see this as a cultural stifle cult

Yeah, you're pretty deep down the rabbit hole on this so I'm ducking out.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:51:31


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


Because the Inherent racism in the title we'll ignore because its fun to blame "whites" and its impossible for non-'whites' to actually fit the paradigm. Right?

It is racist. Totally. The lack of self awareness is astounding.
History will not look kindly on this nonsense."whitey" is racist asf.
Another case of holier than thou, do as I say not as I do.


I have no respect for that. I'm out


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:52:03


Post by: Apple fox


 Jidmah wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gert wrote:
Does nobody know how to spoiler stuff so each page isn't 10 times as long as it needs to be.


I actually have struggle to get it to work on dakka. Not sure if I doing it wrong or that the iPad format makes it hard or what :(


Nope, it's just super intuitive for people not used to code or markup language. Essentially, you have to find the first closing bracket ] and then select everything afterwards EXCEPT the final /quote tag. Hit the spoiler button afterwards.

Alternatively, you can type the spoiler and /spoiler tags manually where you want them.

Be aware that you cannot properly spoiler posts which already contain spoilers - in that case it usually would be better to just delete all quotes from the original post and just leave whatever the person you are responding to wrote last.

Thanks let’s see if it works!

Lol, I got something wrong. I will work it out I guess.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 07:57:11


Post by: Karol


 Formosa wrote:

Because its going that way it "Seems", for example the new Plague war book has a marines commenting on the fact the primaris are more progressive than their older marine brothers when it comes to new technology and tactics, then throw in the deus ex machina of mary sue cawl and the resurgence of new (not re discovered) tech for the space marines and imperium at large, it "seems" like its not longer teetering on the edge but having a massive resurgence.

This is purely down to GW mishandling as usual though, Chaos being the big bad but always losing and having a joke of a codex really does not help either, they need to hand some permanent and severe defeats to the imperium, kill of Dante, Calgar or some other major characters or a major world like Fenris, give the bad guys some damned teeth


That is what I am saying, it is not a lore progression, but more the fact that someone at GW wanted to reset the setting for 8th, found Cawl , a character that did not exist before, to be a great to be a great vessal for it, and here we are now with the ideas. If GW went with Cawl and primaris the way it should have went and according to how the setting works, there would be a gigantic civil war spanning all branches of imperial society. I have no idea what the writers were thinking writing the 8th ed and later lore the way they did. It is a world where people can't turn a wrench on a bolt, if they are not ordained to do it. Get shot for seeing the wrong things and turning a 10k year old rhino on and off, is considered a religious event . And somehow the same people who are not okey, with non marines using Land Raiders or the Church having non mercenary regiments as their fighting force, are okey with gene modifications of a projects done by the Emperor himself.

Plus there is the rest of the stuff like making planets being uneaten by nids in a couple of years etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 GoldenHorde wrote:


Because the Inherent racism in the title we'll ignore because its fun to blame "whites" and its impossible for non-'whites' to actually fit the paradigm. Right?

It is racist. Totally. The lack of self awareness is astounding.
History will not look kindly on this nonsense."whitey" is racist asf.


But there are no "whites" in w40k. Same way we don't have minoan bull worshipers or ancient proto egyptians today.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:03:58


Post by: Iracundus


Karol wrote:
 Formosa wrote:

Because its going that way it "Seems", for example the new Plague war book has a marines commenting on the fact the primaris are more progressive than their older marine brothers when it comes to new technology and tactics, then throw in the deus ex machina of mary sue cawl and the resurgence of new (not re discovered) tech for the space marines and imperium at large, it "seems" like its not longer teetering on the edge but having a massive resurgence.

This is purely down to GW mishandling as usual though, Chaos being the big bad but always losing and having a joke of a codex really does not help either, they need to hand some permanent and severe defeats to the imperium, kill of Dante, Calgar or some other major characters or a major world like Fenris, give the bad guys some damned teeth


That is what I am saying, it is not a lore progression, but more the fact that someone at GW wanted to reset the setting for 8th, found Cawl , a character that did not exist before, to be a great to be a great vessal for it, and here we are now with the ideas. If GW went with Cawl and primaris the way it should have went and according to how the setting works, there would be a gigantic civil war spanning all branches of imperial society. I have no idea what the writers were thinking writing the 8th ed and later lore the way they did. It is a world where people can't turn a wrench on a bolt, if they are not ordained to do it. Get shot for seeing the wrong things and turning a 10k year old rhino on and off, is considered a religious event . And somehow the same people who are not okey, with non marines using Land Raiders or the Church having non mercenary regiments as their fighting force, are okey with gene modifications of a projects done by the Emperor himself.

Plus there is the rest of the stuff like making planets being uneaten by nids in a couple of years etc.


Not all conflict needs to be out and out civil war. Also the actual recent novels from BL do seem to be setting up for increasing friction between Guilliman and his progressives vs. the more status quo or reactionary Imperials, especially as Guilliman starts changing or bending the rules in the name of expediency or practicality. It's more of a shadow war.

The reactionaries for example destroy a Retribution class battleship, the sister ship of the one Guilliman was on, by arranging the timetable for a plasma engine test to occur for an engine, and sabotaging a precise location to disable the magnetic containment fields of the exhaust, resulting in a jet of plasma jetting into a half-full fuel store, which had the right mix for a detonation to then knock off a reactor regulator leading to the reactor detonating. This then also detonated the warp engines which were undergoing a conveniently rearranged testing, with the resulting final explosion destroying the battleship, 6 other ships, heavy damage to 17 others, and damage to orbital facilities.

One has to remember that Guilliman is not just an action superhero kind of figure that one can easily rebel against. As a Primarch there is a religious aura associated with him, like that associated with an archangel. In an Imperium structured around revering the Emperor and people that have come into contact with the Emperor, what cultural and psychological barriers are there against outright rebellion or violence against an individual that has a claim to being a son of the Emperor and who has been given permission by the Custodes to wield the Emperor's sword? It's not just about fear of him being able to kill you, but that in opposing Guilliman you might be opposing the Emperor, and that could mean bad things for your soul. The average Imperial would care more about that.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:07:15


Post by: Void__Dragon


 GoldenHorde wrote:

Got it. Authors not allowed agency. Have to write to tick boxes of representation agenda.
Get angry at people who see this as a cultural stifle cult


Do you mindlessly consume media without lending a critical eye to any of it concerning how it could be improved?

Have you never watched a movie or read a book and came out thinking that there were problems with it that could be addressed? Never had an issue with 40k's lore that you'd prefer they changed?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:11:48


Post by: GoldenHorde


Karol wrote:
 Formosa wrote:

Because its going that way it "Seems", for example the new Plague war book has a marines commenting on the fact the primaris are more progressive than their older marine brothers when it comes to new technology and tactics, then throw in the deus ex machina of mary sue cawl and the resurgence of new (not re discovered) tech for the space marines and imperium at large, it "seems" like its not longer teetering on the edge but having a massive resurgence.

This is purely down to GW mishandling as usual though, Chaos being the big bad but always losing and having a joke of a codex really does not help either, they need to hand some permanent and severe defeats to the imperium, kill of Dante, Calgar or some other major characters or a major world like Fenris, give the bad guys some damned teeth


That is what I am saying, it is not a lore progression, but more the fact that someone at GW wanted to reset the setting for 8th, found Cawl , a character that did not exist before, to be a great to be a great vessal for it, and here we are now with the ideas. If GW went with Cawl and primaris the way it should have went and according to how the setting works, there would be a gigantic civil war spanning all branches of imperial society. I have no idea what the writers were thinking writing the 8th ed and later lore the way they did. It is a world where people can't turn a wrench on a bolt, if they are not ordained to do it. Get shot for seeing the wrong things and turning a 10k year old rhino on and off, is considered a religious event . And somehow the same people who are not okey, with non marines using Land Raiders or the Church having non mercenary regiments as their fighting force, are okey with gene modifications of a projects done by the Emperor himself.

Plus there is the rest of the stuff like making planets being uneaten by nids in a couple of years etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 GoldenHorde wrote:


Because the Inherent racism in the title we'll ignore because its fun to blame "whites" and its impossible for non-'whites' to actually fit the paradigm. Right?

It is racist. Totally. The lack of self awareness is astounding.
History will not look kindly on this nonsense."whitey" is racist asf.


But there are no "whites" in w40k. Same way we don't have minoan bull worshipers or ancient proto egyptians today.


Yes because the ironically self unaware racistly titled trope model doesn't make any sense in 40k. It only makes sense to those looking for a problem that doesn't exist, those who misrepresent a clear homage and nod to the steppe warriors, same crowd who doesn't have any clue that light/white/pale/fair call it what have you skin IS A THING for mongols, turkics, steppe warriors in general, and their ignorance of that and subsequent false outrage is actually kind of funny


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:21:03


Post by: Karol


This goes way beyond my understanding of english I have to say. Do people really think that all the great khans and kaggans were 100% one race, and there for should look as Terry Prachet said it "look like a peasent of a given folk" ? Because in case of nomadic nations like Turks, Tatars, Mongols etc "racial" purity was never a thing.

And trying to transfer things that never existed on a fictional scifi setting just makes my head hurt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iracundus 799882 11182532 wrote:Not all conflict needs to be out and out civil war. Also the actual recent novels from BL do seem to be setting up for increasing friction between Guilliman and his progressives vs. the more status quo or reactionary Imperials, especially as Guilliman starts changing or bending the rules in the name of expediency or practicality. It's more of a shadow war.



In an authoritarian sociaty there is no other way. The state or the organisation in power, can not accept the existsance of disonance, because the very existance of a different point of view proves to the society that the goverment is both weak and probably wrong. Shadow wars happen between two separate entities, like lets say cold war or western/easter catholic conflicts. They never happen inside one organisation. The moment a bishop, western or eastern, starts having new ideas, the rest are going to gang up on him. And being and old leader returning ends always in assasination. And this one the writers of the new lore actually did show. So we can say that they are not always divorced from how sociaties work.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:43:40


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

Got it. Authors not allowed agency. Have to write to tick boxes of representation agenda.
Get angry at people who see this as a cultural stifle cult


Do you mindlessly consume media without lending a critical eye to any of it concerning how it could be improved?

Have you never watched a movie or read a book and came out thinking that there were problems with it that could be addressed? Never had an issue with 40k's lore that you'd prefer they changed?


Just because I respect an artist's freedom of expression does not mean I am a mindless consumer of media. Ridiculous and insulting argument.

Someone wrote something bad, or had something in it that I didn't personally like.....boo hoo....it's not my duty to give a crap to tell that artist how to do their job. That is arrogant and narcissistic asf

What is the point. THe die is cast....they already produced it?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:50:54


Post by: Jidmah


To add something to this (IMO) very overblown topic:

In my eyes Space Marines - just like orks - have never really been male of female. They were designed to create the most strength, withhold the most punishment, have the best reflexes. The reason they ended up looking male is very likely just out of scientific pragmatism.

As for "women have no way to represent themselves on the tabletop" - I have never played against anyone who created a miniature of themselves, but sure. However, your list is suspiciously short. AM, Inquisitors and Assassin all have numerous female models and characters in the lore, Imperial Knights have both male and female pilots and their houses do not discriminate between gender for any office, there have been tons of female princeps piloting titans, and if you fancy BFG you have females in every position of the navy, too. Since PA it's even possible to run sisters of silence as part of your custodes army again. As for xenos, the tau supreme commander is a woman and you have to do the job that is assigned to your caste irrespective of your genders.
So inside the imperium, a woman can be anything up to a high lord of terra except a space marine, which is not because it's boyz only club, but because the geneseed kills them. Which kind of makes sense when you look issues scientists are facing today when creating medicine for females. If cures for regular illnesses have vastly higher risks to kill women over men, it's not surprising a geneseed specifically engineered to reshape the entire body of a man (and even kills a good portion of them) fails catastrophically when implemented in a person with a different organic structure.
The only factions which make it hard for a woman to represent themselves are orks (brawling fungi), nids(bugs) and necrons(skeletons) - though my wife insists that the hive mind is indeed a female entity. Oddly enough, among the female players I've encountered, nids and orks are among the most popular armies, while IG and Tau are not very popular despite having plenty of female representation.

On the corset thing, I don't even... though I'm very sure though that there are quite a number of male eldar wearing corsets.

About Khan, I've always assumed him to be Mongolian, because of the name, the look of his models and because his sometimes smug, sometimes wise, sometimes bad-ass attitude fit very well with how Dschingis and Genghis Khan are usually portrayed in historical movies. And let's face it, that's probably where GW got their inspiration from anyways.

Or in other words - I don't think the setting is inherently racist or sexist. Everyone being equally worthless is a big theme behind 40k.
Some of the content? Definitely. It's almost stupid how every novel has a beautiful women describe in detail how super-hot an astartes is, but he doesn't care because 404. But that's a different topic.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:54:58


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Gert wrote:
@GoldenHorde Yeah that's not even close to true. "Your Dudes" and making a version of yourself in your army had been a pretty big thing for 40k since like always.

People are tyranids or murder bots? That's a very limited understanding of "your dudes". "Your dudes" isn't about self-insertion, it's about creating an army that's yours. Could be about fluff, could be about conversions, could be about paint. It is not about self-inserting yourself into your army.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 08:57:35


Post by: Void__Dragon


 GoldenHorde wrote:


Just because I respect an artist's freedom of expression does not mean I am a mindless consumer of media. Ridiculous and insulting argument.

Someone wrote something bad, or had something in it that I didn't personally like.....boo hoo....it's not my duty to give a crap to tell that artist how to do their job. That is arrogant and narcissistic asf

What is the point. THe die is cast....they already produced it?


Okay first of all I'm afraid you don't get to whine about people insulting you after all of the posts insulting others and making wild assumptions about other people in this thread. You simply have willingly forsaken your right to be perceived as a reasonable or respectable adult.

Second of all that was a very long-winded way to say "Yes, I do in fact mindlessly consume media without any critical thought" if you think the very act of criticizing or assessing art has no place within discussions about it.

Why are you even here my friend? What value could someone of this perspective possibly provide to any discussion about fictional media?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

People are tyranids or murder bots? That's a very limited understanding of "your dudes". "Your dudes" isn't about self-insertion, it's about creating an army that's yours. Could be about fluff, could be about conversions, could be about paint. It is not about self-inserting yourself into your army.


"Creating an army that's yours" does not preclude creating an army that is representative of, in this instance, your gender. It very easily could be about "self-inserting" some part of yourself into your army and to suggest otherwise is gakky gatekeeping my friend.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:02:35


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:


Just because I respect an artist's freedom of expression does not mean I am a mindless consumer of media. Ridiculous and insulting argument.

Someone wrote something bad, or had something in it that I didn't personally like.....boo hoo....it's not my duty to give a crap to tell that artist how to do their job. That is arrogant and narcissistic asf

What is the point. THe die is cast....they already produced it?


Okay first of all I'm afraid you don't get to whine about people insulting you after all of the posts insulting others and making wild assumptions about other people in this thread. You simply have willingly forsaken your right to be perceived as a reasonable or respectable adult.

Second of all that was a very long-winded way to say "Yes, I do in fact mindlessly consume media without any critical thought" if you think the very act of criticizing or assessing art has no place within discussions about it.

Why are you even here my friend? What value could someone of this perspective possibly provide to any discussion about fictional media?


Don't make a strawman.. There is a difference between being critical and discussing things (which is what we are already doing) and actually demanding authors do things and removing authors agency.

People are demanding X,Y or Z without regard to the artist, the art or the context of the artwork, instead bringing in their own outside AGENDA and ENFORCING IT upon the artwork.

That is not critique, that's censorship with an authoritarianist bent


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:07:44


Post by: Apple fox


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gert wrote:
@GoldenHorde Yeah that's not even close to true. "Your Dudes" and making a version of yourself in your army had been a pretty big thing for 40k since like always.

People are tyranids or murder bots? That's a very limited understanding of "your dudes". "Your dudes" isn't about self-insertion, it's about creating an army that's yours. Could be about fluff, could be about conversions, could be about paint. It is not about self-inserting yourself into your army.


It’s a bit of both, I have seen a few times with players making themselves, friends and others on the table top.
Making something your own and expression it can be putting a little off yourself into it, the same way that players can get into and make a tyranids swarm there own and express though them color and style of there own.
But there is a heavy part of that in 40k, making things your own. I would even think a lot of the alternatives models are about providing things that GW doesn’t.
It’s a setting and tone at the forefront of the marketing, and it’s just way harder if you want a specific style and have to spend more effort to get there to make it your army. And then face the fact that you now need to ask permission for tournaments and you face the issue off being unofficial.
Which is probably a whole issue off itself in this part of the hobby.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:08:48


Post by: Void__Dragon


 GoldenHorde wrote:


Don't make a strawman.. There is a difference between being critical and discussing things (which is what we are already doing) and actually demanding authors do things and removing authors agency.


How very interesting that you see at least one woman (who you assumed was a man and accused of having patronizing concern towards females because of your own sexist preconceptions) and one or two others saying things like "There should be more positive female representation in this game" and "The character based off of Genghis Khan appears white to me in this FW image and should look more ethnically Mongolian (I personally can't really comment on the veracity of this claim in particular)" and took it as them removing the author's agency. I didn't know that these posters had rifles to the heads of GW's writers and were forcing them to cater to their whims.

To me it just looked like a few posters giving their perspectives on how the setting could be improved in this way or that way and then one particular poster getting hysterical over it and insulting them over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

Don't make a strawman.. There is a difference between being critical and discussing things (which is what we are already doing) and actually demanding authors do things and removing authors agency.

People are demanding X,Y or Z without regard to the artist, the art or the context of the artwork, instead bringing in their own outside AGENDA and ENFORCING IT upon the artwork.

That is not critique, that's censorship with an authoritarianist bent


Stop editing your posts several times. Don't post again until the post is fully ready.

And word? Show me where anyone advocated for authors to be forced by legislature or government to write how said posters want.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:11:18


Post by: Gert


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

People are tyranids or murder bots? That's a very limited understanding of "your dudes". "Your dudes" isn't about self-insertion, it's about creating an army that's yours. Could be about fluff, could be about conversions, could be about paint. It is not about self-inserting yourself into your army.

You didn't read what I wrote.
"Your Dudes" and SI Characters are two separate things and I specified them as separate in my but they are very much connected concepts. My Deathwatch for example are all "My Dudes" in that I have given them all names and small amounts of background. However, I also have myself and my hobby group as units/models reflecting our Deathwatch RPG Characters which is very much a case of SI. Many people choose to make their army leaders reflections of themselves in model form. I'm not claiming that individuals are Tyranids or Necrons, it's disingenuous to suggest I am. What I am saying is that in many instances hobbyists, especially more narrative driven ones, will place a fictional version of themselves at the head of their army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I didn't know that these posters had rifles to the heads of GW's writers and were forcing them to cater to their whims.

We've been rumbled lads.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:19:07


Post by: Arachnofiend


Worth remembering that authorial intent is at best a polite suggestion when dealing with a corporate-owned intellectual property. The vision of any author is going to get a lot of meddling from people who are not artists of any kind before you or I ever see their work.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:20:55


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Gert wrote:
I'm not claiming that individuals are Tyranids or Necrons, it's disingenuous to suggest I am.

My apologies, I was not clear. I meant to query how one can self-insert into a Tyranid and Necrons army when they are so darned alien (well, 3rd edition Necrons at least. Ward necrons are more human than alien). It seems to run contrary to the idea of "your dudes" being primarily a self-insertion mechanism.

 Gert wrote:

What I am saying is that in many instances hobbyists, especially more narrative driven ones, will place a fictional version of themselves at the head of their army.

Curious, I must be an exception then. As well as most other players I've met.
Then again, I haven't run into many narrative types.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:24:37


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:


Don't make a strawman.. There is a difference between being critical and discussing things (which is what we are already doing) and actually demanding authors do things and removing authors agency.


How very interesting that you see at least one woman (who you assumed was a man and accused of having patronizing concern towards females because of your own sexist preconceptions) and one or two others saying things like "There should be more positive female representation in this game" and "The character based off of Genghis Khan appears white to me in this FW image and should look more ethnically Mongolian (I personally can't really comment on the veracity of this claim in particular)" and took it as them removing the author's agency. I didn't know that these posters had rifles to the heads of GW's writers and were forcing them to cater to their whims.


A female patronising females is a thng. Happens all the time. I called it out, because in my opinion it was patronising to other women as a whole. I don't care if you think that's an illegal move or sexist. It is not. Feel free to disagree.



Stop editing your posts several times. Don't post again until the post is fully ready.
And word? Show me where anyone advocated for authors to be forced by legislature or government to write how said posters want.


I guess you think being authoritarian only comes from the government. Maybe confusing the meaning of the word Authoritarian with Authoritarian government?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:28:08


Post by: Void__Dragon


 GoldenHorde wrote:

A female patronising females is a thng. Happens all the time. I called it out, because in my opinion it was patronising to other women as a whole. I don't care if you think that's an illegal move or sexist. It is not. Feel free to disagree.


You can lie to yourself my friend, but you can't lie to me. That is not what you were saying.


I guess you think being authoritarian only comes from the government lol


authoritarian adjective
au·​thor·​i·​tar·​i·​an | \ ȯ-ˌthȯr-ə-ˈter-ē-ən , ə-, -ˌthär- \
Definition of authoritarian
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
had authoritarian parents
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
an authoritarian regime

Cite the authority these posters advocated blind submission towards.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:31:59


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

A female patronising females is a thng. Happens all the time. I called it out, because in my opinion it was patronising to other women as a whole. I don't care if you think that's an illegal move or sexist. It is not. Feel free to disagree.


You can lie to yourself my friend, but you can't lie to me. That is not what you were saying.




We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:33:48


Post by: Apple fox


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Gert wrote:

What I am saying is that in many instances hobbyists, especially more narrative driven ones, will place a fictional version of themselves at the head of their army.

Curious, I must be an exception then. As well as most other players I've met.
Then again, I haven't run into many narrative types.


A fictional version of ones self doesn’t have to be a one to one representation. It’s fantasy, so you can make a characterthats yourself if you where said thing.
D&D players makes characters based on themselves all the time, even if they are not elves tieflings and dragon borne.
Just as representation doesn’t have to be human to be important or good.
Necrons are a strange thing to be gendered so much, and yet GW did. The representation there I think is way important, and I think it would be awesome to see more off it.
Monsters as well have this issue, it’s ether male or not is fairly common. Which I think has actually been odd and and modern thing.
Lots of older myths and legends have more equal representation.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:34:14


Post by: Gert


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
My apologies, I was not clear. I meant to query how one can self-insert into a Tyranid and Necrons army when they are so darned alien (well, 3rd edition Necrons at least. Ward necrons are more human than alien). It seems to run contrary to the idea of "your dudes" being primarily a self-insertion mechanism.

Nid's are the exception to the rule. Every other faction has enough character and sentience that SI is possible. Obviously, while a GSC Patriarch might not be the best choice a Magus or Primus would be fine as they still retain free will (or at least the illusion of it).
I apologise if that reply came across as aggressive, the whole "but Nid's and Crons can't SI, checkmate" happens a bit too much for my liking and it's usually someone trying to be deliberately irritating.

Curious, I must be an exception then. As well as most other players I've met.
Then again, I haven't run into many narrative types.

I used to see it a lot more in the past but not so much nowadays.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:37:16


Post by: Iracundus


Karol wrote:

In an authoritarian sociaty there is no other way. The state or the organisation in power, can not accept the existsance of disonance, because the very existance of a different point of view proves to the society that the goverment is both weak and probably wrong. Shadow wars happen between two separate entities, like lets say cold war or western/easter catholic conflicts. They never happen inside one organisation. The moment a bishop, western or eastern, starts having new ideas, the rest are going to gang up on him. And being and old leader returning ends always in assasination. And this one the writers of the new lore actually did show. So we can say that they are not always divorced from how sociaties work.


That's just plain incorrect and wrong. There are plenty of shadow wars that happen within a single organization. We have plenty of historical dynastic intrigues, all happening within the same government. In more modern times there are still such conflicts within authoritarian parties such as for example within the Chinese Communist Party or within North Korea. The public only sees the final effects when all the pieces fall into place and one side finally loses, when major members of the losing side or clique are taken to trial and then executed, placed under house arrest, or have to flee to exile. All the while they present a seemingly united polite front for outside observers, because it would not look good for the organization to be seen at war with itself.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:41:34


Post by: BrianDavion


Iracundus wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


except that the Khan's skin colour is beside the point.

First of all, ALL of the Primarchs are "Strangers from outside who are better then the natives are at their own culture" every single fuckine one of them.

And they're not better because they're white. Skin colour is completely irrelevant here, and everyone knows it. they're better because they're geneticly engineered supermen.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:45:56


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Gert wrote:

Curious, I must be an exception then. As well as most other players I've met.
Then again, I haven't run into many narrative types.

I used to see it a lot more in the past but not so much nowadays.

Oh perhaps. Rogue Trader and 2nd edition were more akin to RPGs, weren't they? I started in the tail end of 3rd edition and SI army leaders were not a thing in my area. I do vaguely recall seeing some custom army fluff though. I do certainly remember seeing conversions, but I don't think they had much to do with their owner's inner nature.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:46:16


Post by: GoldenHorde


BrianDavion wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


except that the Khan's skin colour is beside the point.

First of all, ALL of the Primarchs are "Strangers from outside who are better then the natives are at their own culture" every single fuckine one of them.

And they're not better because they're white. Skin colour is completely irrelevant here, and everyone knows it. they're better because they're geneticly engineered supermen.


They don't care that it is irrelevant, they make it a melodrama no matter what ironically its kind of an complicated unaware racist hyper skin colour obsessed behaviour in itself.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:50:20


Post by: Karol


 GoldenHorde wrote:


Just because I respect an artist's freedom of expression does not mean I am a mindless consumer of media. Ridiculous and insulting argument.

Someone wrote something bad, or had something in it that I didn't personally like.....boo hoo....it's not my duty to give a crap to tell that artist how to do their job. That is arrogant and narcissistic asf

What is the point. THe die is cast....they already produced it?

Well they can do their job bad. Effort is not the same as results. And the end game is always more important, then what ever someone worked hard, or not, on something. And I get it if the stuff the artists did was free. If someone writes a fanfiction or does an art I don't like, it doesn't matter, they can do what ever they want with their time. The problems start, when I pay for something or when something is created to be sold. The job of lets say a movie, is to generate income, boost sales of toys and merch , in a way it is often secondary how the movie is. But if the movie or other art in question impacts the sales in a negative way. And I would say that making buying customers unhappy is that. Then both the art and the artists have a problem. And it is what it is, is very strange way of thinking. At least to my people. We were being convinced for a long time that the world is what it is, and that we should just switch our culture, religion, languge etc to different ones. Someone how it didn't work that well. And I think that people around the world are similar.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:51:49


Post by: Apple fox


BrianDavion wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


except that the Khan's skin colour is beside the point.

First of all, ALL of the Primarchs are "Strangers from outside who are better then the natives are at their own culture" every single fuckine one of them.

And they're not better because they're white. Skin colour is completely irrelevant here, and everyone knows it. they're better because they're geneticly engineered supermen.


I think that trope linked is specifically about that.

It’s also a case of Tone within the setting coming at odds to the tone outside.
Within the setting it makes sense, and even can push the ideas of what the primarchs are.
Outside looking in, and this is where GW is probably focused on in modernisation, that it’s a tired story trope that a lot of people have seen before.
And with other culture issues, It doesn’t really hold anything unique or interesting on its own. Considering it’s a visual medium, models first, art and then the written books coming at the end. It is of concern to GW when so much of it was written first in a time where a lot of people show little concern to the issues it may present.
It may have even better to try and tackle it head on in the setting to make people know that GW is trying to do it right and well.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 09:58:06


Post by: Karol


Iracundus 799882 11182609 wrote:

That's just plain incorrect and wrong. There are plenty of shadow wars that happen within a single organization. We have plenty of historical dynastic intrigues, all happening within the same government. In more modern times there are still such conflicts within authoritarian parties such as for example within the Chinese Communist Party or within North Korea. The public only sees the final effects when all the pieces fall into place and one side finally loses, when major members of the losing side or clique are taken to trial and then executed, placed under house arrest, or have to flee to exile. All the while they present a seemingly united polite front for outside observers, because it would not look good for the organization to be seen at war with itself.

A dynasty is not an organisation. And even in case of those the end result of everyone conflict in those is a purge. The last kim dies, his son takes over, one of the first thing he does is order the execution of his uncle and imprisoment of his aunt. Communists parties are well known for their purges, and there was nothing shadow or hidden about it. In my own country we had one in 1949, then another one in 1956, then another one in 1968, then another one in 1971, then we actually did have a covert operation made by the military to place agents in Wien'a and secure private companies after communism fall. But all of that shadown stuff culminated in war state being declared in 1981. And we had it easy comparing to other places in the soviet block. All shadow wars in places like Hungary, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia would always end in either local purges or soviet or soviet block intervention.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:01:19


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


except that the Khan's skin colour is beside the point.

First of all, ALL of the Primarchs are "Strangers from outside who are better then the natives are at their own culture" every single fuckine one of them.

And they're not better because they're white. Skin colour is completely irrelevant here, and everyone knows it. they're better because they're geneticly engineered supermen.


I think that trope linked is specifically about that.

It’s also a case of Tone within the setting coming at odds to the tone outside.
Within the setting it makes sense, and even can push the ideas of what the primarchs are.
Outside looking in, and this is where GW is probably focused on in modernisation, that it’s a tired story trope that a lot of people have seen before.
And with other culture issues, It doesn’t really hold anything unique or interesting on its own. Considering it’s a visual medium, models first, art and then the written books coming at the end. It is of concern to GW when so much of it was written first in a time where a lot of people show little concern to the issues it may present.
It may have even better to try and tackle it head on in the setting to make people know that GW is trying to do it right and well.


I love how art is supposed to be subjective, but you're following a guidebook on tropes which is politically bent and tells you how to think and feel about fiction under its own lens


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:02:05


Post by: BrianDavion


Karol wrote:
Iracundus 799882 11182609 wrote:

That's just plain incorrect and wrong. There are plenty of shadow wars that happen within a single organization. We have plenty of historical dynastic intrigues, all happening within the same government. In more modern times there are still such conflicts within authoritarian parties such as for example within the Chinese Communist Party or within North Korea. The public only sees the final effects when all the pieces fall into place and one side finally loses, when major members of the losing side or clique are taken to trial and then executed, placed under house arrest, or have to flee to exile. All the while they present a seemingly united polite front for outside observers, because it would not look good for the organization to be seen at war with itself.

A dynasty is not an organisation. And even in case of those the end result of everyone conflict in those is a purge. The last kim dies, his son takes over, one of the first thing he does is order the execution of his uncle and imprisoment of his aunt. Communists parties are well known for their purges, and there was nothing shadow or hidden about it. In my own country we had one in 1949, then another one in 1956, then another one in 1968, then another one in 1971, then we actually did have a covert operation made by the military to place agents in Wien'a and secure private companies after communism fall. But all of that shadown stuff culminated in war state being declared in 1981. And we had it easy comparing to other places in the soviet block. All shadow wars in places like Hungary, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia would always end in either local purges or soviet or soviet block intervention.


Karol there are lots of shadow wars inside orginizations. just because they don't ALWAYS happen doesn't mean they don't happen.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:02:10


Post by: Iracundus


BrianDavion wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


except that the Khan's skin colour is beside the point.

First of all, ALL of the Primarchs are "Strangers from outside who are better then the natives are at their own culture" every single fuckine one of them.

And they're not better because they're white. Skin colour is completely irrelevant here, and everyone knows it. they're better because they're geneticly engineered supermen.


And all those supermen just happen to have Caucasian/European facial features. Sorry not buying that. As unconvincing as the person that claims "I'm not racist. It's just a coincidence I happen to only hire white Europeans all the time." At the very least it shows unconscious bias even if not active conscious racism.

Seriously this is warped. People arguing that portraying an Asian for Space Mongols is racist and instead have to go for showing a white Caucasian featured person as stand-in for Space Temujin. This is really the epitome of whitewashing logic right there: "Caucasians can be in other cultures' stories and tales in lead character roles but the opposite isn't allowed." I can already imagine what the reaction would be if say Guilliman hypothetically were shown as African or Asian in appearance.

This is arguing up is down, left is right. Go look at pale skinned Mongolians (go ahead and google for some, they are there) and they are still clearly Asian/Eurasian in facial features no matter the paleness of their skin. By "white" I am not referring to skin color as that FW sketch is also just in black and white. The facial features of that FW sketch are anything but Central Asian. Go look at Central Asian faces. Not all look classic East Asian. Some clearly incorporate other elements but they are still noticeably distinct from the kind of face seen in that FW sketch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Iracundus 799882 11182609 wrote:

That's just plain incorrect and wrong. There are plenty of shadow wars that happen within a single organization. We have plenty of historical dynastic intrigues, all happening within the same government. In more modern times there are still such conflicts within authoritarian parties such as for example within the Chinese Communist Party or within North Korea. The public only sees the final effects when all the pieces fall into place and one side finally loses, when major members of the losing side or clique are taken to trial and then executed, placed under house arrest, or have to flee to exile. All the while they present a seemingly united polite front for outside observers, because it would not look good for the organization to be seen at war with itself.


A dynasty is not an organisation. And even in case of those the end result of everyone conflict in those is a purge. The last kim dies, his son takes over, one of the first thing he does is order the execution of his uncle and imprisoment of his aunt. Communists parties are well known for their purges, and there was nothing shadow or hidden about it. In my own country we had one in 1949, then another one in 1956, then another one in 1968, then another one in 1971, then we actually did have a covert operation made by the military to place agents in Wien'a and secure private companies after communism fall. But all of that shadown stuff culminated in war state being declared in 1981. And we had it easy comparing to other places in the soviet block. All shadow wars in places like Hungary, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia would always end in either local purges or soviet or soviet block intervention.


Again so wrong. Clearly you know very little about dynasties, especially Imperial Chinese dynasties, where the Imperial family often also occupied part of the civil service structure. Intrigues could and did involve cliques of civil service officials and bureaucratic organs of government. Purges were only the final end result. When such conflicts and wars are ongoing with outcome undecided, the major players haven't yet been purged. Only losers get purged. The purge is the outcome after the war is over.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:08:31


Post by: GoldenHorde


Iracundus wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
When you take one of the defining tales of a cultural group, one of their greatest figures, essentially do a retell or expy of them and then whitewash their leader, sorry but that is racist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey


"Mighty Whitey" isn't racist ? lol OK


It is not. Calling out the racist trope of the white savior saving the natives or being better than the natives at their own culture is not racist.


except that the Khan's skin colour is beside the point.

First of all, ALL of the Primarchs are "Strangers from outside who are better then the natives are at their own culture" every single fuckine one of them.

And they're not better because they're white. Skin colour is completely irrelevant here, and everyone knows it. they're better because they're geneticly engineered supermen.


And all those supermen just happen to have Caucasian/European facial features. Sorry not buying that. As unconvincing as the person that claims "I'm not racist. It's just a coincidence I happen to only hire white Europeans all the time."

Seriously this is warped. People arguing that portraying an Asian for Space Mongols is racist and instead have to go for showing a white Caucasian featured person as stand-in for Space Temujin. This is really the epitome of whitewashing logic right there: "Caucasians can be in other cultures' stories and tales in lead character roles but the opposite isn't allowed." I can already imagine what the reaction would be if say Guilliman hypothetically were shown as African or Asian in appearance.

This is arguing up is down, left is right. Go look at pale skinned Mongolians (go ahead and google for some, they are there) and they are still clearly Asian/Eurasian in facial features no matter the paleness of their skin. By "white" I am not referring to skin color as that FW sketch is also just in black and white. The facial features of that FW sketch are anything but Central Asian. Go look at Central Asian faces. Not all look classic East Asian. Some clearly incorporate other elements but they are still noticeably distinct from the kind of face seen in that FW sketch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Iracundus 799882 11182609 wrote:

That's just plain incorrect and wrong. There are plenty of shadow wars that happen within a single organization. We have plenty of historical dynastic intrigues, all happening within the same government. In more modern times there are still such conflicts within authoritarian parties such as for example within the Chinese Communist Party or within North Korea. The public only sees the final effects when all the pieces fall into place and one side finally loses, when major members of the losing side or clique are taken to trial and then executed, placed under house arrest, or have to flee to exile. All the while they present a seemingly united polite front for outside observers, because it would not look good for the organization to be seen at war with itself.


A dynasty is not an organisation. And even in case of those the end result of everyone conflict in those is a purge. The last kim dies, his son takes over, one of the first thing he does is order the execution of his uncle and imprisoment of his aunt. Communists parties are well known for their purges, and there was nothing shadow or hidden about it. In my own country we had one in 1949, then another one in 1956, then another one in 1968, then another one in 1971, then we actually did have a covert operation made by the military to place agents in Wien'a and secure private companies after communism fall. But all of that shadown stuff culminated in war state being declared in 1981. And we had it easy comparing to other places in the soviet block. All shadow wars in places like Hungary, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia would always end in either local purges or soviet or soviet block intervention.


Again so wrong. Clearly you know very little about dynasties, especially Imperial Chinese dynasties, where the Imperial family often also occupied part of the civil service structure. Intrigues could and did involve cliques of civil service officials and bureaucratic organs of government. Purges as only the final end result. When such conflicts and wars are ongoing, the major players haven't yet been purged.


Jaghatai has rounded facial features in the art. on the novel he looks Turkic. You're just making stuff up


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:16:06


Post by: Gert


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Oh perhaps. Rogue Trader and 2nd edition were more akin to RPGs, weren't they? I started in the tail end of 3rd edition and SI army leaders were not a thing in my area. I do vaguely recall seeing some custom army fluff though. I do certainly remember seeing conversions, but I don't think they had much to do with their owner's inner nature.

It might have just been the fact my group ran a lot of narrative campaigns and people were encouraged to make up characters. TBH I always saw the leader of an army as my avatar of Warhammer. They might not have had my name but they all had my poor grasp of strategy and love for hitting things with big sticks.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:20:34


Post by: kirotheavenger


TBH I've never seen someone make a self-insert character for 40k.

I'm mildly surprised how we managed to get from "how grimdark should 40k be" to "white scars are racist". What a time to be alive.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:25:04


Post by: Karol


When a self build character is better then a special one, why would anyone not build him or her, and vice versa.

I don't think many people run GK GMs when Voldus and Draigo exist, at the point costs level they have right now or had in the past.

On the other hand taking a special character chaplain, instead of a regular or primaris one mounted on a bike or armed with a jet pack seems foolish. Unless he has a pack or bike option too.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:25:58


Post by: Galas


I have to say that Jagathai Sketch from FW is pretty bad. But most sketches of those line are extremely... not how those characters should look.

They are more like someone took famous people pictures and drawn over them. But other official art of Jagathai I have seen, he looks much more asian.

At least modern art of Horus puts him in more of a iranian looking guy than the Lex Luthor of old:

Spoiler:


What is sad, is that back in Dawn of War 2, when we had the first representation of an official black marine in the Blood Ravens Librarian character, most people tought it was something cool. But then a year ago when that Ultramarines novel cover was revealed with an black ultramarine, many people complained about pandering, or how that was impossible. At least for me that shows clearly that most of the online "noise" about Warhammer is from people that doesnt even engage in the hobby in a big way, and more from "fans" of the "fluff" where their "fluff" comes from Text to Speech Device and 1d4chan and the memes.

And , in the present tangent, anybody that says that GW did a good job of having good female representation in their universes (Or heck, female models that didnt looked like crap) until... 4-5 years ago, is deluding themselves. But is clear that GW has changed that trend in a stellar way, so why bother talking more about it? GW is doing more, kickass, badass female characters and miniatures, and still they are producing a horde of he-man proportionated male models so the fears of many people didn't come to pass. Win-win for everyone here.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:43:17


Post by: Iracundus


 Galas wrote:
I have to say that Jagathai Sketch from FW is pretty bad. But most sketches of those line are extremely... not how those characters should look.

They are more like someone took famous people pictures and drawn over them. But other official art of Jagathai I have seen, he looks much more asian.

At least modern art of Horus puts him in more of a iranian looking guy than the Lex Luthor of old:


How do you see that as more Iranian looking? I am genuinely curious as to me he still looks like big bald guy. Maybe not as thin in the face as a Lex Luthor but I am not seeing the Iranian bit.


What is sad, is that back in Dawn of War 2, when we had the first representation of an official black marine in the Blood Ravens Librarian character, most people tought it was something cool. But then a year ago when that Ultramarines novel cover was revealed with an black ultramarine, many people complained about pandering, or how that was impossible. At least for me that shows clearly that most of the online "noise" about Warhammer is from people that doesnt even engage in the hobby in a big way, and more from "fans" of the "fluff" where their "fluff" comes from Text to Speech Device and 1d4chan and the memes.


Do you mean the cover of the Avenging Son? Much earlier in this thread I made a post mentioning it and other more recent novel covers, as a possible example of tokenism. While certainly better than having no diversity whatsoever, it seems almost like a quota system for cover art of 1 (and only 1) woman major character, 1 (and only 1) non-white non-Caucasian major character, with Rites of Passage seemingly combining both into a dark skinned female major character. However, despite a description of their appearance or their gender and I think Rites mentioned one was either gay or trans, these details had no relevance to the plot and were not mentioned again. They were throwaway mentions. If those parts were cut out, the story would not change at all. From a writing point of view, if the author is making a point of mentioning these details, they should do something with them.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 10:54:59


Post by: Galas


I mean, I disagree with that. The notion that the colour of a skin of a character must be made relevant runs contrary to what I believe is normalization. I prefer the "This is a character with all the depth of a character that just happens to be X" specially in a context were his skin or gender or whatever has no relevance.

If we are writting a story about a black character in 1950's america yeah, of course it should be relevant but in 40k?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:03:48


Post by: Iracundus


 Galas wrote:
I mean, I disagree with that. The notion that the colour of a skin of a character must be made relevant runs contrary to what I believe is normalization. I prefer the "This is a character with all the depth of a character that just happens to be X" specially in a context were his skin or gender or whatever has no relevance.

If we are writting a story about a black character in 1950's america yeah, of course it should be relevant but in 40k?


It's more the principle of not having extraneous detail or things unless it serves a purpose of some form to the story or narrative, especially if the author is making a special point of drawing the reader's attention to it. It's the Chekhov's gun principle:

"Chekhov’s gun is a dramatic principle that suggests that details within a story or play will contribute to the overall narrative. This encourages writers to not make false promises in their narrative by including extemporaneous details that will not ultimately pay off by the last act, chapter, or conclusion."

The GW authors made a special point of devoting text to describing the character's skin color, their facial features, or their sexuality. Ok, then they just leave it to dangle. Does it really help flesh out the character? Only at a superficial level such as that SM character has dark skin (despite coming from a hive city! That was one question I would have liked at least mentioned or addressed, given that 40K is so far in the future that whole populations have mutated from baseline human norm to be Ogryns or Halflings. I see most hive city dwellers as the pasty or translucent unnatural white of Delaques, like the phenomena seen in cave fish). These details are never elaborated upon to further expand understanding of the character and never come back to be of relevance to the main plot.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:04:53


Post by: Galas


I don't think thats applicable to just physical characteristics of a character. And specially because Chekhov's gun principle is not a narrative law.

You can point out a character lacks and eye and have him not tell why or where it happened. Is just a descriptor of his physical appareance.

If the fact a character is white doesn't imply anything, why it should imply some kind of narrative conclusion that other is black, asian, female, or whatever.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:15:54


Post by: Karol


Wasn't the problem with the Avenging Son cover not who was on it, but the fact that for some reason the marine that was biggest on the cover somehow ended up a rather minor character in the book? Same way characters in other movies like Star Wars or Justice League were big on the posters and trailers, but had side minor role in the actual movies.

Ultramar is a regular planet with people spread on all parts of it, it would make no sense for its population to have the same skin colour anyway.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:17:10


Post by: Gert


No, it was purely because the Marine was black. Chuds tried to argue Space Marines can't be black with all sorts of nonsense, including "but gene-seed turns a SM into their Primarch" which was never true to begin with let alone in any context regarding race or ethnicity.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:18:32


Post by: kirotheavenger


The argument for the Space Marine was that since he was a space marine, his geneseed should have mutated him to resemble the primarch more, thus taking his skin colour with it.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:19:38


Post by: Iracundus


 Galas wrote:
I don't think thats applicable to just physical characteristics of a character. And specially because Chekhov's gun principle is not a narrative law.

You can point out a character lacks and eye and have him not tell why or where it happened. Is just a descriptor of his physical appareance.

If the fact a character is white doesn't imply anything, why it should imply some kind of narrative conclusion that other is black, asian, female, or whatever.


I would point to a detail of the opposite, where the authors did adhere to Chekhov's Law for a SM Primaris character taken by Cawl shortly after the Heresy. The author made a point of exploring his memories and in particular his guilt associated with an action figure/doll which he snatched from his younger brother and never got a chance to return or apologize for. Now his brother is 10,000 years dead and gone. That little detail served a purpose.

Making a special point of pointing out their skin color or their features or their sexuality comes off as tokenism or quota filling especially when nothing is ever done with it, for any of the characters. Why make a big deal of it then? Normalize it and don't have to draw special attention to it.

Karol wrote:
Wasn't the problem with the Avenging Son cover not who was on it, but the fact that for some reason the marine that was biggest on the cover somehow ended up a rather minor character in the book? Same way characters in other movies like Star Wars or Justice League were big on the posters and trailers, but had side minor role in the actual movies.


If you mean the stormtrooper defector Finn, then I think his actor complained of that treatment of his character over the course of the series. I personally reserve judgment on the particular SM character, Areios, as I don't know whether he was just a throwaway or will appear again in the future. The Dawn of Fire novels seem to be more planned out (for GW anyway) as the later books make references to the earlier book events. So it could be there are recurring characters.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:20:44


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 kirotheavenger wrote:
The argument for the Space Marine was that since he was a space marine, his geneseed should have mutated him to resemble the primarch more, thus taking his skin colour with it.

Which doesn't make sense either, because a Marine's skin colour is determined by ambient radiation, not by the Primarch.
Speaking of which, would a Marine have green skin if the ambient radiation is the right sort? You'd think that a living weapon would have a complete range of skin pigmentation in order to deal with all possible threats.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:22:18


Post by: Karol


Iracundus 799882 11182630 wrote:

Again so wrong. Clearly you know very little about dynasties, especially Imperial Chinese dynasties, where the Imperial family often also occupied part of the civil service structure. Intrigues could and did involve cliques of civil service officials and bureaucratic organs of government. Purges were only the final end result. When such conflicts and wars are ongoing with outcome undecided, the major players haven't yet been purged. Only losers get purged. The purge is the outcome after the war is over.


All fights, especially around the time of transition of power would end up in a civil war. I don't know maybe we have a different definition of what a shadow war is here. In china all transition of power seems to run along the line. Dude rises to power through a coup d'état or eunuchs plot. Starts a dynasty, and as soon as he dies, often even before that, his son start regular wars, often this ends up with someone not from the family on the throne. The partition of the country happens and China or Japan or Korea or India gets another few decades of civil war.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:22:40


Post by: kirotheavenger


Books describe the characters within all the damned time, eye colour, hair colour, gender, etc. There's nothing weird about describing the appearance in a book.

What would be weird is derailing the entire book to go on some tangent about being black. Which be entirely contrary to the stated objective of improving balance.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:24:16


Post by: Karol


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Which doesn't make sense either, because a Marine's skin colour is determined by ambient radiation, not by the Primarch.
Speaking of which, would a Marine have green skin if the ambient radiation is the right sort? You'd think that a living weapon would have a complete range of skin pigmentation in order to deal with all possible threats.


yes. although I think the chance of something more close to shades of purple would be more probable. To get green you would need to get a very specific atmosphere, to filter out specific radiation waves. Technically any colour of the rainbow should be possible.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:26:15


Post by: BrianDavion


Iracundus wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I don't think thats applicable to just physical characteristics of a character. And specially because Chekhov's gun principle is not a narrative law.

You can point out a character lacks and eye and have him not tell why or where it happened. Is just a descriptor of his physical appareance.

If the fact a character is white doesn't imply anything, why it should imply some kind of narrative conclusion that other is black, asian, female, or whatever.


I would point to a detail of the opposite, where the authors did adhere to Chekhov's Law for a SM Primaris character taken by Cawl shortly after the Heresy. The author made a point of exploring his memories and in particular his guilt associated with an action figure/doll which he snatched from his younger brother and never got a chance to return or apologize for. Now his brother is 10,000 years dead and gone. That little detail served a purpose.

Making a special point of pointing out their skin color or their features or their sexuality comes off as tokenism or quota filling especially when nothing is ever done with it, for any of the characters. Why make a big deal of it then? Normalize it and don't have to draw special attention to it.


except it is a special point? most of the time in a novel when you encounter a character the character is described. that doesn't mean anything is important about it. now I agree it can come off as tokenesque if it's made a big deal of, like every line is like "sweat beaded down his dark skinned brow..... his dark skin flushed" etc where it hits you over the head with "this char has dark skin" repeatedly. But if the only thing that came of it was some cover art and a single line when first introducing the character that "sergant tim was tall, even for a space marine, with short curly hair, dark skin and a proud nose, he was a striking figure" that doesn't come off as anything other then a character description.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:28:21


Post by: Karol


Iracundus 799882 11182691 wrote:If you mean the stormtrooper defector Finn, then I think his actor complained of that treatment of his character over the course of the series. I personally reserve judgment on the particular SM character, Areios, as I don't know whether he was just a throwaway or will appear again in the future. The Dawn of Fire novels seem to be more planned out (for GW anyway) as the later books make references to the earlier book events. So it could be there are recurring characters.


I don't know but RG succesors being albinos or salamanders being jetblack and tatooted in a such a way that only other people that can see the infrared spectrum can see it, seems like an important part of what the marines are. And if suddenly there were succesors of either , created or not created, by Cawl who lack those elements it would make sense to ask the question why. Would be like having space wolfs or space wolf succesors without canis gene helix changes. It would require explanation, and we even have one for that, which explains everything very nice.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:29:31


Post by: Iracundus


Karol wrote:
Iracundus 799882 11182630 wrote:

Again so wrong. Clearly you know very little about dynasties, especially Imperial Chinese dynasties, where the Imperial family often also occupied part of the civil service structure. Intrigues could and did involve cliques of civil service officials and bureaucratic organs of government. Purges were only the final end result. When such conflicts and wars are ongoing with outcome undecided, the major players haven't yet been purged. Only losers get purged. The purge is the outcome after the war is over.


All fights, especially around the time of transition of power would end up in a civil war. I don't know maybe we have a different definition of what a shadow war is here. In china all transition of power seems to run along the line. Dude rises to power through a coup d'état or eunuchs plot. Starts a dynasty, and as soon as he dies, often even before that, his son start regular wars, often this ends up with someone not from the family on the throne. The partition of the country happens and China or Japan or Korea or India gets another few decades of civil war.


OMG that is just so wrong and inaccurate. Please pick up a Chinese history textbook, a really detailed one please, and you would see that is a completely wrong generalization of the nature of the internal government politics within Imperial China except in some cases. In particular you would need to go look at the the kinds of internal politics and shadow wars that occurred within the middle of dynasties (i.e. not at the founding or the fall) to see the kind of stuff being talked about. To outward appearances, the government remains united even as the internal bureaus fight among themselves or align themselves along power lines and cliques. I hope you are not taking "fight" or "shadow war" to literally mean armies moving around or people literally always fighting with physical weapons. Sure, that could happen sometimes but that was often only one aspect of the conflicts. The fights were often as much bureaucratic and political conflicts with words, with the physical violence when things boiled over or one side could force a conclusion. As an example, the Ming dynasty operated 4 separate intelligence/secret agencies simultaneously. A modern thriller novel about conflict between different American intelligence agencies like the FBI and CIA could be transposed to the Ming dynasty, yet on the surface the American government would never admit to outright conflict between its intelligence agencies.

BrianDavion wrote:

except it is a special point? most of the time in a novel when you encounter a character the character is described. that doesn't mean anything is important about it. now I agree it can come off as tokenesque if it's made a big deal of, like every line is like "sweat beaded down his dark skinned brow..... his dark skin flushed" etc where it hits you over the head with "this char has dark skin" repeatedly.


They did do that. Not literally back to back lines but often enough for me to notice they made a special point of mentioning the skin was dark.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:33:52


Post by: Gert


Karol wrote:

I don't know but RG succesors being albinos or salamanders being jetblack and tatooted in a such a way that only other people that can see the infrared spectrum can see it, seems like an important part of what the marines are. And if suddenly there were succesors of either , created or not created, by Cawl who lack those elements it would make sense to ask the question why. Would be like having space wolfs or space wolf succesors without canis gene helix changes. It would require explanation, and we even have one for that, which explains everything very nice.

The thing with gene-seed is that it can mutate depending on a number of factors. A Salamanders Successor Chapter might not ever develop the coal skin or fire eyes because it was taken from a more pure batch kept on Mars rather than a batch from Nocture where the radiation mutates it. The Carcharadons mutate in a similar way to the Raven Guard (it's very very close to the truth they are the same gene-line) but their skin gets pale but apparently feels similar to sharkskin as well. It's not hard and fast that every Successor gets the traits of the Founder.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:49:57


Post by: Karol


OMG that is just so wrong and inaccurate. Please pick up a Chinese history textbook, a detailed one please, and you would see that is a completely wrong generalization of the nature of the internal government politics within Imperial China except in some cases. In particular you would need to go look at the the kinds of internal politics and shadow wars that occurred within the middle of dynasties (i.e. not at the founding or the fall) to see the kind of stuff being talked about. To outward appearances, the government remains united even as the internal bureaus fight among themselves or align themselves along power lines and cliques. I hope you are not taking "fight" or "shadow war" to literally mean armies moving around or people literally always fighting with physical weapons. Sure, that could happen sometimes but that was often only one aspect of the conflicts.

Which one ?

And the middle dynasties were full of wars. Only mostly against peasents uprising. And durning those accidents happened, unwanted officers or officials were send to perform duties which were impossible to perform, which then ended with them being disgraced and down ranked or executed for failing. How was that anything "shadow" related. In general Chinas entire history is like that of France. Guys from the north come and loot and pillage the south. Some time passes, the goverment falls apart, new guys from the north come raid the south. what you describe as shadow "wars" is just regular working of any burocracy. That is every day life, not a war.


A Salamanders Successor Chapter might not ever develop the coal skin or fire eyes because it was taken from a more pure batch kept on Mars rather than a batch from Nocture where the radiation mutates it. The Carcharadons mutate in a similar way to the Raven Guard (it's very very close to the truth they are the same gene-line) but their skin gets pale but apparently feels similar to sharkskin as well.


There is a big difference, specially in time needed for such a mutation to happen. From skin to go from albino like, to albino like with additional futures. To jetblack skin, as a result of an infra red eye sight abilty, to be gone completly. For that to happen you need more then 10k years, and on top of that in case of primaris Cawl worked with the original gene seed, so jf anything the new batch of marines, should be closer to the ashen black salamanders from the legion times, then the results of 10k years of changes influanced by implantation in regular space marine of the salamander chapter.


They do do that. At least often enough for me to notice they make a special point of mentioning the skin is dark.

And being repeated somehow makes it bad? Folklore tales from my region for example are full of repetition of people hair colour for example. Some characters even have names like Goldenhair or Ravenhair. Female characters often have names like Fairface, as in one word for it, or Strong(as in survived many births with one word). It is a natural thing to do, to give a hero or character a description that gets repeated. Even holy texts do it too.
No one , well besides children eaten by bears, are interested that Elias had many traits including being bold, because he is always described as a prophet. Salomon is the Wise King etc


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 11:59:51


Post by: Gert


Karol wrote:
There is a big difference, specially in time needed for such a mutation to happen. From skin to go from albino like, to albino like with additional futures. To jetblack skin, as a result of an infra red eye sight abilty, to be gone completly. For that to happen you need more then 10k years, and on top of that in case of primaris Cawl worked with the original gene seed, so jf anything the new batch of marines, should be closer to the ashen black salamanders from the legion times, then the results of 10k years of changes influanced by implantation in regular space marine of the salamander chapter.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, it's a bit muddled.
A Salamander or Raven Guard will gain their fire eyes or pale complexion mutations in their lifetime and it starts as soon as the gene-seed is implanted. Also, there isn't actually any background that says all Salamanders must have coal-like skin, in fact, only a Salamander who has spent extensive time on Nocture will develop this to a serious degree. It just so happens that due to the nature of the Chapter's culture that most Salamanders will have the coal-skin but there is nothing that says the Terran-born members of the Legion had coal skin like their Nocturnian brothers.
So gene-seed sourced from Nocturne turns a Salamander's skin coal-like but a Successor could be made from stock that was cloned/created on Mars or Terra, thereby not receiving the mutation from the radiation of Nocturne.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 12:04:30


Post by: Iracundus


Karol wrote:
OMG that is just so wrong and inaccurate. Please pick up a Chinese history textbook, a detailed one please, and you would see that is a completely wrong generalization of the nature of the internal government politics within Imperial China except in some cases. In particular you would need to go look at the the kinds of internal politics and shadow wars that occurred within the middle of dynasties (i.e. not at the founding or the fall) to see the kind of stuff being talked about. To outward appearances, the government remains united even as the internal bureaus fight among themselves or align themselves along power lines and cliques. I hope you are not taking "fight" or "shadow war" to literally mean armies moving around or people literally always fighting with physical weapons. Sure, that could happen sometimes but that was often only one aspect of the conflicts.

Which one ?

And the middle dynasties were full of wars. Only mostly against peasents uprising. And durning those accidents happened, unwanted officers or officials were send to perform duties which were impossible to perform, which then ended with them being disgraced and down ranked or executed for failing. How was that anything "shadow" related. In general Chinas entire history is like that of France. Guys from the north come and loot and pillage the south. Some time passes, the goverment falls apart, new guys from the north come raid the south. what you describe as shadow "wars" is just regular working of any burocracy. That is every day life, not a war.



So you do just mean armies moving around and hitting people. That's a very simple and naive view of conflict.

Shadow wars are still wars and the whole point of "shadow" is in describing the fact these are conflicts that are more subtle and hidden from general view. Clearly you do not know enough of Chinese history to have a discussion because you are only discussing very broad simplistic and often inaccurate generalizations and stereotypes and once again you are just referring to actual wars not the kind of shadow wars that I and apparently other posters are referring to. The kind of wars fought within governments can be fought on many levels and they often were a matter of life and death for the losers. It is the same in 40K. Guilliman is in a shadow war with the reactionaries in the government and Inquisition. People are killed and things are blown up, while bureaucrats aid or hinder efforts. Meanwhile in official functions everyone is very polite and they all nod and smile and drink toasts, even while the struggle goes on beneath the surface. No purges of major players happen until they actually have lost, as some High Lords apparently already have.


And being repeated somehow makes it bad?


Yes, because as already said, and agreed to by BrianDavion, it comes off as tokenism.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 12:13:24


Post by: Karol


Well them explain to me what Sima Yi did to the Cao clan. Was that a war or a shadow war?
Where in the history of China or any other country to be exact, did an old ruler return and tried to bring back the old ways and found no military opposition? And there was nothing polite about the workings of courts in any dynasty in China, execution, forced castration, Family members supporting different wifes of the emperor or high ranking officials having outright mini civil wars against each other. The only place stuff is civil and polite is in chronicals. Specially in those writen post factum by the victors. Then everything they do is noble, they know that X was going to be bad and Y is going to be good. And of course , if they happen to sit on the throne thanks to a coup, they always find a nice and polite legitimisation for their power grab. It is never, I killed everyone else trying to get to throne, but always stuff of the ruler X knowing his sons would be bad rulers, asked me in secret that if they were to be a danger to the great nation of Z, I should take over.

So yeah in chronicals shadow wars and being polite happens very often. A good read too. Like reading about the siege of La Rochell in the 3 musketeers, instead of something more real like the reports send to cardinal and king.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 12:20:15


Post by: Iracundus


Karol wrote:
Well them explain to me what Sima Yi did to the Cao clan. Was that a war or a shadow war?
Where in the history of China or any other country to be exact, did an old ruler return and tried to bring back the old ways and found no military opposition? And there was nothing polite about the workings of courts in any dynasty in China, execution, forced castration, Family members supporting different wifes of the emperor or high ranking officials having outright mini civil wars against each other. The only place stuff is civil and polite is in chronicals. Specially in those writen post factum by the victors. Then everything they do is noble, they know that X was going to be bad and Y is going to be good. And of course , if they happen to sit on the throne thanks to a coup, they always find a nice and polite legitimisation for their power grab. It is never, I killed everyone else trying to get to throne, but always stuff of the ruler X knowing his sons would be bad rulers, asked me in secret that if they were to be a danger to the great nation of Z, I should take over.

So yeah in chronicals shadow wars and being polite happens very often. A good read too. Like reading about the siege of La Rochell in the 3 musketeers, instead of something more real like the reports send to cardinal and king.


Sima Yi didn't overthrow Cao. His sons did, and once again all you are doing is looking at end of dynasty events which is not what we are talking about. You don't seem to be talking about "shadow" at all, which makes then the discussion irrelevant and moot. You also only seem to focus on the final results. By the time someone is purged, castrated, or exiled, it's already over. Before then, yes things in court were polite. Court etiquette had to be adhered to. Failure to do so was socially and politically damaging, and could be fatal.

The key difference between Guilliman's return and any historical ruler is Guilliman is not human, not in the way the High Lords are or the other rulers of the Imperium are. Guilliman was revered as a demigod for thousands of years in the Imperium, then one day he actually got up and came back. No human ruler has done the equivalent. He is seen as a divine and a political figure, but he has the actual ability to back it up in a way that historical human rulers claiming divine right have not. The most cynical and power hungry of politicans might still be motivated to act but many Imperials with any modicum of religiousness (which would probably be most of them) would at least hesitate before openly acting against the Emperor's returned son. It wouldn't just be an act of political resistance or even rebellion. It would be sacrilege. That salience of religion as a motivator may be a concept that may be hard to grasp in today's less religiously inclined world where you will find few people being fervent believers in divine right of rulers.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 12:52:33


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Iracundus wrote:
The most cynical and power hungry of politicans might still be motivated to act but many Imperials with any modicum of religiousness (which would probably be most of them) would at least hesitate before openly acting against the Emperor's returned son. It wouldn't just be an act of political resistance or even rebellion. It would be sacrilege. That salience of religion as a motivator may be a concept that may be hard to grasp in today's less religiously inclined world where you will find few people being fervent believers in divine right of rulers.


Said religion is virulently xenophobic, though. It is also linked to an incredibly conservative religious view on technology in which progress and innovation are often regarded as sacrilege.

Guilliman was brought back by alien sorcery and new technology. Any religious member of the Imperium would likely consider him to be just as corrupted as the traitor primarchs, just from a different source.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 12:54:43


Post by: Gert


The Imperium doesn't know Guilliman was partially revived by Aeldari sorcery though. They were told he was revived due to Cawl and a miracle of the Emperor.
The Inquisition will know, Celestine will know and maybe some Ultramarines saw a weirdly dressed lady who TBH could have just been an Inquisitor for all they know.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:04:25


Post by: Iracundus


 Gert wrote:
The Imperium doesn't know Guilliman was partially revived by Aeldari sorcery though. They were told he was revived due to Cawl and a miracle of the Emperor.
The Inquisition will know, Celestine will know and maybe some Ultramarines saw a weirdly dressed lady who TBH could have just been an Inquisitor for all they know.


Knowledge doesn't travel widely in the Imperium. Also there is the fact the Custodes let him into the Emperor's throne room for an audience and let him walk out with the Emperor's sword. That implies the Emperor's approval. Similarly Celestine's apparent support and assistance in the whole resurrection would imply the Emperor's approval.

Now I'm not saying it's impossible for the average Imperial person to turn against Guilliman only that it is harder than some people seem to imagine, due to all the ideological and religious baggage. They may not understand or agree with his reforms but they might keep their head down rather than actually rebel or act against his efforts.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:05:49


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Gert wrote:
The Imperium doesn't know Guilliman was partially revived by Aeldari sorcery though. They were told he was revived due to Cawl and a miracle of the Emperor.
The Inquisition will know, Celestine will know and maybe some Ultramarines saw a weirdly dressed lady who TBH could have just been an Inquisitor for all they know.


If the Inquisition knows, the High Lords know. And the High Lords would not regard such a threat to their own power lightly.

Quite frankly, I think there should have been a civil war upon Guilliman's return. The power structures which had been established would not have had the effectively seamless transition that GW wrote. It would also have served to make the Imperium's situation even more dire.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:08:30


Post by: Iracundus


Disagree. I think the current shadow war is how it should go. Guilliman hasn't made any outright attempts to dismantle the Ecclesiarchy. Even Inquisition members are religious so it's not like the Inquisition as a whole is all anti-Guilliman. There are also the Recongregators within the Inquisition who I'm sure would see Guilliman's latest efforts as vindication of their ideology. Even the Amalathian faction which might be the most opposed to him may not oppose him to the point of wanting to kill him, again due to the aforementioned religious upbringing of virtually everyone in the Imperium. They may oppose in a lesser fashion, perhaps trying to rationalize it to themselves as trying to correct or guide (for his own good) the Primarch who is out of touch with how things are 10,000 years after he went into stasis.

Also it's not like Guilliman has actually made major reforms. He has been kept busy with his crusade. He makes plans then has to shelve them for later, a later that may never come, because there's always another new threat to be put down. He's killed off a few political opponents but he hasn't really overhauled the whole political structure.

I have compared him in the past to a torch, shedding light where he is, but then the shadows return when he goes. Guilliman is moving all around the Imperium and never really staying put in one location long enough to do more than superficial reforms. Maybe he leaves behind a few of his followers but I imagine they would run into a lot of bureaucratic inertia and stalling. It need not even be malicious but simply the result of the ossified bureaucracy.

Guilliman is not really playing to his strengths, which are more in administration and logistics. If he stayed put in one area, he could try to streamline and reform things to something more rational, but he is trying to save the Imperium and in trying to save everything he may end up not saving anything. That may even be the strategy of the Chaos gods. Keep Guilliman busy so he cannot accomplish anything. Some expendable mortal pawns, even a few permanently killed daemons might be a worthwhile price to pay for that. The only unforeseen thing in such a plan might be how Guilliman has apparently wounded Nurgle by burning a swathe of the Garden in the novel Godblight, since Chaos gods are basically one with their daemons and their realm.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:16:10


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Gert wrote:
The Imperium doesn't know Guilliman was partially revived by Aeldari sorcery though. They were told he was revived due to Cawl and a miracle of the Emperor.
The Inquisition will know, Celestine will know and maybe some Ultramarines saw a weirdly dressed lady who TBH could have just been an Inquisitor for all they know.


If the Inquisition knows, the High Lords know. And the High Lords would not regard such a threat to their own power lightly.

Quite frankly, I think there should have been a civil war upon Guilliman's return. The power structures which had been established would not have had the effectively seamless transition that GW wrote. It would also have served to make the Imperium's situation even more dire.


The second Watchers of the Throne book covers in quite good detail the High Lords reactions. A number of them indeed do not take it lightly, a lot of people die, they attempt a coup, and there is very nearly open conflict.

But it stays at a very top level because no one (on either side) wants to leave themselves too exposed or accused of being disloyal to the Emperor and Guilliman’s supporters eventually manage to manoeuvre a victory and purge their detractors.

It is a pretty good example of a very dangerous political shadow war.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:26:09


Post by: Gert


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If the Inquisition knows, the High Lords know. And the High Lords would not regard such a threat to their own power lightly.

Quite frankly, I think there should have been a civil war upon Guilliman's return. The power structures which had been established would not have had the effectively seamless transition that GW wrote. It would also have served to make the Imperium's situation even more dire.

Do the High Lords know all the secrets the Inquisition keeps? No, and the Inquisitorial Representative has no reason to tell them. Guilliman is good for the business of the Inquisition, if he wasn't then the Representative would have joined the Hexarchy. And there already was an attempt at civil war during the Hexarchy Crisis but it was put down because more of the High Lords saw the benefits of Guilliman than the detriments. Who is going to back the High Lords? The Astartes, famed for their independence and whom a huge chunk of are of Guillimans lineage? The Custodes who follow the word of the Emperor who said to follow Guilliman? How many Militarum Regiments or Navy Fleets are going to take direct action against one of the holy Primarchs returned? What about the people of the Imperium? The people who for generations have been told of the Emperor's holy Son's, one of which has now returned to save mankind. Will they take up arms against Guilliman?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:27:48


Post by: Iracundus


Lord Zarkov wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Gert wrote:
The Imperium doesn't know Guilliman was partially revived by Aeldari sorcery though. They were told he was revived due to Cawl and a miracle of the Emperor.
The Inquisition will know, Celestine will know and maybe some Ultramarines saw a weirdly dressed lady who TBH could have just been an Inquisitor for all they know.


If the Inquisition knows, the High Lords know. And the High Lords would not regard such a threat to their own power lightly.

Quite frankly, I think there should have been a civil war upon Guilliman's return. The power structures which had been established would not have had the effectively seamless transition that GW wrote. It would also have served to make the Imperium's situation even more dire.


The second Watchers of the Throne book covers in quite good detail the High Lords reactions. A number of them indeed do not take it lightly, a lot of people die, they attempt a coup, and there is very nearly open conflict.

But it stays at a very top level because no one (on either side) wants to leave themselves too exposed or accused of being disloyal to the Emperor and Guilliman’s supporters eventually manage to manoeuvre a victory and purge their detractors.

It is a pretty good example of a very dangerous political shadow war.


I anticipate personally the issue will be less specific individuals than the outcry from the population if Guilliman does try to undertake meaningful large scale reform. People who have been in departments for generations may find themselves destitute as their department gets abolished as superfluous or absorbed by another rival department. I see Guilliman's battle against the bureaucracy as the bigger struggle, albeit less exciting than bolter porn, and he may find himself wading in quicksand. He might make some initial progress but find it gets harder and then stall short of where he would like to go, unable to proceed further as the disruption might then imperil the war effort.

I must admit the whole return of Guilliman as handled and expanded upon in the novels, while not perfect, was better than I had initially feared when they did the whole resurrection. Cawl has been fleshed out a bit more too, though still waiting to see where they take his character.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:35:57


Post by: Gert


I think the biggest misconception about Guilliman's return is that the whole Imperium is now somehow fixed, which is so far from true. It's still split in half guys, you can't really be fixed if half your empire is behind a never-ending wall of hell-space.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:45:01


Post by: Iracundus


Also we see the seed of doubt sown in Guilliman's mind about whether the Emperor really is now a god. There is a little talk within Godblight between Guilliman and an Eldar Farseer about what is the definition of a god. The Farseer does not claim to know but puts forth several theories. One is that the Emperor might not have been a god but that the worship of so many people over so many years may have changed the Emperor, and maybe also changed his soul/personality/worldview to conform with the beliefs. Then the events of Godblight happen and at the end Guilliman is sufficiently shaken by the events to ask Cawl (strictly speaking Cawl-Inferior who may or may not be an AI or copy of Cawl's mind) whether Cawl believes the Emperor is a god, and whether the Emperor could be revived.

Guilliman keeps making sacrifices for the sake of keeping the peace and avoiding open conflict with the more overtly religious elements of his Crusade. Even the Custodes do this when they allow the religious funeral and interment of one of their number. That could be how Guilliman "falls", not to Chaos, but from his original ideals and beliefs through an endless series of compromises, all for the sake of practicality and avoiding needless friction and conflict.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:47:00


Post by: Crimson


 Gert wrote:
I think the biggest misconception about Guilliman's return is that the whole Imperium is now somehow fixed, which is so far from true. It's still split in half guys, you can't really be fixed if half your empire is behind a never-ending wall of hell-space.

It may not be fixed, but the guy in charge is now a heroic demigod with good intentions. And sure, by real world standards he's still a horrible despot and a war criminal, but that's not how it is depicted. I feel this is the culmination of the distasteful direction the 40K fluff has already been heading for a while. The marines and imperial characters are depicted increasingly in heroic and positive light. But making the Imperium a little bit less gakky with somewhat more decent leaders doesn't make the setting come across less as fascism apologia, it makes it more so. The imperium should simply be depicted as evil and dysfunctional, the heroism and decent people merely existing at lower levels, as cogs in a terrible and hateful machine.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 13:56:45


Post by: Gert


 Crimson wrote:

It may not be fixed, but they guy in charge is now heroic demigod with good intentions. And sure, by real world standards he's still a horrible despot and a war criminal, but that's not how it is depicted. I feel this is the culmination of the distasteful direction the 40K fluff has already been heading for a while. The marines and imperial characters are depicted increasingly in heroic and positive light. But making the Imperium a little bit less gakky with somewhat more decent leaders doesn't make the setting come across less as fascism apologia, it makes it more so. The imperium should simply be depicted as evil and dysfunctional, the heroism and decent people merely existing at lower levels, as cogs in a terrible and hateful machine.

How far back are people going with the idea that Space Marines weren't sold as action heroes? Because ever since I've been in the hobby they've been portrayed and sold as the action heroes of 40k.
How do you portray the Imperium as evil when it's your main selling point to the target market of kids and teens? "Hey kids nothing is ever good in this universe and nothing any does can change that! Buy these Space Nazis!".
I wouldn't buy into that as an adult because that's just depressing. I also don't want to sound like a prat but if playing Space Marines or another Imperial faction makes someone think fascism is cool, then it wasn't 40k's fault, there was already an underlying influence on that person.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 14:17:46


Post by: Tyran


Tone. The recent Marneus Calgar comic is full of jokes of just how awful the IoM is. You cannot sell a nihilistic dystopia with fascists protagonists if your tone is serious, but you can sell the same thing if your tone is full of dark humor and self-aware irony.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 14:18:31


Post by: Crimson


 Gert wrote:

How far back are people going with the idea that Space Marines weren't sold as action heroes? Because ever since I've been in the hobby they've been portrayed and sold as the action heroes of 40k.

They of course have always been action heroes. They have just gotten increasingly shiny, heroic and glorified. They started as press-ganged penal legionaries and child-soldiers of a cruel and uncaring regime, now the leader of the Imperium is a giant shiny space marine and the marines are revered and seen as divine. That's kinda massive shift.

How do you portray the Imperium as evil when it's your main selling point to the target market of kids and teens? "Hey kids nothing is ever good in this universe and nothing any does can change that! Buy these Space Nazis!".
I wouldn't buy into that as an adult because that's just depressing.

Definitely preferable to "look this universe in which Space Nazi's are the good guys!" And if you find dystopian satire depressing, that's on you. I don't. I find uncritical glorification of fascism to be hella depressing though!

I also don't want to sound like a prat but if playing Space Marines or another Imperial faction makes someone think fascism is cool, then it wasn't 40k's fault, there was already an underlying influence on that person.

There is non-insignificant section of alt-right 40K fans. They're prominent enough that GW had to publicly rebuke them. And that is not surprising. 40K fluff has lost many of its satirical elements or they've been downplayed in favour of depicting Imperium as heroic. And no, this fiction alone will not make anyone a fascist sympathiser, though as you noted this is also aimed at kids and teenagers, so it might actually have some effect. We are shaped by the media we consume, probably more than we realise.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 14:32:49


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Crimson wrote:
We are shaped by the media we consume, probably more than we realise.


This. If the media we consume had no effect on our views and behaviours, then the companies which produce said media would not have spent decades trying to reduce or fight regulation which prevented them from certain actions. If advertising didn't work, nobody would do it.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 16:22:57


Post by: Crimson


 Tyran wrote:
Tone. The recent Marneus Calgar comic is full of jokes of just how awful the IoM is. You cannot sell a nihilistic dystopia with fascists protagonists if your tone is serious, but you can sell the same thing if your tone is full of dark humor and self-aware irony.

It had couple of grim dark jokes, but it was super simplistic story where the marine imitation process is grimderp but ultimately the marines are cool and heroic and presented as good guys and the chaos cultists are carboard villains. And yeah, even though it is a Marvel comic, it is actually very representative of the tone of the current 40K lore.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 16:33:40


Post by: Irkjoe


The shift to focusing on named characters makes up at least of half of what killed the tone of 40k.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 16:40:03


Post by: Crimson


 Irkjoe wrote:
The shift to focusing on named characters makes up at least of half of what killed the tone of 40k.

You're not wrong.

#primarchs were a mistake


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 16:45:28


Post by: Tyran


 Crimson wrote:

It had couple of grim dark jokes, but it was super simplistic story where the marine imitation process is grimderp but ultimately the marines are cool and heroic and presented as good guys and the chaos cultists are carboard villains. And yeah, even though it is a Marvel comic, it is actually very representative of the tone of the current 40K lore.

There is no getting around presenting the Marines as cool and heroic, at the very least no if you want to have a marketable product, but you can also present them as fascist and fethed up while you are at it, and the so called "grimderp" is very useful at that.

Horrible protagonists that combine being cool with being horrible people is not new concept.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 16:46:50


Post by: Jidmah


Personally, I always found it silly that every faction had biggestest guy somewhere that just happened to be inconvenienced and not available right now, but would totally change everything should he ever return.

IMO the setting with active primarch-level people is better than what was before, but a setting with those things not existing in the first place would have been even better.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 17:14:29


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Jidmah wrote:
Personally, I always found it silly that every faction had biggestest guy somewhere that just happened to be inconvenienced and not available right now, but would totally change everything should he ever return.

IMO the setting with active primarch-level people is better than what was before, but a setting with those things not existing in the first place would have been even better.


some did, I mean orks we has Ghaz, but he was already there just now buffed. Tau don't have one (probably doesn't work for them), nor do tyranids (or GSC) unless the hive mind becomes manifest? maybe a Norn queen in a dominatrix if FW releases one? Dark eldar also don't have a fitting one. Craftworld eldar maybe level up the Avater, and Harlies if Cegorath (spelling?) takes the field i suppose but as a actual god that seems OP.

I think really only Orks and Necrons qualify now with the Cthan shards for Xenos. That said chaos and Imperium all get the primarch and greater demon equivilants of the "were in the galaxy fiddling their thumbs for the last few thousand years, but totally could have and should have been doing something other than letting The Administratum or Failbaddon the Harmless run things"


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 17:21:08


Post by: Tyran


In the case of Chaos, the Daemon Primarchs are even bigger failures the Failbaddon.

I mean, in the short time Mortarion has been active in the galaxy, he managed to fail so bad he got Nurgle's Garden burned down, so I expect that Nurgle will have a tighter leash around him so he doesn't monumentally feths up again while the other gods are reminded that the reason they have Daemon Primarchs is because each one of them is a monumental man-child.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 17:23:19


Post by: G00fySmiley


True, GW really has treated the demon primarchs like Saturday morning cartoon villians. I half expect them to ba liek MAD agents and as they get shot away putting thie claws into a fist "I'll get you next time Guilliman"


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/26 19:08:46


Post by: Void__Dragon


 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 11:05:20


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


You really like attacking a good 'ol strawman don't you?

I was calling out something that is very much patronising to females and males (or any gender for that matter) of our hobby. I don't need your approval.

I never "dropped" anything. I stand by an authors agency not to be abused and dictated by the mob


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 11:38:05


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Spoiler:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


You really like attacking a good 'ol strawman don't you?

I was calling out something that is very much patronising to females and males (or any gender for that matter) of our hobby. I don't need your approval.

I never "dropped" anything. I stand by an authors agency not to be abused and dictated by the mob


The authors agency is the changes to tone and style GW are following with. There is no mob, and people here are in the hobby making observation and providing criticism of the product that GW is selling.

Funny enough, GW seems more keen than ever to have my demographic as customers. There are mountains of potential reasons. Without GW weighing in, it’s speculative.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 11:47:42


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Spoiler:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


You really like attacking a good 'ol strawman don't you?

I was calling out something that is very much patronising to females and males (or any gender for that matter) of our hobby. I don't need your approval.

I never "dropped" anything. I stand by an authors agency not to be abused and dictated by the mob


The authors agency is the changes to tone and style GW are following with. There is no mob, and people here are in the hobby making observation and providing criticism of the product that GW is selling.

Funny enough, GW seems more keen than ever to have my demographic as customers. There are mountains of potential reasons. Without GW weighing in, it’s speculative.


Good luck pleasing the W-crowd who see racism in everything, complain about everything and then get on authors backs when authors yield to their demands because the recipe that was demanded wasn't to your individual taste eg. I asked for tokenism but got offended by it because it only had 10/11 of the secret herbs and spices.

It's a zero sum game, everyone loses to this nonsense.

I mean just take a look at the poster who has no actual clue about central asian steppe warriors and the diversity of them, getting pissed because their ironically western-based stereotypical image of a mongol wasn't being represented well enough yet ironically screaming it was indeed RAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIST.

and since I have central asian roots, I'll tell you I find it absolutely hilarious as generally this hyper obsession with skin tone is just not a cultural thing, These people constantly speaking on behalf of others is beyond arrogant It needs to be given a break already


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 11:52:58


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Spoiler:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


You really like attacking a good 'ol strawman don't you?

I was calling out something that is very much patronising to females and males (or any gender for that matter) of our hobby. I don't need your approval.

I never "dropped" anything. I stand by an authors agency not to be abused and dictated by the mob


The authors agency is the changes to tone and style GW are following with. There is no mob, and people here are in the hobby making observation and providing criticism of the product that GW is selling.

Funny enough, GW seems more keen than ever to have my demographic as customers. There are mountains of potential reasons. Without GW weighing in, it’s speculative.


Good luck pleasing the W-crowd who see racism in everything, complain about everything and then get on authors backs when authors yield to their demands.

It's a zero sum game, everyone loses to this nonsense.

I mean just take a look at the poster who has no actual clue about central asian steppe warriors and the diversity of them getting pissed because their western-based stereotypical image of a mongol wasn't being represented well enoguh yet ironically screaming it was RAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIST.

and since I have central asian roots, I'll tell you I find it absolutely hilarious as generally this hyper obsession with skin tone is just not a cultural thing,


Most company have no issue with this and do very well in fact. GW is no different, they are actually getting rather good at taking in criticism I think.
Just not very good at putting out at times. But even then, they are doing very good now as that shift has been made. It’s hard to argue against that now at this point.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 12:00:30


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Spoiler:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


You really like attacking a good 'ol strawman don't you?

I was calling out something that is very much patronising to females and males (or any gender for that matter) of our hobby. I don't need your approval.

I never "dropped" anything. I stand by an authors agency not to be abused and dictated by the mob


The authors agency is the changes to tone and style GW are following with. There is no mob, and people here are in the hobby making observation and providing criticism of the product that GW is selling.

Funny enough, GW seems more keen than ever to have my demographic as customers. There are mountains of potential reasons. Without GW weighing in, it’s speculative.


Good luck pleasing the W-crowd who see racism in everything, complain about everything and then get on authors backs when authors yield to their demands.

It's a zero sum game, everyone loses to this nonsense.

I mean just take a look at the poster who has no actual clue about central asian steppe warriors and the diversity of them getting pissed because their western-based stereotypical image of a mongol wasn't being represented well enoguh yet ironically screaming it was RAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIST.

and since I have central asian roots, I'll tell you I find it absolutely hilarious as generally this hyper obsession with skin tone is just not a cultural thing,


Most company have no issue with this and do very well in fact. GW is no different, they are actually getting rather good at taking in criticism I think.
Just not very good at putting out at times. But even then, they are doing very good now as that shift has been made. It’s hard to argue against that now at this point.


Haha yes they were forced to write a moronic statement that they do not condone their fictional settings. WELLL DUH
Talk about mindless meaningless corporate fluffery.

Did anyone insist agatha christie to state she does not personally condone murder ? Haha its just absurd meaningless nonsense and I would even say it is anti-intellectualism.

Give me a specific example please. I'm interested, however in general very skeptical of your premise of GW 'being better' (whatever that nebulous term actually means).


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 12:22:32


Post by: Apple fox


 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Spoiler:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


You really like attacking a good 'ol strawman don't you?

I was calling out something that is very much patronising to females and males (or any gender for that matter) of our hobby. I don't need your approval.

I never "dropped" anything. I stand by an authors agency not to be abused and dictated by the mob


The authors agency is the changes to tone and style GW are following with. There is no mob, and people here are in the hobby making observation and providing criticism of the product that GW is selling.

Funny enough, GW seems more keen than ever to have my demographic as customers. There are mountains of potential reasons. Without GW weighing in, it’s speculative.


Good luck pleasing the W-crowd who see racism in everything, complain about everything and then get on authors backs when authors yield to their demands.

It's a zero sum game, everyone loses to this nonsense.

I mean just take a look at the poster who has no actual clue about central asian steppe warriors and the diversity of them getting pissed because their western-based stereotypical image of a mongol wasn't being represented well enoguh yet ironically screaming it was RAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIST.

and since I have central asian roots, I'll tell you I find it absolutely hilarious as generally this hyper obsession with skin tone is just not a cultural thing,


Most company have no issue with this and do very well in fact. GW is no different, they are actually getting rather good at taking in criticism I think.
Just not very good at putting out at times. But even then, they are doing very good now as that shift has been made. It’s hard to argue against that now at this point.


Haha yes they were forced to write a moronic statement that they do not condone their fictional settings. WELLL DUH
Talk about mindless meaningless corporate fluffery.

Did anyone insist agatha christie to state she does not personally condone murder ? Haha its just absurd meaningless nonsense and I would even say it is anti-intellectualism.

Give me a specific example please. I'm interested, however in general very skeptical of your premise of GW 'being better' (whatever that nebulous term actually means).


How where they forced? They responded to things happening that they probably thought where nothing but negative to them.

Asking authors about subjects they write about it is common, if there was any reason too. Someone may have asked, it’s only anti-intellectual in the way you are trying to use it now.

GW is adding more women in the settings they own, in a response to players. They wouldn’t be adding them in different ways if they didn’t think there was a market for them in some way.
The written work as well looks like testing the waters quite a lot, with how they use the work depict charecters, not just female. Edit to clarify


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 13:32:55


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:
Spoiler:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 GoldenHorde wrote:

We already went through the allegory of what was claimed as fetishism as being 'poor to females' or whatnot. As I mentioned and another poster agreed, females enjoy fetishism and I found the sentiment of fetishism by default being poor to woman as patronising to women.

and it was because it was a default statement with no nuance at all.


Ah so now you feel qualified to make a claim what females (which ones? All of them?) like fetishism actually? And the one who commented on it being poor representation doesn't count?

I'm glad you've dropped your insane rant that people here are trying to physically force authors to do what they want though. It was a pretty ridiculous and unhinged argument.


You really like attacking a good 'ol strawman don't you?

I was calling out something that is very much patronising to females and males (or any gender for that matter) of our hobby. I don't need your approval.

I never "dropped" anything. I stand by an authors agency not to be abused and dictated by the mob


The authors agency is the changes to tone and style GW are following with. There is no mob, and people here are in the hobby making observation and providing criticism of the product that GW is selling.

Funny enough, GW seems more keen than ever to have my demographic as customers. There are mountains of potential reasons. Without GW weighing in, it’s speculative.


Good luck pleasing the W-crowd who see racism in everything, complain about everything and then get on authors backs when authors yield to their demands.

It's a zero sum game, everyone loses to this nonsense.

I mean just take a look at the poster who has no actual clue about central asian steppe warriors and the diversity of them getting pissed because their western-based stereotypical image of a mongol wasn't being represented well enoguh yet ironically screaming it was RAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIST.

and since I have central asian roots, I'll tell you I find it absolutely hilarious as generally this hyper obsession with skin tone is just not a cultural thing,


Most company have no issue with this and do very well in fact. GW is no different, they are actually getting rather good at taking in criticism I think.
Just not very good at putting out at times. But even then, they are doing very good now as that shift has been made. It’s hard to argue against that now at this point.


Haha yes they were forced to write a moronic statement that they do not condone their fictional settings. WELLL DUH
Talk about mindless meaningless corporate fluffery.

Did anyone insist agatha christie to state she does not personally condone murder ? Haha its just absurd meaningless nonsense and I would even say it is anti-intellectualism.

Give me a specific example please. I'm interested, however in general very skeptical of your premise of GW 'being better' (whatever that nebulous term actually means).


How where they forced? They responded to things happening that they probably thought where nothing but negative to them.

Asking authors about subjects they write about it is common, if there was any reason too. Someone may have asked, it’s only anti-intellectual in the way you are trying to use it now.

GW is adding more women in the settings they own, in a response to players. They wouldn’t be adding them in different ways if they didn’t think there was a market for them in some way.
The written work as well looks like testing the waters quite a lot, with how they use the work depict charecters, not just female. Edit to clarify


How is GW forced to do anything? $$$
Let's virtue signal for the $.

It's vapid virtue signalling,

Read the annual report which states year after year:

"Donations
Games Workshop does not make any donations to charities or political parties. Notwithstanding this, our employees continue to carry out
fund raising events for their chosen charities, and we are fully supportive of the work our employees do. "

Shallow.

The second line is hilarious.... our employees.... That's some A GRADE machiavellian corporate chauvinism right there

You even said it yourself and I quote:

GW is adding more women in the settings they own, in a response to players. They wouldn’t be adding them in different ways if they didn’t think there was a market for them in some way.


BINGO! They're scoring points with you by doing shallow F all in real life.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 13:46:29


Post by: Apple fox


Adding too, and responding to a market demand is not bad thing for a setting.
They have been doing that since the very beginning.
Why suddenly would it be a issue now ?

Also It’s not virtue signalling or anything of the sort, and not every large corporation is set to donate to specific cause.Or they may do other things they may consider to support people.

GW from my understanding is proudly making products in the UK, supporting local economy. They may consider that enough, or maybe you need to ask them to maybe expand there support to something?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 15:44:16


Post by: Strg Alt


 Tyran wrote:
Tone. The recent Marneus Calgar comic is full of jokes of just how awful the IoM is. You cannot sell a nihilistic dystopia with fascists protagonists if your tone is serious, but you can sell the same thing if your tone is full of dark humor and self-aware irony.


Have you ever read 1984?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 15:58:32


Post by: Tyran


 Strg Alt wrote:

Have you ever read 1984?

Would you play a game set in 1984? I wouldn't.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 16:19:24


Post by: Karol


Apple fox 799882 11183893 wrote:
How where they forced? They responded to things happening that they probably thought where nothing but negative to them.

Asking authors about subjects they write about it is common, if there was any reason too. Someone may have asked, it’s only anti-intellectual in the way you are trying to use it now.

GW is adding more women in the settings they own, in a response to players. They wouldn’t be adding them in different ways if they didn’t think there was a market for them in some way.
The written work as well looks like testing the waters quite a lot, with how they use the work depict charecters, not just female. Edit to clarify

The stores and buyers of model around the world have to be very different then, because here practically all the players and buyers are just dudes. Only women I saw buy stuff, were either moms buying stuff for their kids or women buying gifts for someone. The twitch streams and tournaments seem to be male dominated too. I think only in WD I saw female painters, but that is a small minority comparing to the number of buyers who play the game. I don't mind female characters, and the SoB was actually fun to read, made download some of the BL SoB books. I do find the fact that somehow after 10k years most space ship captins are somehow female. Makes as much sense as every colour tester being male somehow. Funny, but has little impact on actual enjoyment of the books.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 17:34:49


Post by: Racerguy180


Tyran wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

Have you ever read 1984?

Would you play a game set in 1984? I wouldn't.


It would be interesting needing to roll a d20 on the newspeak chart...



But No, not really.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 19:02:43


Post by: Formosa


 Tyran wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

Have you ever read 1984?

Would you play a game set in 1984? I wouldn't.


Absolutely yes if done properly, we already got a variation of brave new world (we happy few), mind you maybe Bioshock 1 could be considered a parody of 1984.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 19:08:26


Post by: GoldenHorde


Apple fox wrote:
Adding too, and responding to a market demand is not bad thing for a setting.
They have been doing that since the very beginning.
Why suddenly would it be a issue now ?

Also It’s not virtue signalling or anything of the sort, and not every large corporation is set to donate to specific cause.Or they may do other things they may consider to support people.

GW from my understanding is proudly making products in the UK, supporting local economy. They may consider that enough, or maybe you need to ask them to maybe expand there support to something?


GW does not respond to market demand. GW willfully manipulates its market demand by subjecting its customers and stockists to hunger games with its FOMO tactics. Or how about the 1-man store model? Or dropping specialist games? Or dropping the ball on community support on events all those years ago?

I am absolutely certain GW have not spent a sincere dollar on supporting females in the hobby. Stop being co-opted to give them anything but a big F on their report card. You've been fooled.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 19:08:46


Post by: Arachnofiend


Bioshock was a parody of Atlas Shrugged, it was all about taking Ayn Rand's libertarian "utopia" to its logical conclusion.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 19:11:29


Post by: IanMalcolmAbs


Sign me up for 1984 board game. Essentially - this was a world with 3 super states constantly at war. Part of the game is suppressing your own peoples rebellion's.

Kind of like playing sim city - except you are also trying to destroy your neighbors town. Sounds hot.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 19:19:10


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Or, if you accept the Goldstein premise from the book, you are playing all 3 countries that have to pretend to be at war with one another to consume the excess resources produced by a high-tech industrial state (so that no one's quality of life improves to the point where they can threaten the system).

So you have to win your battles, but not win TOO BIG as one side, because the status quo MUST be maintained for the powers-that-be to persist.

The Goldstein premise is heavily supported (in addition to being outright stated by the Party in a counter-free-thought book) by the fact that the three nations abruptly shift who is fighting who ("We have always been at war with East Asia!") with no major shifts of territory or anything. It's done (just like "three-faction MMOs") to preserve the balance of the artificial system.

Again, it's utterly dystopian. The promise of science and production? All excess resources and knowledge get consumed by war, rather than being allowed to make people's lives better - and this is a deliberate policy by the Powers That Be (big brother!) to aid in their continuous existence.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 19:23:22


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
Sign me up for 1984 board game. Essentially - this was a world with 3 super states constantly at war. Part of the game is suppressing your own peoples rebellion's.

Kind of like playing sim city - except you are also trying to destroy your neighbors town. Sounds hot.


Would be a very strange game where each player wasn't actually trying to win just to drag to game out forever


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 20:09:56


Post by: GoldenHorde


Also pulled this from the 18-19 report

Research and development
The Group does not undertake research activities. Development activities relate to the development of new product lines. The charge to
the income statement for the year in respect of development activities is detailed in note 9 to the financial statements.

It's pretty clear it's not a thing


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 20:12:15


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bioshock was a parody of Atlas Shrugged, it was all about taking Ayn Rand's libertarian "utopia" to its logical conclusion.

Maybe he meant Bioshock Infinite? That has a scapegoat in the form of the Beast.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 20:21:22


Post by: Formosa


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bioshock was a parody of Atlas Shrugged, it was all about taking Ayn Rand's libertarian "utopia" to its logical conclusion.

Maybe he meant Bioshock Infinite? That has a scapegoat in the form of the Beast.


Which one is it where everything is controlled by a centralised group of oligarchs and they use their power to basically control every aspect of the peoples lives?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 20:29:42


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Formosa wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bioshock was a parody of Atlas Shrugged, it was all about taking Ayn Rand's libertarian "utopia" to its logical conclusion.

Maybe he meant Bioshock Infinite? That has a scapegoat in the form of the Beast.


Which one is it where everything is controlled by a centralised group of oligarchs and they use their power to basically control every aspect of the peoples lives?

Yeah, that's Bioshock Infinite. The city was flying and populated by religious fanatics who were into racism, right?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 20:30:04


Post by: Octopoid


40K should by Byronic satire, sarcasm, and parody, lampooning fascism and fascists in equal measure. The orks are the good guys, and they're football hooligans.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 20:50:53


Post by: Formosa


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bioshock was a parody of Atlas Shrugged, it was all about taking Ayn Rand's libertarian "utopia" to its logical conclusion.

Maybe he meant Bioshock Infinite? That has a scapegoat in the form of the Beast.


Which one is it where everything is controlled by a centralised group of oligarchs and they use their power to basically control every aspect of the peoples lives?

Yeah, that's Bioshock Infinite. The city was flying and populated by religious fanatics who were into racism, right?


Yeah thats the one I think, been a while, Bioshock one is Rapture yeah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Octopoid wrote:
40K should by Byronic satire, sarcasm, and parody, lampooning fascism and fascists in equal measure. The orks are the good guys, and they're football hooligans.


Something that gives me a tickle is people missing the lampooning of Hegelianism under the guise of Fascism, Communism and Socialism throughout the setting, the Imperium in its own twisted logic thinks its the Ideal society, hell even parts of the Inquisition enforce this idiotic belief (Thorians IIRC) with an iron fist, while the Emperor being a borderline utopianist and was willing to resort to any means to push that goal including mass murder and genocide thinking that the ends justify the means, that he was doing it for the greater good, that humanity needed to progress by any means necessary and his ultimate goal would benefit all.

As usual though the best intentions created nothing but death and destruction.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 22:09:24


Post by: CEO Kasen


...ugh why am I getting involved at all in this completely flying rodent gak argument that I don't know what it is anymore.

I... think bringing Hegel into it is a bit of a stretch and far deeper philosophically than any writer's intent.

First, the Emperor downfall was caused partly by an irrational dictum; trying to deny the existence of things that, while we might consider them irrational, are demonstrable phenomena in a universe where enough emotions in the right heads literally come out and kill people to feast on their soul-stuff. I actually would bring it back around to Ghostbusters - In their universe, ghosts *do* exist and trying to *deny* that a 50-story tall marshmallow attacked downtown New York would at that point be the irrational stance.

Second, a quick Wikipedia check:
"Hegel teaches [that]... each nation has its own individual spirit, and the greatest of crimes is the act by which the tyrant or the conqueror stifles the spirit of a nation." And that doesn't line up with the Emperor at all.

It is absolutely about good intentions going overboard and backfiring, but that's to make it more grimdark, not to decry rationalism as a philosophy.

The whole thing is very much anti-fascist - at least, it friggin' well better be, or else every remotely sane person should just flee this entire setting and hobby as soon as possible.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/27 22:56:32


Post by: Formosa


...ugh why am I getting involved at all in this completely flying rodent gak argument that I don't know what it is anymore.


Chill out Kasen, its just a conversation mate not need to get worked up.

I... think bringing Hegel into it is a bit of a stretch and far deeper philosophically than any writer's intent.


If someone mentions 40ks fascist themes then it makes sense to mention Hegel since his work is a route cause of that ideology, same as the other collectivist utopian philosophies, people keep claiming its a satire and I can think of no better person to lampoon that this fool.

First, the Emperor downfall was caused partly by an irrational dictum;


To us, not to him.

trying to deny the existence of things that, while we might consider them irrational, are demonstrable phenomena in a universe where enough emotions in the right heads literally come out and kill people to feast on their soul-stuff.


he did not try to deny them, he knew they existed and created an ideology and philosophy specifically designed to reduce their power and brutally crushed anyone that dared counter his false ideology, this sounds VERY much like Hegelian derived philosophies, denial of human nature and brutal suppression of any competing world views.

I actually would bring it back around to Ghostbusters - In their universe, ghosts *do* exist and trying to *deny* that a 50-story tall marshmallow attacked downtown New York would at that point be the irrational stance.


again irrational to us as we are outside looking in, to them its entirely consistent to deny these things exists until that 50 story marshmellow man appears, after it does there is not denial other than a bitter state worker who now looks like a fool, I would imagine after the fact people would very much believe ghosts exist so I do not really get this analogy sorry.

Spoiler:
"Hegel teaches [that]... each nation has its own individual spirit, and the greatest of crimes is the act by which the tyrant or the conqueror stifles the spirit of a nation."


The Imperium has its own individual spirit, the greatest of crimes is to stifle the spirit of the Imperium in its goal of uniting humanity under the imperial truth, reality is all, there is nothing outside of reality... trust us

And that doesn't line up with the Emperor at all.


Lines up perfectly to me

It is absolutely about good intentions going overboard and backfiring, but that's to make it more grimdark, not to decry rationalism as a philosophy.


Extreme rationalism is very destructive as one can rationalise the starvation of millions for the greater good, genocide to rid society of its "bad" elements, purge the mutant, the heretic and the alien because that is the rational thing to do in a universe that wants our species dead.... or is it.

The whole thing is very much anti-fascist - at least, it friggin' well better be, or else every remotely sane person should just flee this entire setting and hobby as soon as possible.


Its not pro fascist, its not anti fascist, its a story and setting that is showing what happens when you take extremes to their absolute limit but its not about that specifically, it does a bang up job of showing why extreme socialism, communism, fascism, corporatism, collectivism, over industrialisation, mass pollution etc. is not a good thing but that is a backdrop, not the main focus, which is a good thing I think as fundamentally its supposed to be entertainment and escapism, if someone is coming to 40k to impose or gain a political education then they should indeed flee the entire setting as soon as possible.

At the end of the day though such themes and tones are the reasons why talking about the lore is fun and interesting.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/28 00:50:03


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Formosa wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bioshock was a parody of Atlas Shrugged, it was all about taking Ayn Rand's libertarian "utopia" to its logical conclusion.

Maybe he meant Bioshock Infinite? That has a scapegoat in the form of the Beast.


Which one is it where everything is controlled by a centralised group of oligarchs and they use their power to basically control every aspect of the peoples lives?

Yeah, that's Bioshock Infinite. The city was flying and populated by religious fanatics who were into racism, right?


Yeah thats the one I think, been a while, Bioshock one is Rapture yeah?


Yeah, Bioshock 1 and 2 were both set in Rapture, except with different antagonists and different themes.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/28 10:01:14


Post by: Table


xerxeskingofking wrote:
I think their is room for multiple tones within the greater banner of 40K. One thing i would like to see more of is a greater push away form "absolute" truths towards "relative" truths. I feel their has been a move in many settings towards a single, defined and immutable truth, that cannot be deviated form. and honestly, I dont like it. i feel that a little wiggle room is good, it lets other add to and improve the narrative in creative ways that enrich the work as a whole.

Events and history should be blatantly biased by the storytellers viewpoint, and ideally their should be alternate versions of the event form another viewpoint that directly contradict some parts of the 1st narrative, reinforcing that these tales are just that, TALES, that details large and small might be wrong. One side should record a battle as being a defeat, form which they withdrew in good order, to conserve their forces and continue the war, while the other records the same battle as them vanquishing a fleeing and broken enemy, who never troubled the area again, etc, etc.

It would require a bit of work, namely a central "clearing house" to ensure that books written years apart can match up to report on the same events, but it would be awesome. it would add back in that ambiguity about what actually happened, allow for wiggle room in the lore, etc. Did Abaddon really launch 13 crusades, or have the efforts of his allies and underlings been blamed on him? Do most marines strictly adhere to the Codex, or do most deviate to some greater or lesser degree? are the Tau as nice as they make out or just the Imperium with better PR? you get the picture.

Also, the inherit absurdities of the girmdark setting should be acknowledged and explored. A inquisitor might crack down hard on a chaos cult in a hive, but cause such collateral damage that thousands of hivers are driven into the arms of chaos, as anything would be an improvement on their current situation, etc.



The problem with the biased story teller is thus....people crave absolutes. It is just human nature. Making conflicting lores will only serve to cause arguments among fans and (imho) cheapens the setting and story. I think the proper way to do what you want is for the structure to be like the following...

Story ( factions views of the story ) and then how that works into the overall lore. The fact that Terra was sieged should not be up for discussion. How effective that siege was can and should vary as the focus of the particular story shifts. An example. Chaos see it as a win because Terra was battered and the Emperor was forced onto the golden throne. The imperium see it as a win for them because Chaos was thrown back and the empire was secured with little to no territorial shifts. Both sides are right. But the event happened.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/28 14:49:14


Post by: Apple fox


Table wrote:
xerxeskingofking wrote:
I think their is room for multiple tones within the greater banner of 40K. One thing i would like to see more of is a greater push away form "absolute" truths towards "relative" truths. I feel their has been a move in many settings towards a single, defined and immutable truth, that cannot be deviated form. and honestly, I dont like it. i feel that a little wiggle room is good, it lets other add to and improve the narrative in creative ways that enrich the work as a whole.

Events and history should be blatantly biased by the storytellers viewpoint, and ideally their should be alternate versions of the event form another viewpoint that directly contradict some parts of the 1st narrative, reinforcing that these tales are just that, TALES, that details large and small might be wrong. One side should record a battle as being a defeat, form which they withdrew in good order, to conserve their forces and continue the war, while the other records the same battle as them vanquishing a fleeing and broken enemy, who never troubled the area again, etc, etc.

It would require a bit of work, namely a central "clearing house" to ensure that books written years apart can match up to report on the same events, but it would be awesome. it would add back in that ambiguity about what actually happened, allow for wiggle room in the lore, etc. Did Abaddon really launch 13 crusades, or have the efforts of his allies and underlings been blamed on him? Do most marines strictly adhere to the Codex, or do most deviate to some greater or lesser degree? are the Tau as nice as they make out or just the Imperium with better PR? you get the picture.

Also, the inherit absurdities of the girmdark setting should be acknowledged and explored. A inquisitor might crack down hard on a chaos cult in a hive, but cause such collateral damage that thousands of hivers are driven into the arms of chaos, as anything would be an improvement on their current situation, etc.



The problem with the biased story teller is thus....people crave absolutes. It is just human nature. Making conflicting lores will only serve to cause arguments among fans and (imho) cheapens the setting and story. I think the proper way to do what you want is for the structure to be like the following...

Story ( factions views of the story ) and then how that works into the overall lore. The fact that Terra was sieged should not be up for discussion. How effective that siege was can and should vary as the focus of the particular story shifts. An example. Chaos see it as a win because Terra was battered and the Emperor was forced onto the golden throne. The imperium see it as a win for them because Chaos was thrown back and the empire was secured with little to no territorial shifts. Both sides are right. But the event happened.


If you make it specific that it is someone telling a story in setting, you can get away with that. But it is hard to do right and when done wrong it really just ends up slightly annoying.

One thing they did in white wolf books for World or darkness, that I think is fantastic for a setting. Was have a what this group/faction thinks of the other groups in the setting. The closer the group, the more specific they got.
They conflict, with some groups going we like this group as they do things we like. But that didn’t mean the other liked them back, or had a positive outlook.
It could be a way to flesh out the factions a lot. Space marines book could has the ultramarines talk about the different craftworlds, some are left to do there thing when found. Others should be be made sure to back down.
Dark Eldar, they don’t know why that group as a whole is so different, but they are. And other Eldar have never given strait answers or even conflicting information back.
A Guard regiment have, eldar of the iyanden craftworld always avoid conflict with us, biel-tan only appear to destroy worlds.
They are more simplistic in how they may view them, so they may even just have some Eldar turn up and then leave, others cause chaos for little reason than to hear our cry’s. We don’t understand them
I think it would be super cool to see, but it’s easy to write and could even put some new character in there.
Can even be used in a way to make note of specific conflicts, and different tones the factions may be seen to harbour.

May work well enough for Games workshop if they do it similar for each faction.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/29 16:53:42


Post by: Matoro99


I think it should be kinda nonsensical and bright and overly edgy. That is the charm for people like me who like RT and 2nd Ed. The designs for it is what is special.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 04:17:39


Post by: Jarms48


 Irkjoe wrote:
The shift to focusing on named characters makes up at least of half of what killed the tone of 40k.


Yep, this really annoys me. How are all these characters everywhere across the galaxy? How do they often just run into each other when there's suppose to be at minimum a million Imperial worlds to fight over?

It just makes the setting feel more like a Saturday morning cartoon than a fully developed setting.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 04:33:21


Post by: Apple fox


Jarms48 wrote:
 Irkjoe wrote:
The shift to focusing on named characters makes up at least of half of what killed the tone of 40k.


Yep, this really annoys me. How are all these characters everywhere across the galaxy? How do they often just run into each other when there's suppose to be at minimum a million Imperial worlds to fight over?

It just makes the setting feel more like a Saturday morning cartoon than a fully developed setting.


One of the interesting part of this, is warmachine is often mentioned in similar. But I think has more charecters spread about its factions. And has specific in world reasons for why they could come into conflict more often in setting on a battlefield.
It’s also one of the reasons the assassination mechinac makes sense in game. The loss of a warcaster or warlock is a monumental disruption to a battle line.

GW uses its characters more like advertising, and they must be where there needed around the galaxy. Even if there is characters there that would be more appropriate.
I also think they don’t want writers making a new character that ends up a fav, when they have others that they have models for they want to sell.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 06:18:34


Post by: Karol


Jarms48 799882 11186459 wrote:Yep, this really annoys me. How are all these characters everywhere across the galaxy?


Prognosticators and the lore litterally saying that if the battle is important the person breaks through the veil of warp and enters real world for the time of the battle, and some time after it, after they re enter warp and are ready to teleport to another part of the galaxy, while in the mean time burning nurgles garden or destroying the floating mirror cities.

Litteraly writen in the lore. But I am not going to lie. I would like to see guardian suits used off planet .


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 06:46:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


If you're going to have named characters in a story, then they have to die.

I always compare BattleTech to 40k, because for the longest time the former was a story, and the latter was a setting.

In BTech things moved forwards. The main players leading the various factions are not the same ones as those that started. They're not even the same ones that took over from the first generation. We're 3 (maybe even 4) generations of characters into the story now, with everyone from the first two long dead.

Meanwhile, 40k is currently set a fair bit beyond 999.M41 at this stage (but kept fuzzy because GW still treats 40k like a setting half the time), and all the characters we had before are still there. Nothing's really moved forward, other than there being a big split in the galaxy and Guilliman rocking around with a bunch of Nu-Marines. I mean, when the Black Templar book comes around, what's the bet that Helbrecht and Grimaldus will still be leading the Chapter?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that named characters are a mistake in 40k, but they just have to be used correctly. Right now, using them in a story (rather than a setting) is not using them right.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 07:58:40


Post by: Apple fox


One way they could support charecters death on the table top would be to include there builds into the generic leader models.

Wouldn’t work great for the primarchs, but most of the others in the setting could work.
Or have new characters pick up the legacy with a almost idencial load out with items passed down to be used again.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 08:17:05


Post by: KingmanHighborn


Goose LeChance wrote:Gothic, Grimdark, Ironic, Unironic, Horror, Action, whatever.

Anything but Marvel or Disney please.




Yeah... I don't get this at all as Marvel and Disney have done gothic, grimdark, and have done some seriously dark gut punches in their IPs before. Matter of fact Disney and Marvel could DO 40K on screen darker than the abyss of hell. Make Event Horizon look like Barney.

That said. Gothic and Grimdark with a silver lining or a bit comic irony is the best. I love the idea of sword fights in space, with explosions in the back ground as the ideal 'look' of 40K. And the idea of life being cheap. Worlds burning, post-apoc here, while cities gleam over there. All that works. But 40K can get up it's own rear with it's grimdark sometimes. Like the execution of every non-power armored person that fought on Armageddon against the World Eaters. Or the utter trash of the Bloodtide event with the Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 08:44:20


Post by: Karol


What is wrong with the bloodtide thing? The Grey Knights acted exactly the way they always act to perform their job. If the only protection at hand is relics and fetishs made from the Emperors faithful, they do it. It makes perfect sense for them to act like that and in world lore it works too. GK are not just psykers, they learn sorcery and warp magic not just to combat it, but to use it too. Name magic, like the stuff that was used to bring down Horus, is core of how they fight their demonic opponents.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 11:02:20


Post by: Da Boss


It was really badly written is the problem. I keep seeing this word 'woke' in the thread and people complaining about it. Can some of the people using it define it? I see some people saying it means being 'politically correct' which is a loaded term for criticising attempts to be respectful of others. Is woke different to how political correctness is used? If so how and if not why use the term? If we're going to be using the term I'd like to know what people mean by it.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 11:15:09


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 Da Boss wrote:
It was really badly written is the problem. I keep seeing this word 'woke' in the thread and people complaining about it. Can some of the people using it define it? I see some people saying it means being 'politically correct' which is a loaded term for criticising attempts to be respectful of others. Is woke different to how political correctness is used? If so how and if not why use the term? If we're going to be using the term I'd like to know what people mean by it.


It’s pretty much ‘political correctness’ but more so, with additional associations with virtue signalling and cancel culture. I believe the term comes from having ‘woken up’ to the injustice in society or something like that.

Like political correctness back in the day on the one side you do have a minority of people reaching some pretty silly positions in its name; on the other people using the term to denigrate anyone who they disagree with or who disagree with them; and in the middle you have everyone else just trying to get on with things while being respectful to others.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 11:22:52


Post by: Da Boss


Political correctness has always been a cynical term used to denigrate attempts to be respectful though. So woke is the same thing except people are upset about people trying to be respectful about a wider range of things? And cancel culture, I hear a lot about that but you don't see much specific evidence of it really. As to virtue signalling, not sure you can lay that on any particular group, it seems to be a pretty widespread phenomenon. But thanks for the clarification. Seems a ludicrous thing to be worried about for GW then as the setting is very far removed from any of those concerns. It hardly seems relevant to the topics that get brought up like having more female representation or a greater diversity in paint jobs for human skin colour all of that, pretty far away from political correctness or cancel culture it seems to me. So people must be using the term incorrectly.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 12:21:54


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Da Boss wrote:
Political correctness has always been a cynical term used to denigrate attempts to be respectful though. So woke is the same thing except people are upset about people trying to be respectful about a wider range of things? And cancel culture, I hear a lot about that but you don't see much specific evidence of it really. As to virtue signalling, not sure you can lay that on any particular group, it seems to be a pretty widespread phenomenon. But thanks for the clarification. Seems a ludicrous thing to be worried about for GW then as the setting is very far removed from any of those concerns. It hardly seems relevant to the topics that get brought up like having more female representation or a greater diversity in paint jobs for human skin colour all of that, pretty far away from political correctness or cancel culture it seems to me. So people must be using the term incorrectly.


GW doesn't give to women's charities, doesn't do research into hobby gender participation and doesn't really run any initiatives to involve females in the hobby, at least none that I have ever been aware of but they put some extra female characters in your settings and whoopdie doo daaa It's the woke virtue signal, "they're better now".

Well they might be better in meaningless ways, but the real metrics have not changed. The W-cult is not concerned with the tangible, it is concerned with its own brand of anti-intellectualism.

Instead of this "YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED" statement, how about your company do something to prove warhammer is for everyone?

Put up or shut up.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 12:24:21


Post by: Da Boss


Dunno why making more female models is related to any of that stuff or makes you so angry.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 12:29:28


Post by: Karol


How are female model something new or strange in w40k. Weren't SoB from like 2ed, that is like almost 3 times my age. If female models are that old, then maybe people should have gotten used to them. Unless GW does something strange like female marines or male SoB, I don't see how it could be a problem.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 12:33:14


Post by: GoldenHorde


 Da Boss wrote:
Dunno why making more female models is related to any of that stuff or makes you so angry.


I am not angry, I'm referencing previous discussion that occurred in the thread where I \it was said that GW was now "better to females".

I'm just not seeing how that amounts to anything tangible in any sense of the word.
Throwing in characters to please the W-cult doesn't achieve as much as they believe it does.

If anything it has led to an anti intellectual belligerence statement from the company with really nothing to back up all that virtue signalling.

Company figures it can please the W-mobcult with posturing alone.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 12:33:21


Post by: Da Boss


Not even sure how female marines would be a problem if we're talking age of model since there were female marines in rogue trader.

Who are the 'w mob cult' and what do they believe in your view?

Also their statement was about racist bigots and homophobes as far as I can tell. But if you know more I would be interested to hear it.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 12:37:05


Post by: GoldenHorde


Karol wrote:
How are female model something new or strange in w40k. Weren't SoB from like 2ed, that is like almost 3 times my age. If female models are that old, then maybe people should have gotten used to them. Unless GW does something strange like female marines or male SoB, I don't see how it could be a problem.


Because it was said that SOB's were a fetishised faction solely primarily intended for the males of the hobby....

Same poster said GW was better to females now. Well those SOB's still have nipple fleur de lis and nipple skulls.... tight fitting armour and every other thing that post pointed out was an issue, where's the change in the models?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 12:39:57


Post by: Da Boss


GW has more female representation in Age of Sigmar generally.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 13:59:21


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Da Boss wrote:
Not even sure how female marines would be a problem if we're talking age of model since there were female marines in rogue trader.

Were they marines, or were they women wearing power armor?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:17:55


Post by: Strg Alt


I am pretty fed up with some people complaining about GW's SoB faction.
They claim all the time in a whiny voice that those poor models are sexualized to satisfy a male hunger for eye candy. Problem is that these white knights don't even understand what eye candy is.

When men want to see beautiful women they buy a men's magazine like Playboy or Google such pics online. They don't look for it by buying plastic miniatures.

Another thing which these people address is the artwork of the SoB. White knights think women are exploited when the artist gives them high-heeled combat boots. Short answer to that misconception is: No, this is not exploitation.

If you really want to see action & sex-appeal combined then you need to LEAVE the 40K universe and look for pin-up art. Off the top of my head the Heavy Metal magazine comes to mind. There you can see tough girls posing in skimpy outfits. There is absolutely NOTHING comparable to such pin-up art in 40K.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:20:42


Post by: Karol


 GoldenHorde wrote:


Because it was said that SOB's were a fetishised faction solely primarily intended for the males of the hobby....

Same poster said GW was better to females now. Well those SOB's still have nipple fleur de lis and nipple skulls.... tight fitting armour and every other thing that post pointed out was an issue, where's the change in the models?


I think that there maybe a big desparancy between what GW says and what it does. Writing words or female characters is easy, specially when you write them as men with boobs. Making the hobby interesting to the large female audiance goes well beyond my understanding of life and how things work. What I do know is that the hobby is still mostly dudes playing games or painting models. Also from the little interactions I do have with female students, I don't think any of them, at least in gymnastics, long jump, wrestling etc, have problems with wearing tight stuff or looking good. Or is this one of those we want fat SoBs things?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
Not even sure how female marines would be a problem if we're talking age of model since there were female marines in rogue trader.

Who are the 'w mob cult' and what do they believe in your view?

Also their statement was about racist bigots and homophobes as far as I can tell. But if you know more I would be interested to hear it.


But isn't that just an example of corpo talk? They says all the proper things, but when one the writers says on twitter that he is trying to write marines as less manly he gets layed off. That is like our trainers and school teachers saying that doping is wrong, and then you have to buy supplements from their friends or you don't get a passing grade.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:27:09


Post by: Tyran


Regarding the SoB, I would say it depends: for example the older Repentia were very sexualized, which is partly why they got newer models that toned that down. And any model that has high heels just looks stupid.

But the real issue isn't SoB; but the lack of female models outside of SoB. E.g in the lore there are all female regiments of IG, good luck building that on the tabletop.




What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:30:32


Post by: Karol


But isn't this just part of w40k style. If anything comparing to art I have seen in older inquisition and GK codex, the models today, specially the primaris are very sanitised.

Plus if heels are stupid, then all the flame and smoke, birds etc effects are even more. They often make good looking models look worse just by adding them.

I mean how are SoB suppose to look, like downscaled intercessors with different shoulder pads?


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:40:09


Post by: Tyran


I do not really have an issue with the current modern SoB models. I can live with boob plates (and modern SoB do not have heels) because while it is gendered armor, it makes sense for an army that is built around gender (to get around the wording of the Decree Passive).

What I have an issue is the idea that SoB alone are enough for female representation, when in the lore most factions have mixed gender forces.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:42:17


Post by: SamusDrake


The tone should always be happy-go-lucky and you can't beat the Tyranids and Harlequins for their happy-go-luckiness.

Without them the game...would be lost.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:43:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Tyran wrote:
Regarding the SoB, I would say it depends: for example the older Repentia were very sexualized, which is partly why they got newer models that toned that down. And any model that has high heels just looks stupid.
You wot m8?



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:46:05


Post by: Tyran


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You wot m8?

I was referring more to the models.

EDIT: Modern Repentia have shorts and tanktops, while the older ones had... not sure what that clothing is called, only that it works on comic magic to not fall off while showing all the cleavage.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 14:58:47


Post by: Karol


 Tyran wrote:
I do not really have an issue with the current modern SoB models. I can live with boob plates (and modern SoB do not have heels) because while it is gendered armor, it makes sense for an army that is built around gender (to get around the wording of the Decree Passive).

What I have an issue is the idea that SoB alone are enough for female representation, when in the lore most factions have mixed gender forces.



But there are female models for all eldar, IG. GW only knows how or if there are any genders for necrons. And orks have either no genders or if they are true fungi they have like 2000+ of them. Only marines and custodes are not female, how much more females does there have to be in w40k? Only other organisation that is majority female, is sisters of silance, but they are more of a variation on the SoB theme then a stand alone thing. GW would have to invent whole new female races to get more representation. Am not sure there is enough creative idea to make an army like that.


Ah and tau have females too.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 15:36:41


Post by: Crimson


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Regarding the SoB, I would say it depends: for example the older Repentia were very sexualized, which is partly why they got newer models that toned that down. And any model that has high heels just looks stupid.
You wot m8?


That's BDSM with purity seals added. I don't have problem with this, but let's not pretend that it's not sexualised.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 15:39:22


Post by: Tyran


Karol wrote:

But there are female models for all eldar, IG. GW only knows how or if there are any genders for necrons.
We know Necrons have genders, it has come up a few times in their novels.


And orks have either no genders or if they are true fungi they have like 2000+ of them. Only marines and custodes are not female,
There is actually no lore statement that there are no female Custodes.

how much more females does there have to be in w40k? Only other organisation that is majority female, is sisters of silance, but they are more of a variation on the SoB theme then a stand alone thing. GW would have to invent whole new female races to get more representation. Am not sure there is enough creative idea to make an army like that.

GW wasn't particular creative when it come to Space Marines flavors: space vikings, space vampires, space Romans, etc.
Do that but with female variants.

And yes, GW wrote themselves into a corner with Space Marines.



What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 15:57:30


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Crimson wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Regarding the SoB, I would say it depends: for example the older Repentia were very sexualized, which is partly why they got newer models that toned that down. And any model that has high heels just looks stupid.
You wot m8?


That's BDSM with purity seals added. I don't have problem with this, but let's not pretend that it's not sexualised.

To people who are into BDSM, maybe.
Fetishes are weird, I would not use those as a standard.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 16:11:49


Post by: Strg Alt


 Crimson wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Regarding the SoB, I would say it depends: for example the older Repentia were very sexualized, which is partly why they got newer models that toned that down. And any model that has high heels just looks stupid.
You wot m8?


That's BDSM with purity seals added. I don't have problem with this, but let's not pretend that it's not sexualised.


That pic was inspired from the Hellraiser movie franchise. It's body horror with all the mutilation going on. The artist tried very hard to sell the Imperium's point of view concerning dignity and the worth of a human life. There is ZERO sexuality present in the picture. Even worse is that the victims are shown off and herded towards enemy lines wearing only rags. This unit is the SoB's version of the Dirty Dozen sent on a suicide mission.

If a BDSM enthusiast would be treated like this and survived the ordeal by his domina, he would sue her immediately.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 16:12:41


Post by: Andilus Greatsword


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Regarding the SoB, I would say it depends: for example the older Repentia were very sexualized, which is partly why they got newer models that toned that down. And any model that has high heels just looks stupid.
You wot m8?


That's BDSM with purity seals added. I don't have problem with this, but let's not pretend that it's not sexualised.

To people who are into BDSM, maybe.
Fetishes are weird, I would not use those as a standard.

Speak for yourself. Fetishes are very much a part of sexualization and even open it up to new avenues (eg, Tarantino's foot shots, the Lake Placid movies advertising themselves as vore porn, etc).


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 16:15:48


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Regarding the SoB, I would say it depends: for example the older Repentia were very sexualized, which is partly why they got newer models that toned that down. And any model that has high heels just looks stupid.
You wot m8?


That's BDSM with purity seals added. I don't have problem with this, but let's not pretend that it's not sexualised.

To people who are into BDSM, maybe.
Fetishes are weird, I would not use those as a standard.

Speak for yourself. Fetishes are very much a part of sexualization and even open it up to new avenues (eg, Tarantino's foot shots, the Lake Placid movies advertising themselves as vore porn, etc).

I really doubt GW was trying to cater to the BDSM market with Repentia though. I think they were going more for medieval acts of penitence taken to the extreme.
Now Diaz Daemonettes however...


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 16:21:44


Post by: Tyran


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I really doubt GW was trying to cater to the BDSM market with Repentia though. I think they were going more for medieval acts of penitence taken to the extreme.

The art, sure. The models? not so sure about that.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 16:26:29


Post by: Crimson


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I really doubt GW was trying to cater to the BDSM market with Repentia though.

Oh please. Almost naked ladies in gimp hoods being lead by a mistress with a whip. It's not even a little bit subtle.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 16:27:55


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Tyran wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I really doubt GW was trying to cater to the BDSM market with Repentia though. I think they were going more for medieval acts of penitence taken to the extreme.

The art, sure. The models? not so sure about that.

Was that intentional, or was that due to technical limitations? There were plenty of rough looking metal models back then.
The dialogos (whatever that Sister model with the gaping mouth comes to mind).
I'm not sure if it's meant to be sexual, or if it's a bad sculpt that's trying to match the artwork.


What should 40k's tone be? @ 2021/07/30 19:04:00


Post by: Karol


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Speak for yourself. Fetishes are very much a part of sexualization and even open it up to new avenues (eg, Tarantino's foot shots, the Lake Placid movies advertising themselves as vore porn, etc).


But that is a slipper slope, there is a chance you could always find some minority of people that find something to be their fetish. If that ment it should somehow block a representation of it in art, because someone could find it sexual, then you may as well stop printing books. Because there is probably some wierdo somewhere who has a specific font fetish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:

We know Necrons have genders, it has come up a few times in their novels.

yes, but how many and how do they work. There is no way in hell that pre robot necron were just humans with, something odd like a wierd skin colour or bone crest on top of their head.

There is actually no lore statement that there are no female Custodes.

they are made to be peak of super human warrior efficiency. it is not achivable with a woman. Same way a dude will never see as many shades of colours as a woman.



GW wasn't particular creative when it come to Space Marines flavors: space vikings, space vampires, space Romans, etc.
Do that but with female variants.

And yes, GW wrote themselves into a corner with Space Marines.

okey, the thing is dudes like vikings, vampires, romans, knights etc. I have absolutly no idea what mass female buyers of GW would want. I have my doubts they would want vikings, but female or vampires, but female or knight but female. Because unlike SoB, that would be derivative.