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.

Just my 2 cents, but I'm not really seeing much influence from Asimov's Foundation series. I think that might be a bit of a stretch if you ask me, as the themes were quite a bit different, and psychohistory, one of the core themes of the original Foundation Trilogy, has little real bearing on the 40K universe as a setting, although one could say that the Emperor's Manifest Destiny for Mankind could have been influenced.

If I recall, back in the early 80s, GW actually published or at least supported a Judge Dredd role playing game, so that easily explains the JD influence on 40K, as I'm thinking many of the original writers/designers worked on the JD game. They also supported alot of other roleplaying systems in White Dwarf, and THAT is where I believe much of the 40K universe was shaped. They did adventures for all sorts of game systems back then, heck, they even did one for Paranoia!

The biggest reason that books like SST are controversial is tye ones who deem things as such tend to be academics and their frame of reference tends to reflect that as opposed to what regular folks might think.

SST was written during the height of the Red Scare in the US, and many regular people agreed with the premises of serving the country and all that. Acadamia though had begun to shift further into a leftist posture that was beginning to abhor all things military and you had the various disarmament groups forming amongst the talking heads. SST was actually in many ways a response to that movement...which since it went against their position, automatically makes it controversial.

SiaSL on the other hand was actually able to be bent out of his original intent and as a result is generally better recieved by academia. Heinlein's Libertarian philosophy was bent into a leftist hippy idealized books, something which annoyed Heinlein greatly, as he was firmly against the peacenik ideals.

i find there to be heavy influences from John Steakly's book Armor (marines) and David Drakes, Hammers Slammers series ("grav Tanks aside" Imperial guard).

Admittedly these books themselves have influences from earlier books in sci fi. such as heinlein, herbert and asminov. GW is foolish in thinking there precious ip isnt influenced by any of these Novels.

Btw anyone who has enjoyed SST will absolutly love Armor.

Armor is amazing; loved that book since I was a teenager. It and The Forever War were both written in reaction to SST. Steakley at least in part because he wanted action scenes (which Heinlein doesn't really do, per se), and Haldeman because he was a much more anti-war veteran, and wanted to show a very different possible military future.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but I'm not really seeing much influence from Asimov's Foundation series. I think that might be a bit of a stretch if you ask me, as the themes were quite a bit different, and psychohistory, one of the core themes of the original Foundation Trilogy, has little real bearing on the 40K universe as a setting, although one could say that the Emperor's Manifest Destiny for Mankind could have been influenced.

If I recall, back in the early 80s, GW actually published or at least supported a Judge Dredd role playing game, so that easily explains the JD influence on 40K, as I'm thinking many of the original writers/designers worked on the JD game. They also supported alot of other roleplaying systems in White Dwarf, and THAT is where I believe much of the 40K universe was shaped. They did adventures for all sorts of game systems back then, heck, they even did one for Paranoia!

Foundation: Mainly the capital of the empire (Trantor) being a city covering a planet. Hive world style. It was one of a number of influences for Priestley and Halliwell, not the SOLE one or even a major one. Likewise Harry Harrison's Deathworld series (and also Stainless steel rat. The origin of the .75 cal recoilless weapon so beloved of marines) - Pyrrus makes Catachan seem like a gardens spot.

As for the GW "support" for other games in WD - GW PUBLISHED D&D, Paranoia and a few other games in the UK. It was only normal for them to "support" the products they published.
They also had the rights from Fleetway publications for games based on their IP (Rogue trooper, Judge Dredd), publishing several board games and an rpg for JD)

Don't forget the Dystopian silliness of Bill, the Galactic Hero, which lampooned many popular SF tropes of the 70s. Early 40k shared much of the same sense of bleak humour.

R.

 grrrfranky wrote:
Certainly Starship Troopers would have had a much greater impact on WH40k (and other military sci-fi) than any of his other books, although I would argue that the (terrible) movies are sufficiently different from the book as to be completely worthless. However books such as Stranger in a Strange Land have had more impact on sci-fi in general.

i will give you that the 2nd and 3rd movies were god awful abominations. And the first movie was VERY far off from the book. But it is the best awful movie ever made.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but I'm not really seeing much influence from Asimov's Foundation series.

A huge empire that is in decline
Machine cult/machine-worshipping
Decaying advanced technology/no one making new tech

Uhh....

I wonder how much Bolo tanks have inspired the designers

Not as much as Battletech did.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Armor is amazing; loved that book since I was a teenager. It and The Forever War were both written in reaction to SST. Steakley at least in part because he wanted action scenes (which Heinlein doesn't really do, per se), and Haldeman because he was a much more anti-war veteran, and wanted to show a very different possible military future.

Is The Forever War worth the read? I read a synopsis of it and really like the concept, I've just never gotten around to reading it. Need to dig up Moorcock as well sometime.

 Amaya wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Armor is amazing; loved that book since I was a teenager. It and The Forever War were both written in reaction to SST. Steakley at least in part because he wanted action scenes (which Heinlein doesn't really do, per se), and Haldeman because he was a much more anti-war veteran, and wanted to show a very different possible military future.

Is The Forever War worth the read? I read a synopsis of it and really like the concept, I've just never gotten around to reading it. Need to dig up Moorcock as well sometime.

One word: Yes.

The Forever War is excellent, as long you like non-gung-ho SF. It's quite anti-war. It won the Hugo and Nebula awards.