https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/

So Games Workshop has posted a statement against hate, again. Does anybody know if there is something current that has prompted them to do it, or is it just about the ongoing toxification of internet (and other) cultures?

The statement itself is very well written for GW standards. While it is a sad affair if they feel the need to point out that their 40k setting is satirical, it might actually be necessary. However, explaining something like this feels a bit like when you have to explain the punchline of a joke.

Probably this https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801907.page

Especially because of this

If you come to a Games Workshop event or store and behave to the contrary, including wearing the symbols of real-world hate groups, you will be asked to leave. We won’t let you participate. We don’t want your money. We don’t want you in the Warhammer community.

Hm, i'm half tempted to say someone saw that Spanish tournament thread on here. Or heard about it some other way. Either way it's a good statement.

 Overread wrote:
Probably this https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801907.page

Especially because of this

If you come to a Games Workshop event or store and behave to the contrary, including wearing the symbols of real-world hate groups, you will be asked to leave. We won’t let you participate. We don’t want your money. We don’t want you in the Warhammer community.

Thank you. Makes sense. As I'm not into tournaments, I did not notice that.

It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

And then the entire plot thrust of trying to return the Imperium to "greatness" and the call to nationalistic nostalgia is never treated with any kind of criticism. Just look at subreddit's like r/40klore and how people bemoan the loss of the 30k Imperium; despite it functionally being the exact same as the one 10,000 years later, just a little bit more efficient at weaponizing its monstrous evil and pretending it isn't religious. (despite the entire structure and enforcement of the Imperial Truth aping all of the worst aspects of organized religion completely)

So, GW can say this all it wants. But everything about the way it markets and presents its flagship IP does not reflect this statement and in fact further reinforces, emboldens and encourages the reactionary right-wing chuds like the Neo-Nazi at that Spanish tournament.

If they had any actual bravery whatsoever they'd actually start to present characters like Guilliman and Marines in general as the horrible monsters and giant pieces of gak they actually are, if only just a little. They did it many years ago.

Good on GW for posting this.

Good Job GW

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

And then the entire plot thrust of trying to return the Imperium to "greatness" and the call to nationalistic nostalgia is never treated with any kind of criticism. Just look at subreddit's like r/40klore and how people bemoan the loss of the 30k Imperium; despite it functionally being the exact same as the one 10,000 years later, just a little bit more efficient at weaponizing its monstrous evil and pretending it isn't religious. (despite the entire structure and enforcement of the Imperial Truth aping all of the worst aspects of organized religion completely)

So, GW can say this all it wants. But everything about the way it markets and presents its flagship IP does not reflect this statement and in fact further reinforces, emboldens and encourages the reactionary right-wing chuds like the Neo-Nazi at that Spanish tournament.

If they had any actual bravery whatsoever they'd actually start to present characters like Guilliman and Marines in general as the horrible monsters and giant pieces of gak they actually are, if only just a little. They did it many years ago.

To be fair, the way the Emperor is presented in the Siege of Terra books is not like this at all. There are plenty of in universe people (that aren't Chaosified) criticising what he's done.

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

And then the entire plot thrust of trying to return the Imperium to "greatness" and the call to nationalistic nostalgia is never treated with any kind of criticism. Just look at subreddit's like r/40klore and how people bemoan the loss of the 30k Imperium; despite it functionally being the exact same as the one 10,000 years later, just a little bit more efficient at weaponizing its monstrous evil and pretending it isn't religious. (despite the entire structure and enforcement of the Imperial Truth aping all of the worst aspects of organized religion completely)

So, GW can say this all it wants. But everything about the way it markets and presents its flagship IP does not reflect this statement and in fact further reinforces, emboldens and encourages the reactionary right-wing chuds like the Neo-Nazi at that Spanish tournament.

If they had any actual bravery whatsoever they'd actually start to present characters like Guilliman and Marines in general as the horrible monsters and giant pieces of gak they actually are, if only just a little. They did it many years ago.

From what I've heard, the new Black Templar book goes very far and does a good job to portray them as "obviously the bad guys". Haven't seen it myself, but that's what people are saying about it.

Considering GW are actively asking the community to help with clamping down on this behaviour, the mods on here also do their part and start taking a more heavy handed approach to specific posters who evidently support or try to defend such persons.

It's obvious the posters I am talking about, it's meant to be obvious without actually naming them.

Big Corporation does the bare minimum to pay lip service to the currently dominant ideology to ensure maximum profits.

Been this way as long as corporations existed.

prefer to remove this comment for my own integrity hehe...

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Big Corporation does the bare minimum to pay lip service to the currently dominant ideology to ensure maximum profits.

Been this way as long as corporations existed.

Care to explain?

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

And then the entire plot thrust of trying to return the Imperium to "greatness" and the call to nationalistic nostalgia is never treated with any kind of criticism. Just look at subreddit's like r/40klore and how people bemoan the loss of the 30k Imperium; despite it functionally being the exact same as the one 10,000 years later, just a little bit more efficient at weaponizing its monstrous evil and pretending it isn't religious. (despite the entire structure and enforcement of the Imperial Truth aping all of the worst aspects of organized religion completely)

So, GW can say this all it wants. But everything about the way it markets and presents its flagship IP does not reflect this statement and in fact further reinforces, emboldens and encourages the reactionary right-wing chuds like the Neo-Nazi at that Spanish tournament.

If they had any actual bravery whatsoever they'd actually start to present characters like Guilliman and Marines in general as the horrible monsters and giant pieces of gak they actually are, if only just a little. They did it many years ago.

Do these things need to be labeled like a Ben Garrison cartoon?

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Hm, i'm half tempted to say someone saw that Spanish tournament thread on here. Or heard about it some other way. Either way it's a good statement.

No need for them to see anything here, lots of people have been contacting GW to complain about it from Spain.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Considering GW are actively asking the community to help with clamping down on this behaviour, the mods on here also do their part and start taking a more heavy handed approach to specific posters who evidently support or try to defend such persons.

It's obvious the posters I am talking about, it's meant to be obvious without actually naming them.

I'm getting a sense that some things are more obvious than others.

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

And then the entire plot thrust of trying to return the Imperium to "greatness" and the call to nationalistic nostalgia is never treated with any kind of criticism. Just look at subreddit's like r/40klore and how people bemoan the loss of the 30k Imperium; despite it functionally being the exact same as the one 10,000 years later, just a little bit more efficient at weaponizing its monstrous evil and pretending it isn't religious. (despite the entire structure and enforcement of the Imperial Truth aping all of the worst aspects of organized religion completely)

So, GW can say this all it wants. But everything about the way it markets and presents its flagship IP does not reflect this statement and in fact further reinforces, emboldens and encourages the reactionary right-wing chuds like the Neo-Nazi at that Spanish tournament.

If they had any actual bravery whatsoever they'd actually start to present characters like Guilliman and Marines in general as the horrible monsters and giant pieces of gak they actually are, if only just a little. They did it many years ago.

I'm guessing you haven't been watching Hammer and Bolter on Warhammer+? The Marines are definitely not portrayed in a "heroic" light in the episode "In the garden of ghosts".

On a side note:

Yes! GW has finally confirmed that there are no good guys in 40K. So no to any ambition to turn 40K in a comicbook fantasy place and eat it Tau players, you are not the good guys either, just the brightest shade of evil.

For real though:

Good move by GW, there are way too many people out there that fail to grasp the satirical aspect of 40K. Being a racist has no place in the community. The only negativity that should connect us is shame, our collected pile of unpainted miniatures to be exact.

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

You need to read the new BT rulebook

The Black Templars' weapons and wargear are as ornate as they are brutal. Their armoured forms are festooned with symbolic chains, grotesque memento mori and the fluttering parchment of crusader seals. Their scarred faces bear permanent scowls of intolerance and hatred. These are not saviours, not the shining heroes of Imperial legend. Rather, they are destroyers, wrathful warrior knights whose blood-drenched wars of faith rage from one end of the Imperium to the other.

It's full of stuff like this.

TheGoodGerman wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Big Corporation does the bare minimum to pay lip service to the currently dominant ideology to ensure maximum profits.

Been this way as long as corporations existed.

Care to explain?

Corporations don't care about anything but the money, so they always do everything to pretend to support whatever the dominant ideology is where they want to sell stuff. Leftist ideologies are currently dominant among GW's target audience, so GW pretends to cater to them.

You can see this everywhere, from Disney removing gay kisses in China, to Blizzard simultenously supporting protests in the USA and Chineese government cracking down on protestors and minorities.

If fascism was dominant in the west (let's be honest, that's where Warhammer is most popular), GW would relase a statement about how homosexuals aren't allowed in their shops. The CEO is a old white dude that worked all his life in sales and marketing, don't trust a word corporations say. Because fundamentally it's all smoke and mirrors to distract from their endless greed.

 xttz wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

You need to read the new BT rulebook

The Black Templars' weapons and wargear are as ornate as they are brutal. Their armoured forms are festooned with symbolic chains, grotesque memento mori and the fluttering parchment of crusader seals. Their scarred faces bear permanent scowls of intolerance and hatred. These are not saviours, not the shining heroes of Imperial legend. Rather, they are destroyers, wrathful warrior knights whose blood-drenched wars of faith rage from one end of the Imperium to the other.

It's full of stuff like this.

That's cool.

Does any of that apply to any other chapters? People still think the Salamanders are good guys because they have some vague restraint when causing civilian casualties to Imperial citizens.

I'm not being facetious btw, it's legitimately good that GW didn't go the usual modern route with the BT book especially with how the BT themselves can end up attracting the worst of the worst as fans. But the same issues still exist; the BT are portrayed as evil because of their religious fanaticism and not because Space Marines in general are inherently kind of evil and not a good thing.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

TheGoodGerman wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Big Corporation does the bare minimum to pay lip service to the currently dominant ideology to ensure maximum profits.

Been this way as long as corporations existed.

Care to explain?

Corporations don't care about anything but the money, so they always do everything to pretend to support whatever the dominant ideology is where they want to sell stuff. Leftist ideologies are currently dominant among GW's target audience, so GW pretends to cater to them.

You can see this everywhere, from Disney removing gay kisses in China, to Blizzard simultenously supporting protests in the USA and Chineese government cracking down on protestors and minorities.

If fascism was dominant in the west (let's be honest, that's where Warhammer is most popular), GW would relase a statement about how homosexuals aren't allowed in their shops. The CEO is a old white dude that worked all his life in sales and marketing, don't trust a word corporations say. Because fundamentally it's all smoke and mirrors to distract from their endless greed.

It must be incredibly exhausting being so cynical and angry all the time. Looking for conspiracies in every possible place.

Don't look under your bed, corporations are hiding there to steal your teeth.

Conspiracy would imply something underhanded or hidden. There's none of that here.

GW should have included the context of the inciting incident in their post.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

You need to read the new BT rulebook

The Black Templars' weapons and wargear are as ornate as they are brutal. Their armoured forms are festooned with symbolic chains, grotesque memento mori and the fluttering parchment of crusader seals. Their scarred faces bear permanent scowls of intolerance and hatred. These are not saviours, not the shining heroes of Imperial legend. Rather, they are destroyers, wrathful warrior knights whose blood-drenched wars of faith rage from one end of the Imperium to the other.

It's full of stuff like this.

That's cool.

Does any of that apply to any other chapters? People still think the Salamanders are good guys because they have some vague restraint when causing civilian casualties to Imperial citizens.

I'm not being facetious btw, it's legitimately good that GW didn't go the usual modern route with the BT book especially with how the BT themselves can end up attracting the worst of the worst as fans. But the same issues still exist; the BT are portrayed as evil because of their religious fanaticism and not because Space Marines in general are inherently kind of evil and not a good thing.

Yeah, I don't see how this is a request to "Ben Garrison" things. Like Boskellot is saying, the whole lot of the Marines are kind of bad, including Gilly. There is nothing in the setting today that paints him or the valorous, honorable Ultras in a negative light (and I pick them as an example, that is far from the only one).

And no, some random cartoon recorded by some rando on Warhammer+ doesn't count as sufficiently casting Marines in the proper light

 Nurglitch wrote:
Don't look under your bed, corporations are hiding there to steal your teeth.

You say that in a time where you pretty much own nothing, because everything is rented from corporations, you are bombarded with ads every step of the way and you have 0 privacy because all your data is constantly being peddled around by corporations to each other.

Your teeth might be all that you truly own soon.

Was the Spanish tournament where that happened an official Games Workshop event?

I could write something pithy about GW doing the bare minimum here, but honestly, bravo. Simple and to the point, this is an excellent statement.
I'm glad to see Nottingham isn't blind to what's happening in some parts of the hobby. Let's hope this is the first step in them being more pro-active in pushing such people out.

Wonder who is going to get mad GW Is protesting hate speech? (By that, I don't mean Dakkians, but the usual crowd that takes a personal offense whenever GW says something like "hate speech is bad.)

 Fergie0044 wrote:
I could write something pithy about GW doing the bare minimum here, but honestly, bravo. Simple and to the point, this is an excellent statement.
I'm glad to see Nottingham isn't blind to what's happening in some parts of the hobby. Let's hope this is the first step in them being more pro-active in pushing such people out.

Yep, this neatly summarises my feelings on the matter. Exalt.

Agreed, it's good that they make a clear stance on this, there are some bad actors involved in this hobby.

A personal anecdote: when they released the previous "Warhammer is for Everyone" statement I reblogged it on my Instagram feed, and was immediately unfollowed by a handful of people. Good riddance I say, but it shows that there are definitely toxic elements out there.

What is symbol of real world hate-group? no guideline at all, can literally be anything.

Chopstick wrote:
What is symbol of real world hate-group? no guideline at all, can literally be anything.

There are databases that you can reference for these things, if you're really not sure.

It is great thing that they have made such statement and are taking the issue seriously.

But Bosskelot certainly has a point. I've been cringing for the direction of the lore for similar reasons for quite a while. Course correction on that department would be welcome.

 Las wrote:
Was the Spanish tournament where that happened an official Games Workshop event?

No, it was under the management of a local club with the support of a shop and the city hall supplying the venue. GW didn't have anything to do with the tournament.

M.

Chopstick wrote:
What is symbol of real world hate-group? no guideline at all, can literally be anything.

Nazi Swastika comes to mind.
There is a possibility that the swastika bearer could be a Buddhist, but if uses red, black and white Buddhism probably is not involved.

Having been to historical tournaments where people turned up with Nazi themed armies and dressed wearing Nazi medals, hats and t-shirts (and then ragequit when people complained and asked them to tone it down), I welcome this statement.

Its a shame that in the 21st century we have to see statements made reminding people not to dress like a Nazi, but helpful. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realise that its not a cool thing to do.

Good on them for criticizing hateful people.

I think GW are in a bit of a bind though. They say their game is a satire, yet as others have pointed out, they simultaneously glorify the agents of the imperium as a means to sell models. So we're told on the one hand, that the harshness and brutality of the imperium is a satire, yet space marines are glorious heroes that little boys should idolize.

So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

How about a third option.

It's good for them to outright say how bad the Imperium is and what they're meant to be. I've seen a lot of people try to defend and justify their actions as "necessary", which is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Imperium is meant to be. They're the worst possible outcome, not the best.

They're glorified servants of a bigoted regime?

But yeah, GW (perhaps unintentionaly, merely by not reining in the...enthusiasm of some writers) have been hyping up Imperium for a while, good to see them put the subtext into TEXT for once on where they stand.
As to cynicism of corporate morals, corporations very rarely lead the fight on social issues, but it never hurts when they throw in their support.

I mean, isn't it meant to be like in-world propaganda? In-universe, people are often horrified to meet real space marines.

Given that Imperium lost the Horus Heresy to the Chaos Gods, it makes sense that it's the worst of all possible worlds.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's good of them to say this, but also at the same time their recent marketing and even in the writing of their recent lore the satirical elements are being increasingly marginalized. I've yet to see any actual in-text criticism of Guilliman or Space Marines within any lore written in the past 4 years; the Marine Codex goes out of its way to really hammer home how "heroic" and "aspirational" the Marines are. And of course anyone opposed to Guilliman on the Imperium's side is just a corrupt, incompetent, religious fanatic or has some other character flaw that lets us know they aren't to be taken seriously.

You need to read the new BT rulebook

The Black Templars' weapons and wargear are as ornate as they are brutal. Their armoured forms are festooned with symbolic chains, grotesque memento mori and the fluttering parchment of crusader seals. Their scarred faces bear permanent scowls of intolerance and hatred. These are not saviours, not the shining heroes of Imperial legend. Rather, they are destroyers, wrathful warrior knights whose blood-drenched wars of faith rage from one end of the Imperium to the other.

It's full of stuff like this.

That's cool.

Does any of that apply to any other chapters? People still think the Salamanders are good guys because they have some vague restraint when causing civilian casualties to Imperial citizens.

I'm not being facetious btw, it's legitimately good that GW didn't go the usual modern route with the BT book especially with how the BT themselves can end up attracting the worst of the worst as fans. But the same issues still exist; the BT are portrayed as evil because of their religious fanaticism and not because Space Marines in general are inherently kind of evil and not a good thing.

You mean the Angels of Death? The most brutally effective enforcers of the rule of the dead emperor? Well now.

jim30 wrote:
Its a shame that in the 21st century we have to see statements made reminding people not to dress like a Nazi, but helpful. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realise that its not a cool thing to do.

It's probably similar to the quote: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
If you don't stand up every time you see it, it will keep happening.

 Las wrote:
Was the Spanish tournament where that happened an official Games Workshop event?

In the sense that's the biggest team tournament in the world and endorsed by GW, yes. But it's not managed by GW. It's a GT, after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chopstick wrote:
What is symbol of real world hate-group? no guideline at all, can literally be anything.

Given how fast hate groups adopt or suborn symbols, that's kind of a good thing.

Chopstick wrote:
What is symbol of real world hate-group? no guideline at all, can literally be anything.

On the off chance you're actually asking this question in good faith, there are numerous reputable sources for this stuff, and it's fairly easy to work out an answer if you're willing to do a bit of research and mental legwork.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Don't look under your bed, corporations are hiding there to steal your teeth.

You say that in a time where you pretty much own nothing, because everything is rented from corporations, you are bombarded with ads every step of the way and you have 0 privacy because all your data is constantly being peddled around by corporations to each other.

Your teeth might be all that you truly own soon.

I can imagine implants coming with a compulsory lifetime service contract that results in repossession if not met...

While I understand the reason behind the statement, completely.. I am somewhat irritated by the mainstream culture's obessesion with concept of 'hate' as though it were something completely alien and unnatural. Hate is just one of the many emotions on the pallet of any human, and experiencing feelings of hatred is a perfectly legitimate reaction in a number of situations.

Regardless, I feel we must caution against the practice of using broad terms as a generic label to disqualify one's opponenents.

Again, this does not relate to GW's reaction in this specific case, which I wholly support.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
So we're told on the one hand, that the harshness and brutality of the imperium is a satire, yet space marines are glorious heroes that little boys should idolize.

So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

I have always seen them as equal opportunity destroyers and repressors...

And in some ways it is an enlightened future. As long as you are a baseline human without psychic powers or other mutations you are mistreated on the basis of how much wealth, influence and power you have. Gender, race, sexuality, amount of cybernetic parts, age, none of that comes into it. Not that is that is a satire of any countries in the world of course and what they aspire to.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

TheGoodGerman wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Big Corporation does the bare minimum to pay lip service to the currently dominant ideology to ensure maximum profits.

Been this way as long as corporations existed.

Care to explain?

Corporations don't care about anything but the money, so they always do everything to pretend to support whatever the dominant ideology is where they want to sell stuff. Leftist ideologies are currently dominant among GW's target audience, so GW pretends to cater to them.

You can see this everywhere, from Disney removing gay kisses in China, to Blizzard simultenously supporting protests in the USA and Chineese government cracking down on protestors and minorities.

If fascism was dominant in the west (let's be honest, that's where Warhammer is most popular), GW would relase a statement about how homosexuals aren't allowed in their shops. The CEO is a old white dude that worked all his life in sales and marketing, don't trust a word corporations say. Because fundamentally it's all smoke and mirrors to distract from their endless greed.

Yep, there are certainly outliers, like I feel like the Penzeys Spices guy would continue to give off ex-hippie vibes, and Musk and company would continue to be technocratic caricatures of like robber barons, and a number towards the edges would continue to lean either way, but I wouldn't put it past most of the middle.

Yeah I always found it kinda bizarre that the people who claim to be most stridently against hate are so often very obviously consumed by it themselves, but intense hypocrisy is ofc nothing new.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

Both, I think.
You have Salamanders and Ultramarines, which are supposed to be paragons of virtue.
And then you have Minotaurs and Marines Malevolent which are absolute spankers.

Personally I'd preferred if they went back to Marines being Not-Saudarkars and be vicious killing machines (like in RT, I think?), but it seems GW wanted to theme them somewhat after chivalric warrior monks.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

Both, I think.
You have Salamanders and Ultramarines, which are supposed to be paragons of virtue.

-you mean the xenophobic, genociding child-killers and the Space SS?

You can have the in-universe propaganda be at odds with the in-universe reality of the situation. Probably should, if you're doing satire.

Incidentally, chivalric warrior monks were a bunch of bastards, historically.

 Bosskelot wrote:
I
The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

Guilliman has been blonde haired and blue eyed since the 90s. If you think his return to the Imperium was designed as some kind of endorsement of Trumpism then you need to seriously reconsider how much you're looking into things and lighten up a bit. Also while the Ultras aren't exactly 'good' by todays standards, they're one of the more acceptable faces of the Imperium - if everyone was evil grimdark all the time, 40k would have remained niche to this day, you can't support an IP with everyone walking around like Rorschach on a bad day.

Anyway Trump isnt even white, he's orange.

JWBS wrote:
Yeah I always found it kinda bizarre that the people who claim to be most stridently against hate are so often very obviously consumed by it themselves, but intense hypocrisy is ofc nothing new.

BoTh SidES aM i RiGhT?!

 Londinium wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I
The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

Guilliman has been blonde haired and blue eyed since the 90s. If you think his return to the Imperium was designed as some kind of endorsement of Trumpism then you need to seriously reconsider how much you're looking into things and lighten up a bit.

Hell Trump isnt even white, he's orange.

Didn't stop his fans from latching on to it as some sort of weird endorsement. Pretty sure the comment is less about intent, and more about impact, and I've seen enough Trump-Emperor and Trump-girlyman memes to last a lifetime.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

Both, I think.
You have Salamanders and Ultramarines, which are supposed to be paragons of virtue.

-you mean the xenophobic, genociding child-killers and the Space SS?

No I mean the chapters that treat their civilian populace well, to the point that Salamanders like to hang out with Nocturnians (Nocturans? People who live on Nocturne).
Since when were Ultramarines space SS?

 Londinium wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I
The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

Guilliman has been blonde haired and blue eyed since the 90s. If you think his return to the Imperium was designed as some kind of endorsement of Trumpism then you need to seriously reconsider how much you're looking into things and lighten up a bit.

Hell Trump isnt even white, he's orange.

I think the point was bad timing to bring in a character/narrative which could easily speak to a fascist aesthetic.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

Both, I think.
You have Salamanders and Ultramarines, which are supposed to be paragons of virtue.

-you mean the xenophobic, genociding child-killers and the Space SS?

Since when were Ultramarines space SS?

Ever since they were the militarized wing of the ruling governing party of the fascist regime, probably. I mean, the parallels are obvious.

Cronch wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Yeah I always found it kinda bizarre that the people who claim to be most stridently against hate are so often very obviously consumed by it themselves, but intense hypocrisy is ofc nothing new.

BoTh SidES aM i RiGhT?!

Both sides what? Have I touched a nerve here or something?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

Both, I think.
You have Salamanders and Ultramarines, which are supposed to be paragons of virtue.

-you mean the xenophobic, genociding child-killers and the Space SS?

Since when were Ultramarines space SS?

Ever since they were the militarized wing of the ruling governing party of the fascist regime, probably. I mean, the parallels are obvious.

The Roman Legion are SS? After all, they were the military wing of the Roman Empire.
The parallels aren't obvious if the fictional government in question takes inspiration from countless sources.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Londinium wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I
The entire plot-line of Guilliman's return especially unfortunately came at the wrong RL time entirely. Here you have a blue-eyed, blonde haired, superman outsider coming into to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again. In 2016/17. Yikes.

Guilliman has been blonde haired and blue eyed since the 90s. If you think his return to the Imperium was designed as some kind of endorsement of Trumpism then you need to seriously reconsider how much you're looking into things and lighten up a bit.

Hell Trump isnt even white, he's orange.

I think the point was bad timing to bring in a character/narrative which could easily speak to a fascist aesthetic.

When would be good timing? You can't write a character out of the IP essentially because he's white and blonde and the storyline would make him look like a saviour. Guilliman was the most obvious and thematically best placed character in the IP to play the role of saving a faltering Imperium - the Lion is probably the other option but he's not the Primarch of the settings posterboys, nor does anyone in universe know where he actually is unlike Guilliman on Macragge.

GW shouldn't have to limit it's storytelling because some whackjob fringe of the internet adopts it in a wrong way. Said whackjobs on both sides of the political divide will and have latched onto all sorts of things, against the intentions of the IP creators, it's just the nature of the internet. GW is doing well by disassociating itself from them.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

Both, I think.
You have Salamanders and Ultramarines, which are supposed to be paragons of virtue.

-you mean the xenophobic, genociding child-killers and the Space SS?

Since when were Ultramarines space SS?

Ever since they were the militarized wing of the ruling governing party of the fascist regime, probably. I mean, the parallels are obvious.

The Roman Legion are SS? After all, they were the military wing of the Roman Empire.
The parallels aren't obvious if the fictional government in question takes inspiration from countless sources.

You know the birthplace of fascism was literally aping the Roman Empire, right? Right?

Salamanders are good in the sense that they are chill with imperial civilians.

They also like, love to genocide Eldars because they hate xenos and anything that isn't Imperial including other humans sooo....

JWBS wrote:

Cronch wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Yeah I always found it kinda bizarre that the people who claim to be most stridently against hate are so often very obviously consumed by it themselves, but intense hypocrisy is ofc nothing new.

BoTh SidES aM i RiGhT?!

Both sides what? Have I touched a nerve here or something?

Nah, i'm not surprised you think being against nazi presence in the public is being just as filled with hate as literally thinking gas chambers were a good idea. Enlightened centrism do be like that

Cronch wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Cronch wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Yeah I always found it kinda bizarre that the people who claim to be most stridently against hate are so often very obviously consumed by it themselves, but intense hypocrisy is ofc nothing new.

BoTh SidES aM i RiGhT?!

Both sides what? Have I touched a nerve here or something?

Nah, i'm not surprised you think being against nazi presence in the public is being just as filled with hate as literally thinking gas chambers were a good idea. Enlightened centrism do be like that

That's something of a reach is it not? I don't condone this Nazi glorification and I also didn't ever imply that I did. It would take an absolute dunce to mistake what I said with what you seem to think I said

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

Both, I think.
You have Salamanders and Ultramarines, which are supposed to be paragons of virtue.

-you mean the xenophobic, genociding child-killers and the Space SS?

Since when were Ultramarines space SS?

Ever since they were the militarized wing of the ruling governing party of the fascist regime, probably. I mean, the parallels are obvious.

The Roman Legion are SS? After all, they were the military wing of the Roman Empire.
The parallels aren't obvious if the fictional government in question takes inspiration from countless sources.

You know the birthplace of fascism was literally aping the Roman Empire, right? Right?

You do know the Roman Empire itself wasn't fascist, right? Fascism was a 20th century ideology spawned as a reaction to communism and the collapse of the state.
I have not once read of the Roman Empire being described as fascist, especially not by historians.
The Fascist Salute isn't even Roman ffs, it comes from a 18th century French painting.

Let's be real: They've failed to meaningfully lean in on the satirical elements since third edition, and as pointed out already, they've recently been writing Gulliman as a heroic and noble new Emperor in all but name with no particularly visible evil to his private army of Ultramarines. His progress is slow, sure, but he's an unambiguous good guy because the people writing him are too full of fanboy juice to give him real flaws, even though as a clear copy of Julius Caesar who conspicuously takes actions a power-hungry man would take, it's not exactly hard to see the gaps where his flaws should be.

Frankly, I think 40k should have good guys, because you need someone for the grimdark to happen in. You need characters who illustrate just how bad the backdrop they're set against are... And they should be in multiple factions, and the best existing example I can think of is Ciaphas Cain.

Cain can't change anything. He has flaws and he'd be the first to tell you about them at length. But he's a sane man in an insane galaxy. A morale officer who actually focuses on his troops morale instead of shooting them in the face until they arrange an "accident" for him. He seeks personal safety, but that's hardly irrational when a Carnifex is bearing down on you and he's consistently managed to do good when backed into a corner. A Cain book, whilst the series as a whole is kinda repetitive, shows you very clearly how awful the galaxy is from the perspective of a semi-decent guy. And there's no reason there couldn't be a similar sane Tau, or Eldar, or even Necron.

And indeed, is the average agri-world worker evil? Of course not, they're farmers. They might have a few indoctrinated bigotries from the Imperial church, but they'll ultimately just be an average joe trynna live their life.

There's no good factions in 40k, or at least written competently, their shouldn't be. Plenty of good individuals for the horrible crushing grimdarkness to happen to though.

JWBS wrote:
Yeah I always found it kinda bizarre that the people who claim to be most stridently against hate are so often very obviously consumed by it themselves, but intense hypocrisy is ofc nothing new.

There is a great recent Daily Mail article talking about the reduction and death of punctuation. The typical chorus of outrage ensued in the comments about kids these days and standards of education. Nearly all of it awfully punctuated...

Still like the bit in Yes Minister where Hacker bemoans the state of education and Sir Humphrey replies in Latin, then points out what was the point of learning it if he can't even use it to talk to the Prime Minister of the country.

Guilliman is mostly portrayed as heroic if somewhat tragic figure and his return as a good thing. That's the guy de facto in charge of Imperium.

This really is not good satire.

The article is very clear in its message. However GW's representation of the IoM however has been diluted down a lot over the decades. GW are in a bit of a tricky situation as they are selling a product that has genocidal, xenophobic, psychopathic super warriors who serve a brutal authoritarian religious regime to kids, and even going as far as doing kid friendly comics about them now. It does erode the satire somewhat.

Satire isn't for everyone, it usually has a very focused appeal. GW are trying to maximise their appeal as they are first and foremost a sales driven company.

The way things are going, I think they need to change the setting, to be a clearly good guys vs clearly bad guys. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years we see Warhammer 50,000 and things are completely different. The IoM has redeemed itself, and it along with the noble Eldar and Tau fight against the evil forces of Chaos, Death, and Destruction. The Age of Sigmar setting worked as it allowed clear cut motives and there was no room for ambiguity to let neo-nazi scum hide in.

In closing... feth Nazi/facisim.

Hahaha that is hilarious, I have been seeing a lot of people making fun of this "statement" from GW which is as it should be.

in before "nooo my violent extremists are ok cos they are my ones not yours that are evil and bad"

Do not care, jog on Coomies, NatSocs and Fasbois.

There's still plenty of satire in the fiction. It's sad to me but not surprising that many people just don't see it or understand it though. But that's always been the nature of satire.

 Londinium wrote:
When would be good timing? You can't write a character out of the IP essentially because he's white and blonde and the storyline would make him look like a saviour. Guilliman was the most obvious and thematically best placed character in the IP to play the role of saving a faltering Imperium - the Lion is probably the other option but he's not the Primarch of the settings posterboys, nor does anyone in universe know where he actually is unlike Guilliman on Macragge.

GW shouldn't have to limit it's storytelling because some whackjob fringe of the internet adopts it in a wrong way. Said whackjobs on both sides of the political divide will and have latched onto all sorts of things, against the intentions of the IP creators, it's just the nature of the internet. GW is doing well by disassociating itself from them.

Maybe there's no good timing for the crumbling dystopian empire to be saved by a heroic white guy from the past and rewritten as maybe not so dystopian and a bit more epic, but during a surge in violent nationalism maybe was particularly bad timing.

There also may just be some storylines that are kinda dated and not good anymore, period. Take pretty much any 19th century adventure stories that involve going into the heart of uncivilized lands as a civilized white dude with a gun and gumption: they probably wouldn't be received very well now. They might even be something of a liability, because they look backward and support views now associated with people with attitudes that don't look very nice in this millennium. The same way what's generally acceptable (both what's become accepted and what's no longer accepted) in portraying/discussing gender, race, etc. has changed radically over the last half-century.

 Londinium wrote:
.When would be good timing? You can't write a character out of the IP essentially because he's white and blonde and the storyline would make him look like a saviour. Guilliman was the most obvious and thematically best placed character in the IP to play the role of saving a faltering Imperium - the Lion is probably the other option but he's not the Primarch of the settings posterboys, nor does anyone in universe know where he actually is unlike Guilliman on Macragge.

GW shouldn't have to limit it's storytelling because some whackjob fringe of the internet adopts it in a wrong way. Said whackjobs on both sides of the political divide will and have latched onto all sorts of things, against the intentions of the IP creators, it's just the nature of the internet. GW is doing well by disassociating itself from them.

Why on earth did they need a character to save a faltering imperium in the first place? The imperium have been on a slow death spiral for ten thousand years, they coulda kept circling the drain just fine for a while longer if the people in charge of the IP hadn't performed the staggeringly stupid-sounding writing feat of having a guy they'd decided to center as a "main villain" cut an entire galaxy in half with his amazing genius masterplan.

We didn't actually need a singular predominant villain nor a singular predominant hero to rise against him. God, I know the writing staff has some abaddon fanboys on it, but "Most prominent chaos lord" is a perfectly respectable and impressive position as-is without making him the ultra-high priority overriding threat in a galaxy with multiple setting-wide-extinction-event capable factions.

The all-consuming bugs? The mad robot men? No no, the real threat is the scattered remnants of a failed rebellion who went ten thousand years hiding in a space rift, unable to hold realspace territory, scavenging for resources. Clearly.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:


So which is it? Are the space marines heroes of righteous values or are they agents of a dark and bigoted regime that the game is satirizing?

I'd suggest these are not mutually exclusive, since righteous values are relative. Large parts of the Imperium likely consider them to be the angelic heroes they are generally portrayed as, other parties will consider them the enforcers of a fascist regime. They are also tragic figures in many ways, having sacrificed large parts of their humanity, both in spirit and in flesh, by the necessities of a galaxy spanning struggle for survival and domination. To use an extreme example: whether an exterminatus is ethically justified is a matter of context. In the Baal novel, they kill off a planet only to slightly weaken and delay the Tyranid Hive fleet, which goes to illustrate how desperate and skewed measures have become in setting. Space Marines may seem bland on the surface, but there is a whole lot of nuance and substance to be explored when you delve deeper into the matter.

changemod wrote:

 Londinium wrote:
.When would be good timing? You can't write a character out of the IP essentially because he's white and blonde and the storyline would make him look like a saviour. Guilliman was the most obvious and thematically best placed character in the IP to play the role of saving a faltering Imperium - the Lion is probably the other option but he's not the Primarch of the settings posterboys, nor does anyone in universe know where he actually is unlike Guilliman on Macragge.

GW shouldn't have to limit it's storytelling because some whackjob fringe of the internet adopts it in a wrong way. Said whackjobs on both sides of the political divide will and have latched onto all sorts of things, against the intentions of the IP creators, it's just the nature of the internet. GW is doing well by disassociating itself from them.

Why on earth did they need a character to save a faltering imperium in the first place? The imperium have been on a slow death spiral for ten thousand years, they coulda kept circling the drain just fine for a while longer if the people in charge of the IP hadn't performed the staggeringly stupid-sounding writing feat of having a guy they'd decided to center as a "main villain" cut an entire galaxy in half with his amazing genius masterplan.

We didn't actually need a singular predominant villain nor a singular predominant hero to rise against him. God, I know the writing staff has some abaddon fanboys on it, but "Most prominent chaos lord" is a perfectly respectable and impressive position as-is without making him the ultra-high priority overriding threat in a galaxy with multiple setting-wide-extinction-event capable factions.

The all-consuming bugs? The mad robot men? No no, the real threat is the scattered remnants of a failed rebellion who went ten thousand years hiding in a space rift, unable to hold realspace territory, scavenging for resources. Clearly.

Oh I agree. It was done to get Primaris into the setting (amongst other stuff) and I think all the Primaris lore is nonsense but once they decided to persue the Fall of Cadia storyline, Guilliman was the obvious saviour unless GW wanted to go down a really dark route of having the Imperium openly shatter into hundreds of pieces. In which case the setting would have been nothing other than post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity. Hell in that scenario you'd barely be able to sustain the logistical ability to deploy Space Marines, which would remove the posterboys of the setting. Regardless of what some 40k neckbeards on the internet insist upon, there has always been a glimmer of hope in the Imperium and the 40k setting, it needs to have that hope or else it'd be relentlessly grindingly dull.

changemod wrote:

Frankly, I think 40k should have good guys, because you need someone for the grimdark to happen in. You need characters who illustrate just how bad the backdrop they're set against are... And they should be in multiple factions, and the best existing example I can think of is Ciaphas Cain.

Cain can't change anything. He has flaws and he'd be the first to tell you about them at length. But he's a sane man in an insane galaxy. A morale officer who actually focuses on his troops morale instead of shooting them in the face until they arrange an "accident" for him. He seeks personal safety, but that's hardly irrational when a Carnifex is bearing down on you and he's consistently managed to do good when backed into a corner. A Cain book, whilst the series as a whole is kinda repetitive, shows you very clearly how awful the galaxy is from the perspective of a semi-decent guy. And there's no reason there couldn't be a similar sane Tau, or Eldar, or even Necron.

And indeed, is the average agri-world worker evil? Of course not, they're farmers. They might have a few indoctrinated bigotries from the Imperial church, but they'll ultimately just be an average joe trynna live their life.

Yeah. You just can't put such good guy in charge of an evil faction with heavy fascist vibes. That's sending some serious mixed messages.

They say people will be asked to leave if they're wearing symbols of real-world hate groups.

Isn't that illegal in the US? I have a vague recollection about a case where people were denied service because they wore Nazi iconography, and the people wearing the swastikas took it to court and won.

You can of course eject people for behaving poorly regardless of what symbols they are wearing, but I thought it wasn't allowed to deny service to someone based on iconography they might wear. At least in the US I thought, because what you call a hate symbol may be a political symbol to someone else.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Don't look under your bed, corporations are hiding there to steal your teeth.

You say that in a time where you pretty much own nothing, because everything is rented from corporations, you are bombarded with ads every step of the way and you have 0 privacy because all your data is constantly being peddled around by corporations to each other.

Your teeth might be all that you truly own soon.

I can imagine implants coming with a compulsory lifetime service contract that results in repossession if not met...

So, Repo: The Genetic Opera?

Imagine a world with no unironic Marine fanboys.

The beauty of it.

Yeah elements of the Imperium are quite regularly portrayed as noble good guys in the setting tbh - the extremes they go to are all arguably justified by the extreme nature of the threats they face. GW should do a lot more to make the "satire" obvious. I don't think the satire defence really holds up for the modern 40k setting, it's more of a straightforward masculine power fantasy

Ok so, a few years ago i was part of a fandom, Nazis started to infiltrate into the fandom and because alot of it was about being loving and tolerating, they where allowed to stay. It lead to riots and racial slurs happening at conventions, including the harassments of a Jewish writer. It pretty much destroyed a good part of the fandom and forced me out. This fandom, just like 40k and much of wargaming, had young disaffected(Mostly white) men that made it a prime recruitment ground for Nazis(Young men in general tend to make a god recruitment for extremist groupts)
I get there is this idea that freedom of speech means everyone gets a voice. But freedom of speech must itself be hostile to speech that threatens it.
This isnt political, peoples lives are not politics, politics is taxes, not whether someone who believes I should be dead is allowed to speak

 Las wrote:
Was the Spanish tournament where that happened an official Games Workshop event?

Anyone bringing this up is veering dangerously into "akshuuaallllly" territory. You know just like all computer games are Nintendo, all pro wrestling is WWE to the uninitiated all wargames and minis are Warhammer (GW even leaned into this- why do you think they changed the names of their stores, as people refer to it as "the Warhammer store".). What kind of bad press do you think GW would have to deal with from loads and loads of random parents etc. particularly in the run up to Christmas if they'd have said nothing and this story got out to the mainstream press?

I'm one of the last people to praise GW for stuff, but credit where credit is due- They've gone and grown a pair and shown their "Warhammer is for everyone" statement is more than just hollow words and good on them for it.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Don't look under your bed, corporations are hiding there to steal your teeth.

You say that in a time where you pretty much own nothing, because everything is rented from corporations, you are bombarded with ads every step of the way and you have 0 privacy because all your data is constantly being peddled around by corporations to each other.

Your teeth might be all that you truly own soon.

You write that as if it was a bad thing.

But seriously, life is not that bad. Especially when you live in a western style democracy. You have more agency for your life than you pretend here. But it’s interesting to see which three examples you picked, of which I would only really accept the (potential) lack of opportunity to build wealth as a major one. The other two aren’t really, if you live in the EU that is and take a little care of what you share on the internet.

Also on the "in a time" reference: today might be bad, but when has it been better?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Imagine a world with no unironic Marine fanboys.

The beauty of it.

Imagine a world where GW can issue a statement explaining their stance on their setting, whilst telling people that any socially unacceptable behaviour or imagery isn't welcome, but we don't have to have a multi page unironic thread about how they're an evil corporate entity catering to the masses who would happily mug your nan.

Sometimes they're allowed to say the right thing. Sometimes they're allowed to have their fans backs and sometimes they don't need a sideswipe at their good intent.

 Londinium wrote:

changemod wrote:

 Londinium wrote:
.When would be good timing? You can't write a character out of the IP essentially because he's white and blonde and the storyline would make him look like a saviour. Guilliman was the most obvious and thematically best placed character in the IP to play the role of saving a faltering Imperium - the Lion is probably the other option but he's not the Primarch of the settings posterboys, nor does anyone in universe know where he actually is unlike Guilliman on Macragge.

GW shouldn't have to limit it's storytelling because some whackjob fringe of the internet adopts it in a wrong way. Said whackjobs on both sides of the political divide will and have latched onto all sorts of things, against the intentions of the IP creators, it's just the nature of the internet. GW is doing well by disassociating itself from them.

Why on earth did they need a character to save a faltering imperium in the first place? The imperium have been on a slow death spiral for ten thousand years, they coulda kept circling the drain just fine for a while longer if the people in charge of the IP hadn't performed the staggeringly stupid-sounding writing feat of having a guy they'd decided to center as a "main villain" cut an entire galaxy in half with his amazing genius masterplan.

We didn't actually need a singular predominant villain nor a singular predominant hero to rise against him. God, I know the writing staff has some abaddon fanboys on it, but "Most prominent chaos lord" is a perfectly respectable and impressive position as-is without making him the ultra-high priority overriding threat in a galaxy with multiple setting-wide-extinction-event capable factions.

The all-consuming bugs? The mad robot men? No no, the real threat is the scattered remnants of a failed rebellion who went ten thousand years hiding in a space rift, unable to hold realspace territory, scavenging for resources. Clearly.

Oh I agree. It was done to get Primaris into the setting (amongst other stuff) and I think all the Primaris lore is nonsense but once they decided to persue the Fall of Cadia storyline, Guilliman was the obvious saviour unless GW wanted to go down a really dark route of having the Imperium openly shatter into hundreds of pieces. In which case the setting would have been nothing other than post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity. Hell in that scenario you'd barely be able to sustain the logistical ability to deploy Space Marines, which would remove the posterboys of the setting. Regardless of what some 40k neckbeards on the internet insist upon, there has always been a glimmer of hope in the Imperium and the 40k setting, it needs to have that hope or else it'd be relentlessly grindingly dull.

Officially that glimmer of hope is Tzeentch changing the reels.

Dudeface wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Imagine a world with no unironic Marine fanboys.

The beauty of it.

Imagine a world where GW can issue a statement explaining their stance on their setting, whilst telling people that any socially unacceptable behaviour or imagery isn't welcome, but we don't have to have a multi page unironic thread about how they're an evil corporate entity catering to the masses who would happily mug your nan.

Sometimes they're allowed to say the right thing. Sometimes they're allowed to have their fans backs and sometimes they don't need a sideswipe at their good intent.

By God man, they're a multi-billion dollar corporation.
The average fan matters less to them as an individual than a speck of dust.

GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Imagine a world with no unironic Marine fanboys.

The beauty of it.

Imagine a world where GW can issue a statement explaining their stance on their setting, whilst telling people that any socially unacceptable behaviour or imagery isn't welcome, but we don't have to have a multi page unironic thread about how they're an evil corporate entity catering to the masses who would happily mug your nan.

Sometimes they're allowed to say the right thing. Sometimes they're allowed to have their fans backs and sometimes they don't need a sideswipe at their good intent.

By God man, they're a multi-billion dollar corporation.
The average fan matters less to them as an individual than a speck of dust.

It doesn't stop them doing the right thing as they have here. This is a statement with 0 corporate smarm and is aimed purely as a social acceptance note.

This "fanbase" is magical in the sense that I can't think of any others who would want to throw shade on a corporation calling out bad behaviour and preaching acceptance.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

Sorry, what?

 BlackoCatto wrote:
GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

You make fun of them for calling out the scum of society?

Read their signature line and realize that it's better to just click ignore.

Edit: Yeah, go through their comments and some of the first things they posted on this forum was back during the "Black Lives Matter" movement and how bad it was GW said they don't support hate crimes.

Wonder how long till this thread is locked?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

Sorry, what?

He's feeling called out and is upset about that.

The biggest irony is the forum avatar.
A character from a race of people oppressed in their world

Very good statement at a time it is needed.

More and more far right wing groups are trying to demolish everything democracy has done in EU right now and those with hateful ideologies feel empowered to show themselves without any fear.

It's damn time to say their ideas are nauseating and their company isn't wanted in society. It's not free speech, it's spreading hate to crush anyone thinking otherwise.

Since they always play the victims no matter how they're really treated, better to kick them out of our hobby without any shame nor remorse. No one should want to spoil fun of others to make a point with their not-so-subtle "symbols", even when we're at a damn event for pushing painted plastic soldiers on the board.

GW definitely had a long period where they eased up on the satire and the "Imperium are the bad guys" stuff that used to be a foundational part of the setting. Bringing back Guilliman was clearly an attempt to super-hero the setting - complete with a super-hero style story about getting back to Terra, utilizing a multi-faction cast of wacky characters all working together to help G-man save the galaxy, fighting against comic-book style supervillains in the daemon primarchs. During this period Space Marines were clearly being positioned to be something closer to conventional heroes.

The new BT book seems to be something of a rejection of this narrative and a return to more classic 40k ideas, which is welcome given recent world events that have made the Guilliman "drain the swamp" story look horribly misjudged. I don't think it's any surprise or coincidence that fascists have embraced 40k in the last decade or two in a way they didn't in the past when it was much clearer that the Imperium was not something to be emulated or to be "made great again."

Sarouan wrote:
Very good statement at a time it is needed.

More and more far right wing groups are trying to demolish everything democracy has done in EU right now and those with hateful ideologies feel empowered to show themselves without any fear.

It's damn time to say their ideas are nauseating and their company isn't wanted in society. It's not free speech, it's spreading hate to crush anyone thinking otherwise.

Since they always play the victims no matter how they're really treated, better to kick them out of our hobby without any shame nor remorse. No one should want to spoil fun of others to make a point with their not-so-subtle "symbols", even when we're at a damn event for pushing painted plastic soldiers on the board.

Democracy? Eu?

One of the leading countries of the EU hasn't even a ratified constitution, you know the baseline most important bit of a functional democratic rule of law tree?

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
Very good statement at a time it is needed.

More and more far right wing groups are trying to demolish everything democracy has done in EU right now and those with hateful ideologies feel empowered to show themselves without any fear.

It's damn time to say their ideas are nauseating and their company isn't wanted in society. It's not free speech, it's spreading hate to crush anyone thinking otherwise.

Since they always play the victims no matter how they're really treated, better to kick them out of our hobby without any shame nor remorse. No one should want to spoil fun of others to make a point with their not-so-subtle "symbols", even when we're at a damn event for pushing painted plastic soldiers on the board.

Democracy? Eu?

One of the leading countries of the EU hasn't even a ratified constitution, you know the baseline most important bit of a functional democratic rule of law tree?

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

I'm pretty sure companies saying "Nazis are bad" is not a slippery slope.

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis around with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists is socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

Sarouan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

No. You are smarter than this I know it.
There is no good Nazi that advocates for LGBT rights or Racial justice.
There are good Muslims though, infact a good majority.

changemod wrote:


Frankly, I think 40k should have good guys, because you need someone for the grimdark to happen in. You need characters who illustrate just how bad the backdrop they're set against are... And they should be in multiple factions, and the best existing example I can think of is Ciaphas Cain.

Cain can't change anything. He has flaws and he'd be the first to tell you about them at length. But he's a sane man in an insane galaxy. A morale officer who actually focuses on his troops morale instead of shooting them in the face until they arrange an "accident" for him. He seeks personal safety, but that's hardly irrational when a Carnifex is bearing down on you and he's consistently managed to do good when backed into a corner. A Cain book, whilst the series as a whole is kinda repetitive, shows you very clearly how awful the galaxy is from the perspective of a semi-decent guy. And there's no reason there couldn't be a similar sane Tau, or Eldar, or even Necron.

And indeed, is the average agri-world worker evil? Of course not, they're farmers. They might have a few indoctrinated bigotries from the Imperial church, but they'll ultimately just be an average joe trynna live their life.

There's no good factions in 40k, or at least written competently, their shouldn't be. Plenty of good individuals for the horrible crushing grimdarkness to happen to though.

This is absolutely true, but it also only works because the character is fundamentally powerless in the ways that matter.

The big misstep with Guilliman was giving him so much power. In a grimdark setting, you have to have heroism and you have to have heroes, but they also have to be little pockets of hope in the sea of despair. You can't make one the de facto ruler of the Imperium.

GW used to understand this. The closest to a "good" faction in the old GW 40k universe was the Craftworld Eldar (who were not so much actually good as just not affirmatively evil), but they were always balanced by being a race in terminal, inevitable decline. Even the way they lived, in isolated craftworlds floating in a massive void of hostile space, was a metaphor for hope in a sea of darkness.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:


-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

Thank you for remembering me why I put you on ignore. Finally, this topic is great to really show where people actually stand.

And to answe you (even if you don't care because facts never matter for you - just feelings) ; no, that's not the muslims who say that. Because all muslims aren't extremists who want to do the djihad.

On the other hand, all neo-nazis say that kind of nauseating ideology. So it's pretty fine to generalize here. Because that's how bad they really are.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Hm, i'm half tempted to say someone saw that Spanish tournament thread on here. Or heard about it some other way. Either way it's a good statement.

It is indeed.

To be fair to GW, their statement wasn't directed only at Nazis, even though we know that's what prompted it. Presumably they'd be just as happy to kick someone out of a GW event for wearing an ISIS flag as a swastika.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

No. You are smarter than this I know it.
There is no good Nazi that advocates for LGBT rights or Racial justice.
There are good Muslims though, infact a good majority.

Got any stats on that? Most Muslims in Middle East are very fascist-adjacent.

Or quite literally just fascist, the first president of Palestine was an ex-Nazi.

 Londinium wrote:
Oh I agree. It was done to get Primaris into the setting (amongst other stuff) and I think all the Primaris lore is nonsense but once they decided to persue the Fall of Cadia storyline, Guilliman was the obvious saviour unless GW wanted to go down a really dark route of having the Imperium openly shatter into hundreds of pieces. In which case the setting would have been nothing other than post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity. Hell in that scenario you'd barely be able to sustain the logistical ability to deploy Space Marines, which would remove the posterboys of the setting. Regardless of what some 40k neckbeards on the internet insist upon, there has always been a glimmer of hope in the Imperium and the 40k setting, it needs to have that hope or else it'd be relentlessly grindingly dull.

Dunno. The Fall of the Roman Empire (and every other before and after) didn't exactly cause "post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity" (or romanity, in that case, you know ^^). Nations fall, nations rise, some heirs to the old ones, some new ones.

yukishiro1 wrote:
To be fair to GW, their statement wasn't directed only at Nazis, even though we know that's what prompted it. Presumably they'd be just as happy to kick someone out of a GW event for wearing an ISIS flag as a swastika.

And thank the Emperor for that too.

TheGoodGerman wrote:
Also on the "in a time" reference: today might be bad, but when has it been better?

For whom? Because I sure feel like I'm making dirt wages as companies concentrate wealth, constantly passively surveilled, living through a pandemic that could have been lessened if not for... people I have nothing good to say about, living through a period in which people are more and more comfortable calling for the deaths of myself and people I care about (or, you know, actually killing people with automatic weapons), witnessing massive environmental degradation that could be prevented, experiencing (with occasional exception) political parties intent on undermining social infrastructure because it's unprofitable... etc etc etc

But, y'know, it's cool that we get to choose our own adventure when shopping online or whatever, get to have pocket-sized computers that we're also now required to have, and get to communicate on platforms that monetize basic social interaction. Never better.

Not Online!!! wrote:
And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?

I would be curious if they're even allowed to refuse service to people wearing Nazi symbols in the USA, legally speaking.

Kicking people out for bad behaviour isn't even an issue IMO and hardly even needs a statement, but for "wearing hate symbols" is a bit of a loose statement to me. Are we only talking about Nazi symbols here? Outside of that, there's symbols that people might find offensive and hateful that others might simply find political or a representation of a group of which they are a member.

deleted, political.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?

I would be curious if they're even allowed to refuse service to people wearing Nazi symbols in the USA, legally speaking.

Kicking people out for bad behaviour isn't even an issue IMO and hardly even needs a statement, but for "wearing hate symbols" is a bit of a loose statement to me. Are we only talking about Nazi symbols here? Outside of that, there's symbols that people might find offensive and hateful that others might simply find political or a representation of a group of which they are a member.

They are. Political affiliation is not a protected status in the United States.

Basically it says : "if you come in our events or shops to spread your hateful ideology, get the feth out of here".

In America, I thought it was actually where that kind of things is easy to put in practice, with their focus on private ground being important and stuff - and GW events and shops aren't exactly public ground, to me.

If the owner says "get out", don't care about your free speech or such : you just get out. Especially in a land where people can own and use guns much more freely.

JWBS wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

No. You are smarter than this I know it.
There is no good Nazi that advocates for LGBT rights or Racial justice.
There are good Muslims though, infact a good majority.

Vast majority of Muslims believe homosexuality to be a sin and would prefer it be illegal. This isn't disputed, it's a fact borne out repeatedly, look at literally any poll, including Western nations.

The vast majority of Christians would agree. Doesn't mean it's actually part of their creed or that they can't be taught otherwise. There's solid minorities of both who are good people.

I see the usual "GW can do no right!" group are still desperately looking for something to complain about even in this case.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

Change that religion for any other one and see how it looks.

If the owner says "get out", don't care about your free speech or such : you just get out. Especially in a land where people can own and use guns much more freely.

In almost every game store I have been in the past 20 years here, a good chunk of the players present are carrying concealed pistols (most of them licensed to do so, some... not licensed to do so). Most of the shopkeepers I know also are carrying on their person.

Right before covid we had a big event held at one of our stores and there were people showing off their weapons lol.

Good on GW.

HEre is the thing
If you see a cross or crescent star symbol all that says is that person is Christian or muslim. It doesn say whether they believe in LGBTQ+ rights because there are those who believe in that and those that dont.
If you see a swastika, iron cross, SS symbol, IT says that person is a Nazi, and no nazi supports LGBTQ rights.
THERE ARE NO GOOD NAZIS

 auticus wrote:

If the owner says "get out", don't care about your free speech or such : you just get out. Especially in a land where people can own and use guns much more freely.

In almost every game store I have been in the past 20 years here, a good chunk of the players present are carrying concealed pistols (most of them licensed to do so, some... not licensed to do so). Most of the shopkeepers I know also are carrying on their person.

Right before covid we had a big event held at one of our stores and there were people showing off their weapons lol.

And you say that's still not a cyberpunk dystopia?

 Albertorius wrote:

 Londinium wrote:
Oh I agree. It was done to get Primaris into the setting (amongst other stuff) and I think all the Primaris lore is nonsense but once they decided to persue the Fall of Cadia storyline, Guilliman was the obvious saviour unless GW wanted to go down a really dark route of having the Imperium openly shatter into hundreds of pieces. In which case the setting would have been nothing other than post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity. Hell in that scenario you'd barely be able to sustain the logistical ability to deploy Space Marines, which would remove the posterboys of the setting. Regardless of what some 40k neckbeards on the internet insist upon, there has always been a glimmer of hope in the Imperium and the 40k setting, it needs to have that hope or else it'd be relentlessly grindingly dull.

Dunno. The Fall of the Roman Empire (and every other before and after) didn't exactly cause "post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity" (or romanity, in that case, you know ^^). Nations fall, nations rise, some heirs to the old ones, some new ones.

The Romans weren't fighting awakening hyper advanced space-robots, hive mind entities that are hinted as already having consumed other galaxies, an insidious enemy within devoted to worshipping gods powered by people's literal thoughts, a race that loves war and literally gets bigger by fighting etc etc. However we're digressing.

 Nurglitch wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

No. You are smarter than this I know it.
There is no good Nazi that advocates for LGBT rights or Racial justice.
There are good Muslims though, infact a good majority.

Vast majority of Muslims believe homosexuality to be a sin and would prefer it be illegal. This isn't disputed, it's a fact borne out repeatedly, look at literally any poll, including Western nations.

The vast majority of Christians would agree. Doesn't mean it's actually part of their creed or that they can't be taught otherwise. There's solid minorities of both who are good people.

I deleted my post because I don't want to be in a political conversation, I honestly think arguing politics with strangers online is possibly the worst way people can spend their time, not kidding. However since it's been quoted anyway I'll clarify and say I think the majority of people of faith are good people, not the minority, but also my opinion doesn't change the fact that Islam is fundamentally anti-gay in a way that the other major religions, in their 21st Century incarnations, are not.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
There also may just be some storylines that are kinda dated and not good anymore, period. Take pretty much any 19th century adventure stories that involve going into the heart of uncivilized lands as a civilized white dude with a gun and gumption: they probably wouldn't be received very well now. They might even be something of a liability, because they look backward and support views now associated with people with attitudes that don't look very nice in this millennium.

Flashman manages to hang in there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


One of the leading countries of the EU hasn't even a ratified constitution, you know the baseline most important bit of a functional democratic rule of law tree?

But the UK left!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The biggest irony is the forum avatar.
A character from a race of people oppressed in their world

No no this checks out, right wing extremists do literally think they're the ones being oppressed.

GW didn't have to make this statement, it's cool that they did.

The plebs were getting a bit loud mouthed here lately about GW. A few statements about them Nazis ought to sort them out. Ahhahahahahaha! Oh my, you guys.

 frankelee wrote:
The plebs were getting a bit loud mouthed here lately about GW. A few statements about them Nazis ought to sort them out. Ahhahahahahaha! Oh my, you guys.

Just... what is that supposed to even mean?

 frankelee wrote:
The plebs were getting a bit loud mouthed here lately about GW. A few statements about them Nazis ought to sort them out. Ahhahahahahaha! Oh my, you guys.

Don't go cutting yourself on that edge...

Dudeface wrote:

 frankelee wrote:
The plebs were getting a bit loud mouthed here lately about GW. A few statements about them Nazis ought to sort them out. Ahhahahahahaha! Oh my, you guys.

Just... what is that supposed to even mean?

I think it's an allusion to the fact that they at least used to get bread and circuses back in the good old days, which is clearly better than this.

So, other than iconography considered illegal under local law, who's making the calls on what is and isn't a hate-group imagery?

Like, do I get to complain about someone wearing a RAF badge in a GW store (and no, I don't mean Royal Air Force)?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The biggest irony is the forum avatar.
A character from a race of people oppressed in their world

No no this checks out, right wing extremists do literally think they're the ones being oppressed.

"Right Wing Extremists" lol.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
So, other than iconography considered illegal under local law, who's making the calls on what is and isn't a hate-group imagery?

Like, do I get to complain about someone wearing a RAF badge in a GW store (and no, I don't mean Royal Air Force)?

What I really want to know is their stance on abortion and or veganism.

You know I saw this when it popped up on BoLS, but I thought afterwards that it turned out that the stuff was just branding from a clothesline, and not any sort of identification with Nazis. This is much the same as the whole thing in the video game Destiny where some armor had a pattern where it could be construed as "KEK", which was LOL from World of Warcraft, and became some sort of 4chan joke that drove leftists nuts.

It seems these days people love to take anything as evidence that a person is a Nazi and we have to immediately demonize and destroy them.

In all my years of playing I've yet to meet anyone who used their army as some sort of underground proxy for Nazis, Communists, KKK, Weather Underground or anything else. Plenty of people with their own personal issues (and lack of grooming), but never outspoken Nazis parading around.

Odds are in this case the guy isn't a Nazi either. It's not like anyone walked up and asked him or anything. He's never interviewed. It's all internet hype and virtue signaling.

Everyone would be well served to sit back and take a chill pill. Perhaps talk to people without becoming some sort of screaming Karen.

Durandal wrote:
You know I saw this when it popped up on BoLS, but I thought afterwards that it turned out that the stuff was just branding from a clothesline, and not any sort of identification with Nazis. This is much the same as the whole thing in the video game Destiny where some armor had a pattern where it could be construed as "KEK", which was LOL from World of Warcraft, and became some sort of 4chan joke that drove leftists nuts.

It seems these days people love to take anything as evidence that a person is a Nazi and we have to immediately demonize and destroy them.

In all my years of playing I've yet to meet anyone who used their army as some sort of underground proxy for Nazis, Communists, KKK, Weather Underground or anything else. Plenty of people with their own personal issues (and lack of grooming), but never outspoken Nazis parading around.

Odds are in this case the guy isn't a Nazi either. It's not like anyone walked up and asked him or anything. He's never interviewed. It's all internet hype and virtue signaling.

Everyone would be well served to sit back and take a chill pill. Perhaps talk to people without becoming some sort of screaming Karen.

The name he goes by was Austrian Painter (a reference to Hitler), he wears clothes from a neo-nazi ideological clothing brand coered in neo-nazi imagery, and when confronted about the offense his garb caused he claimed to equally be offended by homosexuals.

yea, pretty sure the guy is a neo-nazi.

Durandal wrote:
You know I saw this when it popped up on BoLS, but I thought afterwards that it turned out that the stuff was just branding from a clothesline, and not any sort of identification with Nazis. This is much the same as the whole thing in the video game Destiny where some armor had a pattern where it could be construed as "KEK", which was LOL from World of Warcraft, and became some sort of 4chan joke that drove leftists nuts.

It seems these days people love to take anything as evidence that a person is a Nazi and we have to immediately demonize and destroy them.

In all my years of playing I've yet to meet anyone who used their army as some sort of underground proxy for Nazis, Communists, KKK, Weather Underground or anything else. Plenty of people with their own personal issues (and lack of grooming), but never outspoken Nazis parading around.

Odds are in this case the guy isn't a Nazi either. It's not like anyone walked up and asked him or anything. He's never interviewed. It's all internet hype and virtue signaling.

Everyone would be well served to sit back and take a chill pill. Perhaps talk to people without becoming some sort of screaming Karen.

Yes, a guy named "Austrian Painter" wearing a hoodie with literal swastikas on it was not a Nazi. I see a certain Egyptian river actually runs through America apparently...

Durandal wrote:
It's not like anyone walked up and asked him or anything.

They did, and he admitted it - https://wilbur.ghost.io/warhammer-nazis/ &

Galas wrote:
The guy was a neo nazi and his group were all neo nazis.

And the opponent that took the photos, and actually made his presence known to the public, and his group, had a verbal discussion with those idiots.

They said that if they were offended, they (The neo nazis) had the same right to be offended if they where feminists or homosexuals.

I won't say the TO's were simpatizers with any of this ideology. But as all the time, this pieces of gak played the victim card, and said that they would call the police, to report that they were being discriminated agaisnt by their ideology (the irony lol) so with a 800 person tournament the TO's didn't wanted any of that gak.


I don't believe the TO's did the right thing. And people like this shouldn't be in the hobby. Not only because of their ideology, but because it is clear that they were going to cause conflict with all those symbols and clothes.

It sucks but is just a small portion of the present day political climate. This kind of people exist in our hobby. And this is the kind of people GW told they would not be missed.

JWBS wrote:

What I really want to know is their stance on abortion and or veganism.

I really hope I'm allowed to use my gluten free Land Rider made out of hummus in GW store pickup games.

I promise to bring enough for everyone.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

JWBS wrote:

What I really want to know is their stance on abortion and or veganism.

I really hope I'm allowed to use my gluten free Land Rider made out of hummus in GW store pickup games.

I promise to bring enough for everyone.

I'm sure if they had a stance, they'd let us know. After all, it's important stuff. But they don't, so they haven't (unlike this, they really mean this, and it's not just some superficial appeasement that happens to fall in line with the current milieu).

Durandal wrote:
You know I saw this when it popped up on BoLS, but I thought afterwards that it turned out that the stuff was just branding from a clothesline, and not any sort of identification with Nazis.

It may shock you to learn that there are Nazis who run clothing companies, and not just Hugo Boss.

You are reading too deeply into the Games Workshop PR message. I'll simplify it for you before you go on a tangent and hurt yourself.
The message was in response to the issue that was brought up in a... previously closed thread.
There was an individual that went to a local tourney- in Spain, and he was intentionally baiting, and wore a specific Spanish... item.
(That good mods?)

ONLY COMMENTING ON THE ISSUE-
GW has a cooperate responsibility to make some sort of message, because I can tell you that this particular issue in Spain has had an... impact not felt since the destruction of Cadia.

I've worked in the troubleshooting business, and this is just a matter of CYA for GW, based on their logo, I/E company being placed into a position where their public look puts them in the same picture as... that "Infamous Someone" in Spain.

Before we get into the "Whataboutisms", lets focus on a basic business fact.

1. You don't have to have a comment, but at the end of the day, you don't have to be in agreement, that if someone is spouting off a negative image of your product, that you have to get ahead of it, and make a public comment to counter the image.
(This has spilled over to a few direct YouTubers running their gobs's over this specific issue, but it isn't the first time, nor will it be the last that this issue has cropped up.

2. And just for the record, the point being lost is that there is a cultural difference in the places we play 40K in the world, and I'm starting to suspect that there is a... cultural difference, in what is acceptable in one region, then in others, and that there in addition- may be a difference in locally accepted practices, (Such as wearing your Spanish F...ist gear in a local tourney, in your local club.)

3. As someone who solves problems, one of the first rules in life, Deal with the problem before it deals with you. Had GW kept silent...
Lets just say that it is not going away, and doubly so- since there are a few GB YouTube-eer sources picked up the story and are equating the "GW didn't say anything, so apparently they are ok with it." message.


THAT message wasn't for you. It was CYA.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

JWBS wrote:

What I really want to know is their stance on abortion and or veganism.

I really hope I'm allowed to use my gluten free Land Rider made out of hummus in GW store pickup games.

I promise to bring enough for everyone.

Do you have documentation proving it doesn’t contain palm oil?

It does look suspiciously like a Swastika.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The biggest irony is the forum avatar.
A character from a race of people oppressed in their world

No no this checks out, right wing extremists do literally think they're the ones being oppressed.

Also, I'm not exactly sure why, but anime profiles and right wing sympathizers tend to go hand in hand. Obviously its not mutually exclusive, but I do know people who would probably share <Redacted's> views and they also love RWBY

Maybe it's because 2D women can't reject them?

JWBS wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

JWBS wrote:

What I really want to know is their stance on abortion and or veganism.

I really hope I'm allowed to use my gluten free Land Rider made out of hummus in GW store pickup games.

I promise to bring enough for everyone.

I'm sure if they had a stance, they'd let us know. After all, it's important stuff. But they don't, so they haven't (unlike this, they really mean this, and it's not just some superficial appeasement that happens to fall in line with the current milieu).

See, this right here is the line where skepticism of profit driven corporate appeasement and straight up nazi-sympathizing meet.

Like, we all know GW only did this because they're afraid people might see it and they'll lose money, they could give a rat's ass about anything beyond how it affects their bottom line. BUT at the same time Nazis are bad and aggressively pushing them out of community spaces is good.

Let's not pretend GW's opinion on hummus and GW's opinion on Nazis are equally frivolous, even if they are both totally profit driven.

amazing how "we dont' want neo-nazis and neo-fascists in our stores and events" generates enough...comments to run 5 pages

I haven´t understood a thing. So a guy went to a tournament in spain and did what? He wore an attire covered in swastikas?

 Strg Alt wrote:
I haven´t understood a thing. So a guy went to a tournament in spain and did what? He wore an attire covered in swastikas?

Swastikas and Falangist iconography, yes.

 Strg Alt wrote:
I haven´t understood a thing. So a guy went to a tournament in spain and did what? He wore an attire covered in swastikas?

Frankly, yes. Technically not "covered," but he was wearing multiple actual hate symbols, including a weird swastika mosaic, and called himself "Austrian Painter" while there.

Naming yourself after a failed artist? How badly painted were his space marines?

He's presumably a painter, is he Austrian?

Sarouan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis around with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists is socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

No, i just think that we don't need to further detiriorate the situation by giving a company that potentially even used slave labour via printing in china the right to decide what is socially acceptable.

Cronch wrote:
amazing how "we dont' want neo-nazis and neo-fascists in our stores and events" generates enough...comments to run 5 pages

I mean, just on this page we have a handful of probable Nazi sympathisers, amateur theologians, and straight up edgelords all trying to find a way for this not to just be GW saying "Hey, this guy at this event that has our name on it is such a huge donkey-cave and such a fundamentally monstrous person, that we, as a soulless corporation STILL aren't as bad as him and we want you to know that."

Yeah, everyone that's laughing at the guys taking moral guidance from GW is likely a Nazi sympathiser. This is either 0 or 1, there's no inbetween here.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis around with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists is socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

No, i just think that we don't need to further detiriorate the situation by giving a company that potentially even used slave labour via printing in china the right to decide what is socially acceptable.

We already know what's socially acceptable. They're repeating that they agree about the pre-determined 'feth Nazis' stance of the civilized word. They're not determining it. Stop using semantics to support Nazis.

ERJAK wrote:
Let's not pretend GW's opinion on hummus and GW's opinion on Nazis are equally frivolous, even if they are both totally profit driven.

I would certainly consider a profit driven opinion on hummus much less frivolous than a profit driven opinion on Nazism.

Nobody wants to associate with nazis. We don’t have to say it, it’s just common sense.

ERJAK wrote:

Cronch wrote:
amazing how "we dont' want neo-nazis and neo-fascists in our stores and events" generates enough...comments to run 5 pages

I mean, just on this page we have a handful of probable Nazi sympathisers, amateur theologians, and straight up edgelords all trying to find a way for this not to just be GW saying "Hey, this guy at this event that has our name on it is such a huge donkey-cave and such a fundamentally monstrous person, that we, as a soulless corporation STILL aren't as bad as him and we want you to know that."

I go one further and say in this HOBBY we have a lot of Nazi Sympathizers and edge lords trying desperately to shock people. How many times do we hear about shiftyness like this at majors in 40k every year. Someone is ALWAYS trying to push this envelope. Good on this clown for just coming out and being honest at least.

Better than Friggin Reece and his Nazi icon Knights, or the guy from 2017 with the literally 13th SS painted Lehman Russ tank Battalion. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go scream on a forum about how a nazi sympathizer is trying desperately to win presidential election in my country.

In the words of Steve Rogers: "Punch all Nazis. In the face."

Apparently it's a hot snowflake take now tho. Possibly cancel-culture to say you don't want fascists in your store.

JWBS wrote:
Yeah, everyone that's laughing at the guys taking moral guidance from GW is likely a Nazi sympathiser. This is either 0 or 1, there's no inbetween here.

If you're more concerned with not accidentally aligning your morals with GW than whether or not your behavoir supports Nazi ideals you're A more likely than not already predisposed to support nazis or B. ALLOWING GW TO DETERMINE YOUR MORAL STANCE VIA CONTRARIANISM.

If a corporation says "Hey, raping puppies is bad!" You're not some elite free-thinker because you say 'hey man, corporations don't get to determine what's socially acceptable. Maybe it IS good to rape puppies!'

This thread is done as it is not going anywhere constructive.