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.

I've asked a few people at the FLGS and GW stores I go to, and they don't say there's an issue. I've also found people to be friendlier IRL, but I also haven't found as many who get into army backgrounds and stories.

I generally base things off of various periods throughout history when I'm creating stuff because it's a good writing practice to use something established and change it, and because it's what I know. It's also clearly done by GW, as far as historical themes go.

Sometimes I deliberately make things obvious to give an understanding of it, but a lot of times I'm using it as a basis but not intending it to be obvious. For example, using the French revolution for the Sternkampf revolution. I also sometimes find it interesting to use a historical basis, even if I don't stick to it 100%. There are also times when I might make the references in a particular battle obvious to make a themed table top game, such as Sturmkrieg invading Normandy or defending Stalingrad. In those cases, I'm making a themed game for people who want to play a game based on a significant WWII battle.

There's a good chance that I'm biased from my perspective and that it's entirely in my imagination. This happened before with the name Aschknas. What do you think?

Even I know what Ashkenazi means.
It's not too long a bow to draw to figure out where Aschknaz came from.

People are still touchy about stuff that happened last century.
Give it another 3-400 years and it might change. I doubt it.

 chromedog wrote:
Even I know what Ashkenazi means.
It's not too long a bow to draw to figure out where Aschknaz came from.

People are still touchy about stuff that happened last century.
Give it another 3-400 years and it might change. I doubt it.

Almost no one had any idea when I asked. Like five people actually posted to say they didn't know. I don't really see what's touchy about it either. Maybe an Antisemite might complain about it. Unless you mean that stuff that happened too recently seems to realistic for a fantasy game. I'm looking at people who make modern tank conversions. It looks dumb to have low profile, immobile tanks.

As long as you're fluff is done in a tasteful way and not, to put it bluntly, racist then it's perfectly fine. In fact I'd be inclined to have a game with you purely because you are actually putting some effort into your army's background, something that I find alot of people don't really do


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if anyone has an issue with it they are usually either a troll, or one of those people who will get offended at the most minor of things. Don't worry about them

Yeah, bringing in 20th century stuff is on the same continuum as using star wars stuff or making my little pony armies in 40k. Best keep fluff within established fluff. Bringing stuff in from obvious outside sources is a little tacky.

Of course, GW breaks the proverbial 4th wall all the time, but they usually do it in a suitably grimdark way. Having an ork warboss named Jozzef Stalork has had the tackiness co-opted by the purposefully hamfisted way the orks operate. Meanwhile, having a space marine commander named Joseph Stalin would be just really, really bad.

 The_Solitaire wrote:
As long as you're fluff is done in a tasteful way and not, to put it bluntly, racist then it's perfectly fine. In fact I'd be inclined to have a game with you purely because you are actually putting some effort into your army's background, something that I find alot of people don't really do


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if anyone has an issue with it they are usually either a troll, or one of those people who will get offended at the most minor of things. Don't worry about them

I was looking more for stuff not being obvious, but your input is good too. I'm very vigilant about not allowing racism. I'll have the Tau start killing people from Rotstein because they believe there's no way that they can be converted to the greater good, but not include nonsense about them being racially inferior to other people, and so not worth saving. Racism doesn't even exist in 40k.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
having a space marine commander named Joseph Stalin would be just really, really bad.

You need to tell that to Dondrekhan. If anyone thinks I get ridiculous with the Red Army symbolism, I have to keep holding this guy back. He says he wanted to use a hammer and sickle and have a Stalin model.

Is Josef Stahl too much? Or following the English pronunciation for Cyrillic transliterated German, would Yosef Stahl be better?

Still tacky, IMHO.

I'd be fine with this. Yosef Stahl is far enough that people will get the reference, but not get all uppity

But why even reference? What's the purpose?

Assuming there's a good one, there are still less tacky ways to go about it, like calling him Joe "The Steel" Vissari, or something.

 TheAngrySquig wrote:
I'd be fine with this. Yosef Stahl is far enough that people will get the reference, but not get all uppity

Sasha Krieger is the one who looks like Stalin. It shouldn't be that bad. Not a great name, but it gets the point across.

But RACISM does exist in 40k. Inasmuch as the Imperium, Eldar, Necrons, Tau and Chaos worshipping nutbags practice it.

OK, technically it's a species-wide racism, but it still exists (with a "united" 'human race'. Even amongst the vast genetic melange that is humanity. If certain "mutations" of humanity hadn't proved "useful" they would have been purged as lesser creatures or used as slave labour.

The Eldar consider ALL other races beneath them. Racial superiority motive.

The Necrons want to kill ALL of the other races out of spite (the Eldar got perfection and wouldn't help, we got 40 year lifespans and cancer - rage, rage, rage).
The fallen Chaos worshipping former humans want to wipe out the rest of humanity just because they are evul and nail babies to their hats - it's still racial because that much exposure to hoodoo can't have left them that human, so they are, a different race (10,000 years was enough to make changes in contemporary humanity using just the natural environment. 10,000 years of warp exposure certainly will).
The Imperium has exterminated branches of "humanity" that were genetically changed by their environments - because they were "too alien" and no longer "human" or useful.

The Orks and tyranids don't have a racist motive, true - it's much more primal for them.
The orks just want a fight - they don't care with whom - and will fight amongst themselves if they have no-one else. It's a pure, unbridled hostility thing.
The Tyranids don't see everyone else as a lesser species, just as an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord.

There exists racism in 40k like in most fantasy/sci-fi settings. The point is obviously that you're not connecting said racism to some real life atrocity / ethnic group.

Personally, I'm with Ailaros on this one. At some point, it just gets too much and becomes detriment to the setting as a whole. There's a difference between alluding to something (which can be cool) and hammering it home with a giant maul (which is just tacky).
Matter of personal preferences, obviously.