Switch Theme:

SOB Diversity  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
And THERE we have it. We only needed 8 pages to weedle out the truth. SoB is GW's defense against having to create FSM.


K.

Can we close this thread too? Before it explodes into a ball of hatred and name-calling?
   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






A garden grove on Citadel Station

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
ph34r wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Demanding reality to change/be representative is very different to wanting some different options for your fictional made up toy soldiers. Nice false equivalence though.
Nuns are a real thing right? Monks are a real thing right? Are sisters of battle basically warrior nuns? Yes. Are space marines basically warrior monks? Yes. Seems like a pretty fair and not false equivalent to me.
Tell me when the nuns at your local convent go around wearing power armour, fighting aliens, and carry bolters.
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, this is completely ridiculous. There is a whole *universe* of difference between "I want to change the demographics of an actual real world historical/cultural organisation" and "I want to change the fictional depiction of a fictional organisation inspired by stereotypical and oftentimes inaccurate facsimiles of real cultures", namely in that one of those *does not exist and exists only as a shared figment of our imagination*.

I'm sure you know that, and I needn't dismantle this ridiculous line of logic any further.
He's not asking Reality to change Zulu warriors to being women, he's asking GW to produce girl Zulu warriors. Which they won't do because A. they don't produce any Zulu warriors and B. warhammer 40k does not contain Zulu warriors, just like it does not contain girl space marines. Why not? No reason, it's arbitrary. Why do it? No reason, they decided the setting doesn't have Zulu warriors. Just like there aren't soccer hooligan elves or the empire from star wars or Tau psykers.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's exactly what I want - me having women Astartes, or more customisable Sisters doesn't affect your narrative at all, so why would adding that option be a problem for you?
That would be awesome if Sisters of Battle got more variety, I'm all for it. They have one of the best model lines there is, and it had been a long time coming too.
Can't you just have "Daughters of Erda" if sisters of battle aren't space marine-y enough?
But why invent something wholly new? What prevents us using existing assets that already fit the bill?
Why change something old when you can just add something new with no conflict?
Why create something new when something old already exists fit for purpose?
Why *not* invent something wholly new? Why change preexisting assets? This argument works both ways, why change something established when you can just make something new to add what you want? Why weren't half the Primarchs women? Why don't titans have more than 2 legs when it's so impractical? Why does humanity treat its members like dirt instead of fixing society and being like the Federation from Star Trek?

Everyone wins right?
Everyone wins anyway - unless people choose to get offended by something that has no need to affect them, that is.
How about, everyone wins right now anyway, because why not? Why be offended by space marines being boys, as it doesn't effect you either?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But as you said - they're Space Marines with the bare heads being women. Why can't they just be... yanno, Space Marines, like you just described them as?
Because the fluff says so, like every other arbitrary decision that makes a background setting a background setting. Why aren't there eldar space marines? Why isn't there a 5th 6th and 7th chaos god?

Let's put the same example to these aesthetically different Sisters you said you wanted and were all for - what if we could have these aesthetically diverse Sisters, but they had to be called the "Daughters of Erda". They use all the same resources, units, rules, and suchlike as the Sisters of Battle, but you absolutely definitively cannot call them Sisters of Battle, despite their only difference being an aesthetic one, and they *must* go by a different name, like the "Daughters of Erda". Is it not simpler to call them Sisters of Battle, and those who don't like these aesthetically different Sisters of Battle can just not use them?
You've got me wrong here, If it's aesthetically diverse sisters, I would say 1. awesome, and 2. ok they are sisters of battle, but aesthetically diverse. If you made boy sisters of battle, you would put a different name to them. If for some reason power armor and bolters isn't good enough, and you want chunky MkI-MkX power armor women with grav guns and Land Raiders and Leviathan Dreadnoughts and everything else where what Sisters have right now isn't good enough.... well that's not sisters of battle any more, you just made a new thing, and new things get new names.

EDIT: And again, just to be clear, I *do want* there to be more diverse aethetically imperial girl warriors. That would be great. I'd buy it.
And if aesthetically diverse sisters of battle still isn't good enough, I'm down with them making post-human genetically enhanced women, again, I'd buy it. But why retcon when you could just..... not retcon?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/18 01:58:59


ph34r's forgeworld Phobos blog
+From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
 
   
Made in ca
Deserter




Canada

there are Zulu warrior minis. they are modeled male, and black. the fact that they are modeled after a real culture isn't relevant. the models exist. asking them to be female and white because you need to have them different for your own personal needs is the problem. if i really needed to have white, green or chinese Zulus I could paint them, or kitbash them to have bookplate. that is a project I could take on. I wouldn't force my needs and perspective on the company that makes them, or the people who want black Zulus because I feel they should be happy as I with the "choice". that's what this thread is about. same for the FSM thread. you feel it should be, therefore you need to wax on about imagined issues such as sexisim and racisim to forced others in to your view point. my position doesn't change your ability to have your female SM, or black sisters. your position forces me to alter the world and universe that was created that I enjoy. your position destroys the narrative that is already in place. i do believe that is the point of these pleas. to disrupt and destroy what others love just to see if you can. There are 3rd party minis for FSM, head swaps and different pigments that can be used without asking everyone else to bow to your whims. that is the solution to FSM and non Catholic sisters. do it for yourself. don't force that on others no matter how "harmless" you say it is. that is for the others to decide, not you. you understand this concept, but refuse to acknowledge it as it undermines your whole argument. I kept from posting in the FSM thread and stayed out of this one for along time, but the circular arguments presented are not in good faith or with the idea that other's are allowed to enjoy the story built as is. several times it was brought up to just do it instead of trying to force change and it is always dismissed with some sort of "it doesn't hurt you directly if it is available" but it does destroy the universe already written and twists it beyond the frame in which other's like it.
Telling people that lemon flavoured candy is good but now should have aniseed added to it because you like the taste and think it goes well together- yet the combo destroys the taste of lemon that others like-and when some say they like just lemon and you can add aniseed to your own candy you say it's better that way and it doesn't hurt you to mix them. in doing this you have just walked all over their preferences in favour of your own. you don't get to make that choice for others. just yourself. stop poking your finger into other's pies. bake your own just for that purpose. i understand it's not as satisfying to wreak your own crust as wreaking someone else's crust, but them's the breaks.
so Zulus and candy and pies. SM and sisters.

Pew, Pew! 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ph34r wrote:
But why retcon when you could just..... not retcon?


What's wrong with "retcon" or even more simple "change"? Primaris Marines aren't a retcon; they are a change as in a recent development in the history of the world and the faction they belong to. Centurions were a retcon, as in a unit that had always existed in the fluff but is a decade old on the tabletop at most. GW product are in a constant state of recton and change as faction model lines grow or change. A year ago there were no such thing as Paragon warsuits or Celestian armed for close combat, but these things have been retconned into the fluff of Sisters of Battle. Who knows what the next five years will bring to factions like Space Marines and others. If you don't like retcon, you are in the wrong IP. Since retcons are frequent, inevitable and will continue as are changes, why are they "bad" or should they be avoided?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 03:03:14


 
   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






A garden grove on Citadel Station

I guess I'm making a distinction between:

1. "retcon": these units which could plausibly have existed now do exist. we didn't talk about them before, but we didn't really explicitly say that we couldn't possibly have them.
ex: space marines found another rhino variant in the closet
ex: here's another of the eldar aspect warrior shrines we haven't talked about
ex: would you look at that, even more weird types of ork vehicle

2. "retcon": this specific thing we said in the past, is in fact a different specific thing
ex: turns out necrons aren't all robots without personality! (this happened)
ex: the dark eldar actually do have psykers
ex: technically space marine chapters have 12 companies, not 10
ex: space marine process no longer explicitly requires boy inductees to get the genetics from their boy superhuman fathers

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 04:59:26


ph34r's forgeworld Phobos blog
+From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ph34r wrote:
I guess I'm making a distinction between:

1. "retcon": these units which could plausibly have existed now do exist. we didn't talk about them before, but we didn't really explicitly say that we couldn't possibly have them.
ex: space marines found another rhino variant in the closet
ex: here's another of the eldar aspect warrior shrines we haven't talked about
ex: would you look at that, even more weird types of ork vehicle

2. "retcon": this specific thing we said in the past, is in fact a different specific thing
ex: turns out necrons aren't all robots without personality! (this happened)
ex: the dark eldar actually do have psykers
ex: technically space marine chapters have 12 companies, not 10
ex: space marine process no longer explicitly requires boy inductees to get the genetics from their boy superhuman fathers


Considering both those things happened in the past and will certainly happen again at some point why are retcons (both types) bad de facto.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ph34r wrote:
Because the fluff says so, like every other arbitrary decision that makes a background setting a background setting. Why aren't there eldar space marines? Why isn't there a 5th 6th and 7th chaos god?

[


Whatever else can be said, in fairness, 'the Fluff says so' is shaky ground.

Fluff isn't a constant. Fluff change. Or is tigurius still half-eldar, are space wolves still from lucan, necrons got a complete personality transplant, primaris etc.

And interestingly, There was a fifth god, back in the day. Ever hear of Malal? The 'lost' God. Sons of malice are still semi-canon.

Gw do not treat their lore as sacrosanct.

And that's as close to [that topic] that I'm gonna go to here.

steelhead177th wrote:
your position forces me to alter the world and universe that was created that I enjoy. your position destroys the narrative that is already in place. i do believe that is the point of these pleas. to disrupt and destroy what others love just to see if you can.


Firstly, Change isn't necessarily bad. Aa above, gw have changed plenty.

I think is a horribly cruel and deeply unjust insult to claim that people who want changes want to 'destroy what others love, just because they can'. People just want to be equally respected and validated, that's not wrong. It's not pie. More for others doesn't mean less for you.

I have no doubt you probably don't mean it as such, but please, with respect, take a second
take a step back and turn your words to someone kicking off against real life issues like the civil rights movement back in the day (or even today), women fighting for equal rights etc and those words take on an a tremendous dark hue. It's basically 'don't stand up to, challenge or request changes to THE ORTHODOXY'. It might be in the context of toy soldiers but those changes youre hostile to won't actuslly ruin the IP you say you love. And those people asking for those changes are not the barbarians at the gate, looking to sack rome. Three not demons or monsters either. They're people like you that want a place where their values can be seen and shown openly without hostility or blowback.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/18 07:01:23


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Deadnight wrote:

I think is a horribly cruel and deeply unjust insult to claim that people who want changes want to 'destroy what others love, just because they can'. People just want to be equally respected and validated, that's not wrong. It's not pie. More for others doesn't mean less for you.

I have no doubt you probably don't mean it as such, but please, with respect, take a second
take a step back and turn your words to someone kicking off against real life issues like the civil rights movement back in the day (or even today), women fighting for equal rights etc and those words take on an a tremendous dark hue. It's basically 'don't stand up to, challenge or request changes to THE ORTHODOXY'. It might be in the context of toy soldiers but those changes youre hostile to won't actuslly ruin the IP you say you love. And those people asking for those changes are not the barbarians at the gate, looking to sack rome. Three not demons or monsters either. They're people like you that want a place where their values can be seen and shown openly without hostility or blowback.


So now we've moved back to the "changing the lore to include what I want is a moral issue" part of the argument. Good grief.

Looks like we'll be reaching the "and anyone who disagrees is secretly a <something>ist and a terrible human being" part fairly soon.

I'd say to just stop while you're ahead, as no one here is going to change anyone else's mind, but having seen this crop up time and time again, I think the people on this forum just like this visceral and vicious cycle of anger, implicating, and name calling.

Can't say I'm surprised. Just disappointed. Bye.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Arcanis161 wrote:

So now we've moved back to the "changing the lore to include what I want is a moral issue" part of the argument. Good grief.

Looks like we'll be reaching the "and anyone who disagrees is secretly a <something>ist and a terrible human being" part fairly soon.

I'd say to just stop while you're ahead, as no one here is going to change anyone else's mind, but having seen this crop up time and time again, I think the people on this forum just like this visceral and vicious cycle of anger, implicating, and name calling.

Can't say I'm surprised. Just disappointed. Bye.


K.

Bear in mind, stated as a response to:
'i do believe that is the point of these pleas. to disrupt and destroy what others love just to see if you can".
the poster absolutely may not have intended it (my default is to assume this) but other pov is just as easily constructed to be just as negative and hostile, devalue and delegitimise a perspective and claim that asking for the lore to be changed makes you bad/wrong because all your intentions are therefore airomatically hostile etc . With respect, 'Good grief' applies here too.

Both povs can be bastardised, manipulated and weaponised to lash out.

And I Think I made it pretty clear I don't regard folks on the other side of the debate as 'bad people'. I specifically stated that. For what its worth, I also hate that kind of projection you refer to- there's a person at the other end and most people are fundamentally decent. Changing the lore isn't moral or anything, it's just change. And change isn't necessarily bad.

I'm not looking to change people's minds - that won't happen - but I don't think it's wrong to suggest a different perspective or to reflect on our own words we take for granted in a different context. In real life, for what it's worth, it's something I strongly value.

We're talking on a topic which worked around widening the aesthetics of sisters of battle. I don't think it's a bad idea - seeing fur clad barbarian sororitas could be kind of cool.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/09/18 07:39:55


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





ph34r wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
ph34r wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Demanding reality to change/be representative is very different to wanting some different options for your fictional made up toy soldiers. Nice false equivalence though.
Nuns are a real thing right? Monks are a real thing right? Are sisters of battle basically warrior nuns? Yes. Are space marines basically warrior monks? Yes. Seems like a pretty fair and not false equivalent to me.
Tell me when the nuns at your local convent go around wearing power armour, fighting aliens, and carry bolters
[....]
No, this is completely ridiculous. There is a whole *universe* of difference between "I want to change the demographics of an actual real world historical/cultural organisation" and "I want to change the fictional depiction of a fictional organisation inspired by stereotypical and oftentimes inaccurate facsimiles of real cultures", namely in that one of those *does not exist and exists only as a shared figment of our imagination*.

I'm sure you know that, and I needn't dismantle this ridiculous line of logic any further.
He's not asking Reality to change Zulu warriors to being women, he's asking GW to produce girl Zulu warriors.
Begging your pardon, but that's not what they said at all. They asked that models representing Zulu warriors (a real, tangible thing) be changed to be something other than the real tangible thing they represent.

This is not the same as changing the depictions of a fictional toy soldier brand, because, well, they're *fictional*. They do not exist.

Their argument was a poor attempt to compare changing X as changing Y, but the fundamental issue with their logic was that one thing they suggested (changing the depiction of Zulus) was a real thing, and the other (changing Sororitas or Astartes) was made up. You can see this in their follow-up post.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's exactly what I want - me having women Astartes, or more customisable Sisters doesn't affect your narrative at all, so why would adding that option be a problem for you?
That would be awesome if Sisters of Battle got more variety, I'm all for it. They have one of the best model lines there is, and it had been a long time coming too.
Can't you just have "Daughters of Erda" if sisters of battle aren't space marine-y enough?
But why invent something wholly new? What prevents us using existing assets that already fit the bill?
Why change something old when you can just add something new with no conflict?
Why create something new when something old already exists fit for purpose?
Why *not* invent something wholly new? Why change preexisting assets? This argument works both ways, why change something established when you can just make something new to add what you want?
As you say, it goes both ways - so I'm asking why, as GW seems to be just fine with retconning and re-purposing existing assets.
Why weren't half the Primarchs women?
Why not indeed.
Why don't titans have more than 2 legs when it's so impractical?
Because 40k is not a practical setting, and because Titans look cool on two legs.
Why does humanity treat its members like dirt instead of fixing society and being like the Federation from Star Trek?
Because if the Imperium treated their members well, they wouldn't be the objectively awful regime that the setting was predicated on them being, and they would cease to be the "bloodiest regime imaginable" outlined in the setting's tagline.

Everyone wins right?
Everyone wins anyway - unless people choose to get offended by something that has no need to affect them, that is.
How about, everyone wins right now anyway, because why not? Why be offended by space marines being boys, as it doesn't effect you either?
Except not everyone wins right now, hence why people are asking for a change in options. There's no "offence" in Space Marines being boys, but there *is* offence in "Space Marines can ONLY be boys", as that affects my choice of creativity, in the same way that "no, Sisters can ONLY look like this" is "offensive" - it's a pointless restriction that exists for... what?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But as you said - they're Space Marines with the bare heads being women. Why can't they just be... yanno, Space Marines, like you just described them as?
Because the fluff says so, like every other arbitrary decision that makes a background setting a background setting.
Cool cool, so... arbirtrary. And why does this arbitrary restriction mean so much, but the other arbitrary decisions that GW overturns every time they release a new book don't?
Why aren't there eldar space marines?
There *were*. You should be asking "why aren't there any more", because that was another one of those arbitrary decisions overturned by GW.
Why isn't there a 5th 6th and 7th chaos god?
Again, there *was* - Malal.
You should be asking "why was this arbitrary decision also retconned".

Let's put the same example to these aesthetically different Sisters you said you wanted and were all for - what if we could have these aesthetically diverse Sisters, but they had to be called the "Daughters of Erda". They use all the same resources, units, rules, and suchlike as the Sisters of Battle, but you absolutely definitively cannot call them Sisters of Battle, despite their only difference being an aesthetic one, and they *must* go by a different name, like the "Daughters of Erda". Is it not simpler to call them Sisters of Battle, and those who don't like these aesthetically different Sisters of Battle can just not use them?
You've got me wrong here, If it's aesthetically diverse sisters, I would say 1. awesome, and 2. ok they are sisters of battle, but aesthetically diverse.
Great - so why do you delineate between "aesthetically diverse Sisters can be called Sisters, but aesthetically diverse Astartes can't be called Astartes"? Why the double standard?

Why is there a difference?
If you made boy sisters of battle, you would put a different name to them. If for some reason power armor and bolters isn't good enough, and you want chunky MkI-MkX power armor women with grav guns and Land Raiders and Leviathan Dreadnoughts and everything else where what Sisters have right now isn't good enough.... well that's not sisters of battle any more, you just made a new thing, and new things get new names.
But I haven't made "something else", I've made Space Marines, who happen to be women. And, as we both seem to recognise, those are just called "Space Marines". That's what you called them, at least.

But why retcon when you could just..... not retcon?
Ask GW that - I'm still waiting for my half-Eldar Ultramarines Librarians, and my Obi-Wan Sherlock Closseaus.

steelhead177th wrote:there are Zulu warrior minis. they are modeled male, and black. the fact that they are modeled after a real culture isn't relevant.
And that's where you're wrong, because that very much *is* relevant.

Models of *actual Zulu warriors* should be representative of *actual Zulu warriors*, because *actual Zulu warriors* existed.
Models of fictional toy soliders from the 41st millennium simply do not have these same standards and demands, because none of them do, have, or ever will exist in the real world.

We have tangible proof on what a Zulu is. Space Marines, Orks, and Sisters of Battle do not.
if i really needed to have white, green or chinese Zulus I could paint them, or kitbash them to have bookplate. that is a project I could take on.
But then they're not Zulus. They're models that you've kitbashed or painted who were once representative of the real world culture of Zulus, but are no longer that - *because Zulus exist, and we can tangibly point to what a Zulu is*.

You cannot do that with a fictional toy soldier.
your position forces me to alter the world and universe that was created that I enjoy.
No more so than GW forces you to collect Primaris, or have a Primarch in your army, or collect all the factions out there.

Get over yourself. As much as you seem to ridicule the idea that 'there's sexism and racism everywhere, hahaha look at those SJWs jumping at nothing!', you're the one taking this as a personal attack on you. Maybe calm it with the self-importance.
i do believe that is the point of these pleas. to disrupt and destroy what others love just to see if you can.
Would you like fries with that tinfoil?
don't force that on others no matter how "harmless" you say it is. that is for the others to decide, not you.
Why is that for others to decide? Does that imply aesthetically diverse Sisters would be harmful?
If others are allowed to decide what is and isn't harmless, why can't I decide that too? Or is this another case of "you're not actually part of this community if you believe in this"?
it does destroy the universe already written and twists it beyond the frame in which other's like it.
And? Someone better tell GW that they're not welcome any more, as they're the only ones who've been "destroying" their own written universe.

Maybe it's almost like written universes don't exist, and are entirely fictional!
Telling people that lemon flavoured candy is good but now should have aniseed added to it because you like the taste and think it goes well together- yet the combo destroys the taste of lemon that others like-and when some say they like just lemon and you can add aniseed to your own candy you say it's better that way and it doesn't hurt you to mix them.
But you can still buy lemon candy without aniseed? Why are you crying over more options for people?
There's no quota for you to uphold - you don't need women in *your* Astartes, you don't need aesthetically diverse Sisters in *your* Sororitas, you don't need Primarchs in *your* army, and you don't need aniseed in *your* lemon flavoured sweets.

in doing this you have just walked all over their preferences in favour of your own.
And that's not what you're doing?
you don't get to make that choice for others. just yourself.
Great - that's exactly what I'm advocating for - having the CHOICE to have all the variety I want in my Astartes and Sisters, a choice which you want to delegitimise from me. I don't care what the hell you do with your models, but don't seek to stigmatise against mine.

ph34r wrote:I guess I'm making a distinction between:

1. "retcon": these units which could plausibly have existed now do exist. we didn't talk about them before, but we didn't really explicitly say that we couldn't possibly have them.

2. "retcon": this specific thing we said in the past, is in fact a different specific thing
But... why? Why make the distinction?

Secondly, I'd also like to very briefly highlight how the whole "Space Marines can only be boys" is not very frequently mentioned - not in any Codexes, to my recollection. It's hardly an oft-enforced and repeated statement in the same way that there's 4(but is it actually 5?) Chaos Gods, or how Ultramarines are blue.

Arcanis161 wrote:So now we've moved back to the "changing the lore to include what I want is a moral issue" part of the argument. Good grief.
As opposed to the "if you want to change the lore, that's a personal attack on me"? If you're going to clutch at pearls over one "side", I have to ask why you're letting that corker of a comment go unchallenged too.

Looks like we'll be reaching the "and anyone who disagrees is secretly a <something>ist and a terrible human being" part fairly soon.
I think we've already hit the "anyone who disagrees with me is an Ess-Jay-Double U who wants to profit off my misery" part, not that you called it out.

I'd say to just stop while you're ahead, as no one here is going to change anyone else's mind, but having seen this crop up time and time again, I think the people on this forum just like this visceral and vicious cycle of anger, implicating, and name calling.

Can't say I'm surprised. Just disappointed. Bye.
I don't want to say I knew this would happen from the thread's inception... but I knew this would happen from the thread's inception, and made that clear to the mods. They chose not to act on it proactively. If I'm disappointed in anyone, it's on their end.

And yes, this probably *is* off topic.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Well, that’s probably enough about that for now.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: