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.

Someone clear this up for me please. I read that Salamanders were jet black with glowing red eyes,due to the conditions on their homeworld. I keep seeing them painted as African black, as in brown. Was there another fluff rewrite, is this a political thing, or did I just make the whole thing up and don't remember it? Maybe someone only read the black part, and went off on their own. Like the title says, this isn't a race thing, it's just clarification.

Some people do paint them as African, which is fine.

This was not, however, the original intent. This spawns from an artist's misinterpretation of the design notes of the Sallies. That artist also painted them as African-like, from the "black skin" notes. The designer had meant jet-black skin.

So not really a race thing, not a political thing, not... even a thing at all, really. It's just the interpretation from text to image that set something of a standard that was somewhat erroneous from the get-go.

Still, if you want to paint your helmet-less SM as black dudes, or your helmet-less SOB as black women, go right ahead. It's more likely that there are none of the genetic distinctions between the ethnic groups we know today surviving 38,000 years into the future, having been bred into obsolescence, but, they're your models, knock yourself out.

This wasn't a modelling thing. I saw a pic of someone who is producing baby primarchs on frontline, and the Vulkan is African black. It struck me as odd, as I remembered that from the 5th ed codex (I think).

Well, that sounds like a fan-made thing, a baby Primarch is still a model, even if it's not intended to be played on the table-top, so the artist is just making the baby appear African, as is his/her license to do so.

It's been a common thing for quite awhile now... ten years or so?... for Sallies to be depicted as Africans, though the design notes and other mentions describe them as having jet-black skin and red eyes.

I would point out that the Primarch could have any skin color initially as a baby. The Salamanders skin traits are reflective of their environment - ie ash/black skin to cope with the heat.

I actually think they need more variety in skin tones on 40k human models as genetic adaptations from millions of planets will not result in a majority fair haired/fair skinned individuals. I mean, they can't all be ice planets right?

As to the OP, yes it is artist interpretation. Nothing more.

Cannot help but feel that this is very apropriate to the situation

http://www.wobblymodelsyndrome.com/comic-249.html

Painting the skin brown also looks better than completely black, Jet black is difficult to high light.

At one point in the past, they were depicted as being more African black. Although the current codex (and recent editions) clarify that they are jet black rather than African-black, there are some players who think this change is either A) racist (for removing depictions of African-heritage Space Marines), B) ridiculous (obsidian skinned mutants with glowing red eyes is apparently too far for them), or C) an unnecessary change. They prefer to depict their Salamanders with the older African-black skin tone.

I play Salamanders myself, and prefer to stick with the jet-black look.

The earliest examples of Salamanders in "modern" colours and iconography was in the Space Marine Painting Guide, published in 1989 and included in the Space Marine Paint Set (and reprinted in WD 113; March 1989). That had them with African-black skin and blond hair. Then there's the guy from the cover of Battle For Armageddon (1992) who was definitely white. I don't recall any painted Salamanders appearing after that until the 3rd edition Codex: Armageddon, with armour a lighter shade of green, coal-black skin and glowing eyes.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The earliest examples of Salamanders in "modern" colours and iconography was in the Space Marine Painting Guide, published in 1989 and included in the Space Marine Paint Set (and reprinted in WD 113; March 1989). That had them with African-black skin and blond hair. Then there's the guy from the cover of Battle For Armageddon (1992) who was definitely white. I don't recall any painted Salamanders appearing after that until the 3rd edition Codex: Armageddon, with armour a lighter shade of green, coal-black skin and glowing eyes.

Actually, the Armageddon codex depicts them as African, both in the model photos (pg 14) and in the artwork (pg 27). It wasn't until 4th edition that the Salamanders starting showing up with jet black skin and red eyes. GW claims that this was due to confusion on the part of the artists involved. Apparently, the Salamanders were meant to ape the Fire Giants of Norse mythology (jet skin, red eyes) but initially wound up being depicted as Africans. Frankly, I'm not sure I buy this. The Salamanders didn't have much written about them prior to 3rd edition (none of the non BA, DA, SW, or UM chapters did, frankly) and 3rd is where we really start seeing them for the first time as groups of models instead of as one-off photos. Added to the fact is that, on the inside cover of the Armageddon codex, there is a photo of a Salamander army featuring SEVERAL CAUCASIAN models (a Sgt, a standard bearer, a couple of grunts) which leads me to believe that GW didn't have any idea what the Salamanders were 'supposed' to be prior to 4th edition.

Slight correction there:

They didn't have much *published* about them prior to 3rd Ed. We have no idea what internal documents existed about them in the studio.

While it might be a PR move on GW's part, it is just as likely that it isn't.

Psienesis wrote:helmet-less SOB as black women

Those even exist in Codex art.

That we do not see much variety in the models on studio photos is likely just oversight on part of the painters and designers.
The default soldier is always a white male. You'll only get other genders and/or skin colours if it's specifically mentioned in their description.

Personally, I'd paint Salamanders as jet-black simply because that's how I first heard about them - their earlier fluff, if they had any, always escaped me. If I wanted to paint a brown-skinned Chapter, I'd either make my own or pick one that doesn't have a skin colour associated in descriptions or artworks. But these are things we need to decide for ourselves.

There's no GW miniatures with African* facial features, which makes painting them with dark skin look odd. On the other hand, after 40,000 years of evolution, there's room for some oddities. David Weber's Honor Harrington novels feature a planetary population descended from African settlers, but who have lived for 2,000 years on a planet with low light levels, so they're all pale-skinned platinum blonds, but with African bone structure and kinked hair. Plenty of scope for the opposite in 40k if you want.

*there's probably a morePC term, but you all know what I mean

 Psienesis wrote:
Slight correction there:

They didn't have much *published* about them prior to 3rd Ed. We have no idea what internal documents existed about them in the studio.

While it might be a PR move on GW's part, it is just as likely that it isn't.

Well, you're right that they didn't have much published about them prior to 3rd ed. However, the point I was getting at was that I don't think there was much internal material on them, either. Since GWs excuse for the skin-color retconn is "we said black, but we meant EXTRA black", the number of black or African models in the Armageddon codex makes the claim seem unlikely. After all, in the inside front photograph, Caucasian Salamanders outnumber African Salamanders literally FOUR to ONE. In fact, the only place African Salamanders are in the majority are in the illustrations on page 27.

I think the reality of the situation is that one of the studio artists drew some African Salamanders because "why not?" and one of the 'Eavy Metal painters saw the illustrations and said "Yeah? Why not?" and painted the Company Commander and Techmarine to be African, while the rest of the 'Eavy Metal painters defaulted to the standard "pasty British white guy" skin color GW uses on most of its models. The fans saw the artwork and the one model (the Commander is featured more than once in the codex) and said "The Salamanders have a black guy! They must ALL be black guys!" and made that the most famous trait of the Chapter. Not the fact that they had Initiative 3, not their being sexually attracted to flame-based weaponry, nope... the fans decided the most memorable trait about the Salamanders was that they were all black guys (even though, according to the photos, they clearly weren't). 4th edition rolls around and GW decides that yes, the Salamanders ARE all black dudes after all... just not the kind of black dudes that the fans were talking about.

Why GW went with "Norse Fire Giant" and not "sure, Africans can exist 38,000 years in the future.. why not?" is a matter of pure conjecture. But I'm sure it involves a desire to avoid depicting a particular group of people in a way that may give offense. After all, Genghis Khan and his hordes (White Scars), the Knights Templar (Black Templars), the Vikings (Space Wolves), the Ancient Romans (Ultramarines), and Attila and his Huns (umm... Rough Riders of Attila) are all extinct and can't sue GW. GW generally avoids depictions of any ethnic group or culture that still exists and can sue, not because GW is racist, but because they are afraid of being called racist for depicting some group as a potentially offensive stereotype. Or at least, that's my hypothesis.

squidhills wrote:

Why GW went with "Norse Fire Giant" and not "sure, Africans can exist 38,000 years in the future.. why not?" is a matter of pure conjecture. But I'm sure it involves a desire to avoid depicting a particular group of people in a way that may give offense. After all, Genghis Khan and his hordes (White Scars), the Knights Templar (Black Templars), the Vikings (Space Wolves), the Ancient Romans (Ultramarines), and Attila and his Huns (umm... Rough Riders of Attila) are all extinct and can't sue GW. GW generally avoids depictions of any ethnic group or culture that still exists and can sue, not because GW is racist, but because they are afraid of being called racist for depicting some group as a potentially offensive stereotype. Or at least, that's my hypothesis.

The Mongols are a a very much alive ethnic group today.

No offense but i think he means the Mongol "barbarian" hordes as they were in history. Although if you study history, they werent mindless barbarians, and actually made great strides for civilization.

It's actually pretty important to the new fluff that their skin is that unnatural obsidian black and they have glowing eyes. They're supposed to be terrifying looking, which is in stark contrast to their natures as protectors.

Iracundus wrote:

squidhills wrote:

Why GW went with "Norse Fire Giant" and not "sure, Africans can exist 38,000 years in the future.. why not?" is a matter of pure conjecture. But I'm sure it involves a desire to avoid depicting a particular group of people in a way that may give offense. After all, Genghis Khan and his hordes (White Scars), the Knights Templar (Black Templars), the Vikings (Space Wolves), the Ancient Romans (Ultramarines), and Attila and his Huns (umm... Rough Riders of Attila) are all extinct and can't sue GW. GW generally avoids depictions of any ethnic group or culture that still exists and can sue, not because GW is racist, but because they are afraid of being called racist for depicting some group as a potentially offensive stereotype. Or at least, that's my hypothesis.

The Mongols are a a very much alive ethnic group today.

I didn't say 'Mongols', I said "Genghis Khan and his hordes". I was referring to the guys who conquered most of Asia and a hefty chunk of Europe and the Middle East many, many years ago and are now all very much dead (unless some of them were secretly vampires or Highlanders). I know that the Mongolians, as an ethnic group are still very much around, but the White Scars aren't modeled after the Mongolians currently living in Mongolia, they were modeled after the large group of dead guys lead by Genghis.

And modern day Mongolians are descendants of Genghis Khan and his followers, both genetically and culturally. They are very attached to that era and those stories for obvious reasons. The Mongols in fact exist as an ethnic group today as a direct result of Genghis Khan. The White Scars are as much a caricature of them as the Praetorians are of British or the WHFB Lizardmen are of Mayans who are also an extant ethnic group which still identifies strongly with their ancient roots. All of these could theoretically take offense at their portrayal though it is unlikely given the overall small niche that GW occupies in the grand scheme of things. If however you were to go to Mongolia and mock Genghis Khan, then it would become rapidly apparent just how relevant modern day Mongolians view Genghis Khan. If GW were truly ultra conservative, they wouldn't even touch such eras yet they do.

Quite simply the reasoning of GW avoiding depictions of existing ethnic or cultural groups is false because their universes are littered with them. Rather the issue is more likely due to the greater prominence given to racial and cultural sensitivity involving people of African descent. However given the generally positive portrayal of Salamanders, I don't see what the problem is.

Iracundus wrote:
And modern day Mongolians are descendants of Genghis Khan and his followers, both genetically and culturally. They are very attached to that era and those stories for obvious reasons. The Mongols in fact exist as an ethnic group today as a direct result of Genghis Khan. The White Scars are as much a caricature of them as the Praetorians are of British or the WHFB Lizardmen are of Mayans who are also an extant ethnic group which still identifies strongly with their ancient roots. All of these could theoretically take offense at their portrayal though it is unlikely given the overall small niche that GW occupies in the grand scheme of things. If however you were to go to Mongolia and mock Genghis Khan, then it would become rapidly apparent just how relevant modern day Mongolians view Genghis Khan. If GW were truly ultra conservative, they wouldn't even touch such eras yet they do.

Quite simply the reasoning of GW avoiding depictions of existing ethnic or cultural groups is false because their universes are littered with them. Rather the issue is more likely due to the greater prominence given to racial and cultural sensitivity involving people of African descent. However given the generally positive portrayal of Salamanders, I don't see what the problem is.

There are 600+ years separating Genghis and the modern Mongolians. Of course the modern Mongolians are attached to Genghis; he accomplished some amazing things. But a charicature of Genghis is 600+ years removed from a charicature of a modern Mongolian. Yes, the Praetorians are Victorian-era British... guess what? Everybody who was alive in the Victorian era is dead (unless you know something I don't). Modern British might think highly of the Victorian era, but a charicature of a Victorian stereotype isn't going to generate any ire among them. That's because there is a difference between modern people and ancient or past ancestors. The Japanese lionize the samurai, but you can still make charicatures of them, because they became functionally extinct 150 years ago. Yes, there are modern descendants of the samurai still kicking around, but that's the point; they are modern descendants. They are not the actual samurai. For the same reason, a 40K army inspired by Shaka Zulu and his warriors could be acceptable, despite there still actually being actual Zulus alive today. Shaka was 200+ years ago, and if the army is clearly tied to Zulus of that era, the likelihood of someone taking serious offense at it is reduced.

GW doesn't depict modern ethnic groups in their modern incarnations. They don't. Every ethnic 40K army is tied to a particular period in the past, and each of them is at least 150+ years gone by. The only "modern" groups depicted in 40K are national millitaries (WWII Soviets, WWII Americans, and Vietnam-era Americans) and those aren't meant to evoke an ethnic group; they are meant to evoke a particular war.

The issue with African Salamanders isn't "black people are more sensitive", it's the fact that the Salamanders developed the reputation as "the black guys" with no other identifying cultural anchor. They weren't the 15th century Moorish Space Marines, or the 18th Century Zulu Space Marines, or even the 54th Massachusetts Space Marines; they were just "the black Space Marines". Since they were generically black, that meant they might be construed as a modern charicature of an African-descended person, and a modern person of African descent might've taken offense at something in the depiction. While I agree that the portrayal of the Salamanders is unquestioningly positive, nobody who would take offense at their being portrayed as black guys would bother to look deep enough into the fluff to learn that they are considered really swell dudes. That's the problem. People get offended at the surface image, and not the substance behind it. That's why GW uses old, dead people for its charicatures. If I see a bunch of guys in Renaissance-era Itallian clothing, sporting goofy Italian names in a Warhammer Fantasy army, I don't think "Grrrr! GW is making fun of me!" I think "Oh, those guys are supposed to be guys who all stopped existing 500 years ago. Nothing to do with me, regardless of where my family is from." I can see from the surface image that there's no point in taking offense because any attempt at humor isn't directed at me. Now, if GW makes an army of fat guys wearing the Stars and Stripes and shooting oversized guns with one hand while pounding back beer and hotdogs with the other, I would get upset. It wouldn't matter that, in the fluff, the gun-wielding fat guys are the only group that espouses equality and justice and helps little old ladies across the road; the surface image is all I will care about (and that surface image is clearly directed at modern Americans, not ones who have been dead for 400 years). That's why the fact that the Salamanders are, without a doubt, the only real good guys in the IOM wouldn't be enough to keep somebody from taking offense at them. The surface is all anyone would care about. The surface was "generic black dude" (despite the army not actually being black) which was not sufficient to tie the Salamanders to the past, so the surface had to be changed.

squidhills wrote:


There are 600+ years separating Genghis and the modern Mongolians. Of course the modern Mongolians are attached to Genghis; he accomplished some amazing things. But a charicature of Genghis is 600+ years removed from a charicature of a modern Mongolian. Yes, the Praetorians are Victorian-era British... guess what? Everybody who was alive in the Victorian era is dead (unless you know something I don't). Modern British might think highly of the Victorian era, but a charicature of a Victorian stereotype isn't going to generate any ire among them. That's because there is a difference between modern people and ancient or past ancestors. The Japanese lionize the samurai, but you can still make charicatures of them, because they became functionally extinct 150 years ago. Yes, there are modern descendants of the samurai still kicking around, but that's the point; they are modern descendants. They are not the actual samurai. For the same reason, a 40K army inspired by Shaka Zulu and his warriors could be acceptable, despite there still actually being actual Zulus alive today. Shaka was 200+ years ago, and if the army is clearly tied to Zulus of that era, the likelihood of someone taking serious offense at it is reduced.

You can only do so up to a point. It may not be so much for people of European descent, but there are ethnic groups elsewhere which are very very attached to their historical ancestors as there is a direct cultural continuity and ethnic identity. Yes there are fictional depictions of samurai and Genghis Khan era Mongols, but if they became too caricatured, I am pretty sure Japanese or modern Mongols would take offense. An American of Scandinavian bloodline is unlikely to take offense over for example depiction of pagan Norse Vikings because the differences in culture and the distance in time make the link much more tenuous. However for example especially in Asia, these links are still very strong. There are still a few families in Japan with samurai era last names (which no one else is allowed to take). A few centuries in the past is not a big difference. One only needs to look at some of the TV shows for example to see how tightly bound to their history they can be. There are for example numerous Chinese dramas depicting historical events that occurred over 2000 years ago. By contrast, there is comparatively much less interest in the Western world for depictions of the ancient past. One can argue whether this is a good or bad thing but certainly I have not seen French as tightly identifying with Charlemagne and the Franks or some Italians with the ancient Romans as I have seen some Chinese identifying with the Han or Tang dynasty.

The fact that GW does not refrain from such depictions show concern over particular ethnic group offense is not a motivating factor. Except for the the issue of African descended people which is a much more salient feature in Western societies than the potential issue of offending Mongols through a depiction of Genghis Khan. The number of Mongols that play GW games and that might take offense is likely far less.