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

Arcanis161 wrote:

I do find it odd that evidence I considered to be hinting at darker motives is being dismissed as they're not explicitly stating that there are darker motives. I thought it was obvious that the whole point was that they were hints to allow interpretation from the players as to whether or not the Tau were actually evil.

Actually that's where I stand. The evidence is innuendo, biased, or circumstantial. Hardly a smoking gun. I think the only conclusion is that the Tau are not necessarily that nefarious. It's not proof they are genociding as standard policy. It can be if you choose to attribute such malevolent motives and it might not be or be an outlier, an aberration. There is room for interpretation.

However, that means such circumstantial evidence isn't really sufficient proof to prove the claim the Tau are doing those things. The fact there are human subject populations over a lifetime after the Damocles Crusade show that the Tau clearly aren't sterilizing all humans.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I should, however, still mention that those quotes and references come from third party material, the internal canonicity of one of the above is questionable.

The deathwatch book had to go directly through Games Workshops head of intellectual property Alan Merritt and his department.

He pops up in some of their dev diary stuff, and also interestingly on this very forum when he got the boot, with reference to his connection to the FFG books on the first page.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698955.page

The Munchkin game and 40k Monopoly developments will have needed to go through the IP department as well. Doesn't change the fact licensed materials aren't considered canon. In the Index Astartes for the Blood Ravens, the events of all the DoW games up to 3 are left as a closely guarded secret of the Ravens because of how the games operate with multiple endings and such. That's as canon as DoW gets.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

In my humble opinion W40k isn't about the eternal war among the Good against the Evil, but among the Evil against other kinds of Evil and is up to us choose what is the lesser evil. But how can we say the faction X is an evil less evil of any other W40k's faction? To me is impossible.

But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

GW overusing terms like hero and villain is more of an issue IMO. Another issue is having too many "good" characters. However, while people love a good antagonist, you can't have every single book and character be genocidal murderers with no regard for human life because that's worse IMO.
I've seen quite a few BL authors say that without good characters or moments of hope, 40k ceases to become Grimdark and just becomes nihilistic. 40k may be a horrible place but the rare moments of "good" are what make it a good setting. The Ultramarines lose almost their entire Chapter fighting Behemoth but their sacrifice buys time for the wider Imperium to fight back and learn valuable data on fighting the Tyranids. For every 10 Chapters with murderous tendencies, a disregard for human life and a lack of rationality there is a Chapter like the Salamanders, who despite fighting for a corrupt and hopeless regime, try to keep the suffering of the innocent to a minimum.

mrFickle wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

In my humble opinion W40k isn't about the eternal war among the Good against the Evil, but among the Evil against other kinds of Evil and is up to us choose what is the lesser evil. But how can we say the faction X is an evil less evil of any other W40k's faction? To me is impossible.

But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

Because GW current Marketing undermines the initial creative input of the 40K setting... and everything gets flanderised withoout any nuance... Heck even 40K and AOS are turning into a great big mixed mess.

mrFickle wrote:


But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

It's deliberate, I think.

What makes 40k great, I think, is that its not that simple. 'Loyalist' and 'traitor' is merely perspective, after all. And 'loyalist', especially where I'm from, certainly does not mean 'good guy'. Loyalist and traitor is evocative of the mindsets of a lot of the protagonists of the game. Its an anchor for the reader.

I remember the realisation as a teenager when I dug into this awesome setting that really, no, it wasn't a case of goodies and baddies. It was more than the simplistic taglines and more than my first impression. It wasn't black and white, it was shades of grey. It was one of the first IPs I'd explored in any depth or felt I could explore in any depth where I felt there was 'depth' and 'nuance' after my first impression of goodies and baddies/heroes and villains etc, and for a very young deadnight, the fact that this realization was gained by me, rather than being presented on a plate to me set 40k apart from the other things I loved as a kid. It gave me a kind of ownership of what 40k was to me. I wanted to dive in and know more.

And I'm pretty certain this was deliberate desig
on the part of gw. Im pretty certain there's while board meetings over individual phrases to be used to give this precise kind of engagement. Can't fault them, really.

Loved it, still do.

Deadnight wrote:

mrFickle wrote:


But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

It's deliberate, I think.

What makes 40k great, I think, is that its not that simple. 'Loyalist' and 'traitor' is merely perspective, after all. And 'loyalist', especially where I'm from, certainly does not mean 'good guy'. Loyalist and traitor is evocative of the mindsets of a lot of the protagonists of the game. Its an anchor for the reader.

Yeah, absolutely want to highlight this - "loyalist" is a term which, depending on your culture and environment, can absolutely mean wildly different things, ranging from both positive connotations, and negative ones, as illustrated here.

Loyalist doesn't state anything beyond "loyal to a regime/power/ideology" - but the real question depends on what that regime/power/ideology is, and in many cases, a "loyalist" is someone loyal to a very unsavoury ideology.

"Traitor" is definitely a more loaded term, but again, it's all relative to whoever they betrayed. As an example, Finn in SW:TFA is outright called out as a traitor by another stormtrooper - but Finn is definitely the "good guy" in the situation.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


"Traitor" is definitely a more loaded term, but again, it's all relative to whoever they betrayed. As an example, Finn in SW:TFA is outright called out as a traitor by another stormtrooper - but Finn is definitely the "good guy" in the situation.

George Washington was technically a traitor. The founders of the 1916 Irish Republic were traitors. Arguably the supporters of William of Orange were traitors to the actual monarchs at the time.

By other perspectives, heroes, founding fathers and revolutionaries.

"It's only treason if you lose."

 Duskweaver wrote:
"It's only treason if you lose."

have the collective CSM lost? The heresy failed as horus was attempting to take over the imperium. But. By then end of the heresy most of the traitors seem more content with just seeing the imperium burn. Now most of the CSM resent their primarchs, if they knew them, and just want to see the gals emperor and the imperium fail and die. If they haven’t won the certainly are winning considering the state of the imperium. Even if winning just means waiting

Yep the Heretic Astartes definetly lost in tbe Horus Era... They just survive for a long period of time in the fringes of the IOM and after the fall of Cadia they are ment to have made a comeback... But due to the huge inertia of the setting that dosent means much to the status quo.

mrFickle wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
"It's only treason if you lose."

have the collective CSM lost?

The quote is an intentional tautology, illustrating the entirely subjective nature of terms like 'traitor' and 'treason'.

If you successfully overthrow the previous 'legitimate authority' and make yourself the new 'legitimate authority', you're not a traitor. Those who remained loyal to the previous authority are now the traitors.

If you fail to do that, though, then you're just a traitor.

The CSMs unequivocally failed to replace the Emperor as the 'legitimate authority' of the Imperium. So they're traitors.

Perhaps it is more correct to say "It's not treason if you win."

I vaguely remember a Horus heresy story where one of the traitor primarchs (I think) did bring this up and complained about them being branded as traitors and Imperium as loyalists. It was not elaborated much and I dont remember where I read it sorry (too many books in the series now that I remember everything). If I remember correct they brought up the issue of them looking at the loyalist as the real traitors.

There have several stories/books/fluff that the chaos marine called the loyalist marine as a loyalist but in an insulting manner. So guess its part of the POV