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.
2014/10/23 22:05:52
Subject: Re:Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
I don't find the banner that offensive, from what is described. Space Nazis, while crass, are an unfortunate staple of the hobby. The DKoK Forgeworld line wouldn't exist otherwise.
Neither strike me as offensive, both strike me as tasteless.
The problem isn't the conversions, or the models, but the words.
You can do whatever you want model-wise, but the moment you try to put words to it, in such a hateful manner, it's disallowed. Completely. I'd even go so far as to break said banner off to prove a point.
You models are not a platform for you to project your views, regardless of how correct or incorrect they are.
So, just to be clear, in order to show your high moral standing, you would... destroy someone else's property? Very broad-minded of you.
After all, why let a little thing like the law or basic morality get in the way of moral preening? In all due clarity, I would normally preface a legal point with 'I am a lawyer but not your lawyer', but this is one of those bedrock points of basic law everyone is responsible for knowing: just because you are angry doesn't mean you can take and break other people's stuff. Even college professors occasionally need reminding of this.
In any case, the real problem with this discussion is... well, the same problem as the last such discussion: it's not about the models, it's about the players. Or, to agree with earlier posters, it's about context: terrible racial slurs may be ghstly signs of intolerance... or hysterically funny.*
Playing with an SS division may be a sign of a terrbily problematic worldview... or a like of the color scheme and cohesive aesthetic (if you know what I mean). In other words, getting stuck on what is said, rather then why it is said, leaves everyone the poorer for lack of understanding and communication. This is one of the reasons SJW types have aquired their (IMO well deserved) reputation for being censuring scolds: because they can't tell the difference between someone joking with a ding-dong, and spitting venom with an Oreo.
*For the poor folk that don't recognize that clip: read and then visit Netflix.
Did they look like this or the black leather variant?
Spoiler:
I have no problem with it but i would understand if those who lost family in the war would object to this.
As the 40K universe empire is run like the 40000th reich a themed army like that wouldn't be so far of,
no one bats an eye if someone makes a Russian themed 40k army and Stalin killed a few more than Hitler
and the Russian army really had political officers like Commisars.
I would object if he had penal legion dressed like Jewish concentration camp prisoners.
And off course if the player himself had the white power ideology then i would not play him.
It all depends on the idea behind the army and the ideology of the player's army.
I don't see a problem with the Nazi army. The 40K universe is already replete with Nazi-esque visuals, especially the older artwork. It's part of the background. You also have to keep in mind that there are no good guys in 40K. That Blue Smurf marine army you just put on the board? The characters you are evoking are--in context of the game--willing to massacre every man woman and child on a planet that they just defended, because the survivors *might* have heard from someone else that the Imperium *might* have just fought a force worshipping the wrong gods, even though those innocent women and children have absolutely no desire to turn to this other god. Then they'll wipe their own minds, so that they can continue to thoughtlessly serve a tyrant who eats a thousand human psykers every day just to put off death a little longer.
But that's fiction! The Nazis were real and really did horrible things. They are a widely vilified, historical army Yes indeed. So did the Soviets. And the Aztecs. And the Romans. But all of these armies get elements of their iconography appropriated in 40K or WHFB armies too, and no one bugs the players who choose to do that. It's just that the Nazis are our current bugbear.
Unless the gamer in question also has swastikas tatooed on his body and spouts off like Goebbles, then he's probably just after the stunning visual impact the Nazis appropriated for themselves. German armies in both WW1 and WW2 have a stunning visual impact, in my opinion, not matched by any other "modern army". I can see someone wanting to paint that.
I'd personally probably go with Iron Cross if I were to really "go German" with a DKOK army, both because I like that symbol a bit more than the swastika (no, I am not immune to the "yuk" factor of the swasticka) and because I think giving a nod to WWI rather than WWII (with the bar cross) would better capture the archaic aesthetic of 40K, But I wouldn't give this guy any real grief for what he's done unless he really was a skinhead.
Either way, even with chapter-approved paint jobs, anytime I put an Imperial army on the board I know I'm playing the armed might from an empire of some really sick bastards. I don't think I'm "tacitly approving" psychotic behaviour whether that army of psychotic bastards uses real or fictional icons.
-S'Cipio
2014/10/24 06:05:54
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
I guess I am somewhat surprised that people are so easily offended by miniatures.
Firstly, because we are so often hinting at themes like nazism and references to real racial/religious wars... it doesn't suddenly cross a line with me when those things are directly mentioned. It just seems slightly hypocritical to me to say it's bad to directly refer to something but it's ok to strongly hint at it and/or use it for inspiration for symbols/themes.
Secondly, because a lot of bad crap happens in this world that it amazes me people can get so worked up about miniatures. We are making a game out of war... meanwhile actual wars are going on where people are being killed and tortured. If you were so concerned about all the bad crap in the world and felt that miniatures could in any way shape or form make it worse, why on earth are you playing a WARgame.
2014/10/24 06:10:34
Subject: Re:Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
To those who say this marine is responding to a relgious war by threatening another religious war, that is in fact what the 40K imperium does. If you worship the wrong god, they kill you. Then they possibly burn your entire planet.
But that's not the same, you say. The Chaos gods would destroy the universe.
Well, of course it's not the same. This is a game so things embrace hyperbole. But the message is the same. If you don't show enough devotiion to the god we like, or if you look just a bit too not-like-us, we'll kill you. And the Imperium will execute the doubter just as quickly as the chaos cultist.
Plus, these are Black Templars. They wear the symbol of the Teutonic Knights. Their defining characteristic is that they are stuck on a permanent crusade. They conquered Jerusalem^H^H^H^H..... I mean they onquered Jerulas while on crusade, and they did it by building a tank called the Crusador. And they showed no mercy after their victory.
Looking at the the background of this chapter, and In the modern age, with our media saturated by Jihadist beheading innocent people live on camera, I think imagery like this is inevitable. And I don't have a problem with a wargame miniature showing a soldier killing a jihadist on a battlefield. (Unless he's a bound prisoner? That would press my "yuk" buttons.).
I guy in my local area is of middle eastern descent. I can't imagine he'd be thrilled to see an Emperor's Champion killing a "jihadist."
Are you sure he'd mind? Maybe he would, but maybe he hates Jihadists too. A lot of people of all sorts of different middle eastern descents (and habitation) are currenly involved in a life or death struggle with Jihadists. A lot of people seem to be assigning an implied racist element in the death of a Jihadist miniature. Without knowing the artist who made the model, racism is not a thing I'm willing to assume,
I don't see Space Marines carrying back banners with insults to their opponents. It's like the Crimson Fists carrying signs that say "Orks are stupid!"
I don't see how both the creator of the piece and the Marine supposedly carrying the banner both would not see the hypocrisy of criticizing a religiously motivated war by threatening a religiously motivated war.
I mean, the very same model with a Banner reading "Death to Heretics" or "So Perish All Apostates" would be totally in character for 40K.
Wouldn't the latter be insults as well? What's the difference between "Death to Heretics" and "Death to Jihadists"? (Or "Death to Infidels"?) The banner seems the same sort of black humor attributed to soldiers fighting for their lives on the battlefield as "Born to Kill" on Private Joker's helmet in Full Metal Jacket, or the "Peacemaker" I've seen painted on real tank turrets. I think this is perfectly in character.
And again, relgiously motivated war is just what the Imperium does. It's in their genes (seeds).
-S'Cipio
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/10/24 06:24:33
2014/10/24 08:14:33
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
In historical gaming, obviously there are always going to be people taking SS units and the like.
They had "cool" uniforms and there is a mistique around them, with all the runes etc, even if they weren't always (or even usually) the best combatants.
Its something that WW2 gamers just accept.
Except when you run across idiots that run armies based on the Dirlewanger Brigade, who even the SS thought were criminal scum.
The bloke I met who ran them had some pretty abhorrent views as well.
TL;DR: Theres always one. If it makes you uncomfortable, just politley state your views, don't play them and move on.
When it come to "political correctness" one should also keep in mind that the correctness of a given subject might very well be a national/regional thing.
The view on some subjects are shared far and wide, but others might not be.
For example, my view and statements on religion might be considered politically incorrect (or worse) in some parts of the world, while they are perfectly reasonable in others.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Eilif wrote: [Would Nazi iconography be appropriate on Space Marines? No, then it's not appropriate for ww1 space germans either.
FYI Nazi's weren't WW1
What if they were WWII space Germans though?
I don't find it out of place on period set games historical or pulp, like if you were trying to make a Indianna Jones game, Rocketeer or Wolfenstein as they are the appropriate bad guys, or if you were trying to use SS bolts to represent Neo-Nazi's in a modern biker gang. (the Helghast in Killzone have a modified SS bolts on their collars) I think it largely comes down to intent of why it's being used. If somebody were slapping Swastikas down simply to get a reaction or offend their opponent I'd consider that pretty uncool. The SS bolts I think might be a bit more subjective they are sometimes used in other situations and have alternate meanings, but again it comes down to the context of how they are being used and what the owner is trying to convey.
Nazi symbols pop up in non-period sources like Captain America, Hellboy, or have modified versions for Red Skull, Hydra, the Hammer in Danger Girl. But that's cultural shift from how things were for several decades. There was a distinct period after the war where displaying those icons in the US was completely shunned and avoided (even if it were for historical purposes) but I think people have matured and realize that by not talking about what evils those symbols represent it ultimately does more harm. In order not to let history repeat itself we need to know about the horrible things that those were associated with so we can never forget why they were so bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/24 08:57:40
Paulson Games parts are now at:
www.RedDogMinis.com
2014/10/24 10:56:35
Subject: Re:Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
Meh. Models with nazi symbols, references to real-life terrorism, piles of dead members of the Swedish "Green Party", neither would bother me personally (the latter actually sounds pretty tempting ). But I also understand that there are those who are bothered by it, so I think you should show some basic social sophistication, just as in any other situation in day-to-day life.
That's not to say anyone can come up to you and veto away your models. It's entirely up to you how you choose to present yourself. If you're content making other people uncomfortable, then more power to you. If you're not, then you might want to consider these things one more time.
"Empty your pockets and don't move"
2014/10/24 11:34:28
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
Pete Melvin wrote: In historical gaming, obviously there are always going to be people taking SS units and the like. They had "cool" uniforms and there is a mistique around them, with all the runes etc, even if they weren't always (or even usually) the best combatants. Its something that WW2 gamers just accept. Except when you run across idiots that run armies based on the Dirlewanger Brigade, who even the SS thought were criminal scum. The bloke I met who ran them had some pretty abhorrent views as well. TL;DR: Theres always one. If it makes you uncomfortable, just politley state your views, don't play them and move on.
Actually... when it comes to historicals it makes even less sense why people would get offended by things. As long as the force was a historically accurate force. The whole war was filled with atrocities on all sides. Rapes, murder, torture, concentration camps not to mention the often horrific conditions within battles themselves. It's hard to see any side as some sort of angelic warriors. It seems odd to me that someone would be like "well, that's all ok, we can trivialise all those horrors that actually occurred in to a wargame, OH, but don't touch these other ones, that's just going too far.... hang on.... let me move my squad of troops so they can shoot at the enemy to inflict horrible painful death and suffering upon them".
Now if someone is actually championing the horrific ideas of genocide, torture, rape, etc etc, that's another matter. That goes beyond the little toy soldiers we are playing with and is actually the person themselves being abhorrent.
But I prefer not to get the two mixed up. Just because I play a wargame does not mean I support war and just because someone has little toy soldiers from a nazi regime doesn't mean I think they support nazism.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/24 11:37:13
2014/10/24 11:42:48
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
For the Crusader, this seems like someone who is being intentionally offensive. Considering how the Crusades functioned, it's the same as saying, "the answer to Jihadists is to kill as many muslims as possible". That's the kind of thing that Neo-Nazis and KKK members endorse.
The KKK had close ties to Malcolm X's islamic movement. They both wanted the Jews out of America.
techsoldaten wrote:
Here's a perspective on it.
Way back in 2nd edition days, there was a guy with an IG army with a penal legion platoon. All of the guardsmen were white, but he chose to paint the penal legion troopers as Africans. He put more work into the penal legion troopers, adding various bits and conversions that were there to make sick jokes.
*snipped*
The term 'Africans' could be seen as equally offensive.
Back OT - I wouldn't hesitate to play either army mentioned by the OP. If these folks started a conversation about religion, politics or their narrow world view then I'd ask them to change the subject.
Annnnd, ironically, I just very nearly posted my views on jihadists
Member of the "Awesome Wargaming Dudes"
2014/10/24 12:03:05
Subject: Re:Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
The crusader is just plain wrong, however, depending of the circumstances, the Germany thing might be tolerable. If the player genuinely has just painted them to admire the German war machine's efficiency, that is better than them being a Neo-Nazi expressing them self on the tabletop. The guy who runs my local games workshop said to me that if you think of the IG as WW2 Germans tactically, you cant go wrong, and I have to agree with him, however, if there are modeled Nazi salutes ect then he should be banned from wherever you are playing. BTW, I'm a Jew if that helps lend perspective.
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
2014/10/24 12:12:36
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
timetowaste85 wrote: If it's a fantastically painted/converted mini, I'd probably overlook the PC issue. If it looks like crap, and wasn't done with utmost care, I'd be more offended. All subjective, I guess. The SS design wouldn't even bother me, but I'm not the affected audience.
I've got to say, this is the part of this thread that I find weird. I'm the first to admit that I'm not a great painter. I love converting and I love playing, so to me painting is just the dull bit in between that lets me get from one stage to the other, so even when I am concentrating I can spend ages on a model and it'll still be about table top quality. I don't see how that in any way affects my ability to be racist, though, and I'd like to think that someone's skill or otherwise at painting doesn't affect the intent behind the work.
2014/10/24 12:24:05
Subject: Re:Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
timetowaste85 wrote: If it's a fantastically painted/converted mini, I'd probably overlook the PC issue. If it looks like crap, and wasn't done with utmost care, I'd be more offended. All subjective, I guess. The SS design wouldn't even bother me, but I'm not the affected audience.
I've got to say, this is the part of this thread that I find weird. I'm the first to admit that I'm not a great painter. I love converting and I love playing, so to me painting is just the dull bit in between that lets me get from one stage to the other, so even when I am concentrating I can spend ages on a model and it'll still be about table top quality. I don't see how that in any way affects my ability to be racist, though, and I'd like to think that someone's skill or otherwise at painting doesn't affect the intent behind the work.
This is something that confused me with the other "sexually explicit models" thread. Since when does how well you paint affect whether something is offensive or not?
But either way... I'm not actually sure what people find overly offensive about the jihad one... are we worried about offending those participating in a holy war? If that's the case then I really don't care about offending them Are we worried about offending those affected by the crusades? If that's the case we kind of missed the boat by about 700 years. If we're worried about offending Muslims in general... I don't see the big deal unless it said "die muslim die" or something that is offensive generally to muslims and not just those participating in a holy war. Are we worried about offending middle eastern people? If that's the case then I feel it's just fishing for something to be offended about
I mean, I can see that it's a joke that makes light of religious war... but wargaming makes light of war so I don't see why that would be a problem for your average wargamer.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/24 12:34:05
2014/10/24 13:23:54
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
I was watching Saving Private Ryan the other day, and it made me think about Wargaming a little (I had a mini moral crisis). Is all Wargaming in some way offensive? Just watching the Normandy beach scene, or people's reactions to their friends dying, I couldn't imagine how awful it must have been, but I'm over here playing a game where I basically reenact that kind kf thing? I mean it's in a fantasy setting, but what about historical wargames, could they not be seen as offensive, or inconsiderate?
But then I guess you could say the same about war films, or CoD, or any number of things designed to entertain people that are based on war. I'm not saying that it is offensive, but it made me think (for the first time in like 8 years I've been into wargaming) that it might be offensive to some people.
2014/10/24 13:41:51
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
I personally couldn't give a toss unless the players themselves are spouting racist and similar remarks.
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
2014/10/24 14:10:31
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I guess I am somewhat surprised that people are so easily offended by miniatures.
Firstly, because we are so often hinting at themes like nazism and references to real racial/religious wars... it doesn't suddenly cross a line with me when those things are directly mentioned. It just seems slightly hypocritical to me to say it's bad to directly refer to something but it's ok to strongly hint at it and/or use it for inspiration for symbols/themes.
Secondly, because a lot of bad crap happens in this world that it amazes me people can get so worked up about miniatures. We are making a game out of war... meanwhile actual wars are going on where people are being killed and tortured. If you were so concerned about all the bad crap in the world and felt that miniatures could in any way shape or form make it worse, why on earth are you playing a WARgame.
What's surprising is your total inability to notice people repeatedly stating variations on the theme "I'm not particularly offended, but I find it tasteless/immersion breaking". It's almost as if you want people to act all offended so you can demonstrate your obvious edginess by repeatedly saying how it doesn't bother you and anyone it does bother is just "getting their panties in a bunch" Further, you do grasp that it's possible to recognise that something is offensive without actually being offended in the visceral, emotional sense yourself, aye?
And whether you recognise it or not, there is an accepted and longstanding difference between addressing a controversial subject through allegory and metaphor, and just outright addressing a controversial subject. The former grants the author/artist/filmmaker leeway because it reduces the chances you'll cause offence/distress to anyone who was directly invested in those events, and conversely people will expect that if you're going to just reference the topic directly you will do so with some basic level of tact, subtlety, and respect for other people.
The Imperium is a pretty nasty society, it draws from all kinds of real sources and ideologies, but it does not embody any particular one of those sources - there are strands of various types of Authoritarianism both secular and religious, elements of racial and national purity-based ideology, aspects of Imperialism and Colonialism, but you cannot simply label the Imperium as Space Nazis or Space Communists, any more than you can just label the Ecclesiarchy as Space Catholics despite the numerous parallels, because that's reductive and simplistic, requiring you to ignore all the parts of the fictions which aren't consistent. You can take individual elements as commentaries on specific issues(hell read the "...of Mars" series, McNeill uses Servitors to make a point about workers' rights and the power of collective bargaining), or you can take the Imperium as a whole as a commentary on the idea that humans will, in extremis, turn into properly nasty buggers, but in few cases where the parallel is pretty obvious and on the nose it's usually a humorous point being made not a political one(the Administratum - hurr hurr, isn't British bureaucracy inefficient and annoying? Lol DWP etc), and the cases where it's as obvious as "my army are literally Nazis" or "hah hah killing Muslims is funny" are virtually nonexistent and usually hangovers from when 40K first arose, a time perhaps not that distant but one in which bigotry of all stripes was a lot more tolerated than it is today(or should be).
I would be totally within my "rights" to paint up a Tallarn army as Jihadists with Al-Qaeda iconography, carrying an army standard depicting the Twin Towers aflame with the phrase "3000 down, 300 million to go" on it, but the idea I should be able to do so without comment/censure, or that anyone who called me out for my crass insensitivity was just some hypersensitive "SJW", is just ridiculous.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2014/10/24 14:31:13
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
It's the immersion thing that gets me. I don't dislike the idea of a Nazi Guard army because "OMG NAZIS!!!". I'd dislike a Nazi Guard army for the same reason as I'd dislike a Simpson's themed Marine army, or a My Little Pony Chaos army. They break immersion and make no sense in context with 40K.
There are odd exceptions - that guy who makes the pink Necrons, or the red pipe-cleaner/googly eyes Khorne army - because those are excellent concepts well made, or just hilariously funny, but the rest, nah, Nazi's don't belong in 40K because they occupy a small part of 20th century history, not the 41st millennium. That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/24 14:32:39
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
To be fair Dust is set as an alternate WWII, so they literally are Soviets in Dust (I think...) Can't argue on the Warmachine front, but Khador are one of the factions I'm going with haha.
2014/10/24 14:56:27
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
Avatar 720 wrote: I personally couldn't give a toss unless the players themselves are spouting racist and similar remarks.
This pretty much sums it up. Take this for what is worth, but I would prefer a polite racist who plays the game well over an obnoxious, loud mouth who is extremely annoying.
The more I think on it, I can't recall political or racial commentary ever coming up during a game. It is mainly talk of 40K, GW in general, or the game at hand.
With respect to the nazi iconography, I am mixed on this one. The Nazis were, by far, the best dressed army of WWII, if not the 20th century. There are countless models with the German style helmet, some were even posted in this thread. I have seen orks with "nazi" helmets and never seen any reaction like this. If you read the 40K books, the anti-xenos mentality of the inquisition and space marines borders on nazi-esque fervor. I am not saying anything is right or wrong, just take it for what it is worth.
So, if someone wanted to use the color schemes of the SS and Nazis, I could not blame them. They looked good. If they started painting red squares with white circles ans swastikas on it.... whatever. I think the most you would get out of me is "wow, swastikas....aren't you edgy?"
2014/10/24 15:07:46
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
Think what you want, but keep it to yourself when gaming with strangers.
There was a lot of inter table 'banter' at my FLGS a while back, that was basically three or four lads hurling ugly homophobic insults at each other.
I chalked it up to poor social skills development so prevalent in the community and hoped to never play any of them face to face. For their safety, yeah, so I don't roundhouse kick them in the throat and choke hold them til the Police turn up.
NINJA SKILLZ.
Member of the "Awesome Wargaming Dudes"
2014/10/24 15:25:40
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
Yodhrin wrote: What's surprising is your total inability to notice people repeatedly stating variations on the theme "I'm not particularly offended, but I find it tasteless/immersion breaking".
The people who find such themes mildly misplaced weren't really the people to which I was referring, but none the less I'm glad my post could be a stepping stone for your rant
And whether you recognise it or not, there is an accepted and longstanding difference between addressing a controversial subject through allegory and metaphor, and just outright addressing a controversial subject.
Yes, so you are drawing a line... I guess I see the line as somewhat arbitrary.
"hah hah killing Muslims is funny"
The OP said the flag said "I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade". That doesn't scream "hah hah killing Muslims is funny", that's YOU projecting on to it. That's why people like me see it as if you are going out of your way to be offended (or distasteful or whatever ). Now if it genuinely did say "hah hah killing Muslims is funny" then I'd say the person who wrote it is being a hateful dick... it has nothing to do with the army, it has to do with being a racist dick. But that's why I do try and separate the toy soldiers from the actual person unless it's blatantly obvious the person is hateful, racist, sexist, whatever.
When it comes to the toy soldiers, we are making a game of war here, don't you find that just MILDLY distasteful or offensive given that there are actually wars going on, ya know, like right now? Many of us are playing historical games of real wars that have occurred recently. Isn't that a bit distasteful?
Sorry if most of what I see is arbitrary line drawing and going out of your way to be offended
Now, the fluff issue being immersion breaking... I can appreciate that to an extent. I guess why that has never bothered me is because I don't consider GW fluff to be any where near gospel. Ever since I started WHFB and 40k it's always been the Universe that I myself have wanted it to be, I've only ever seen GW's fluff as guidelines anyway.
Nazis in 40k and references to a real life holy war from an army that are space crusaders hardly seems out of character for 40k... but if you feel it is I won't bother arguing that point because it's entirely 100% subjective, there's really no objective points to be made.
I would be totally within my "rights"... but the idea I should be able to do so without comment/censure, or that anyone who called me out for my crass insensitivity was just some hypersensitive "SJW", is just ridiculous.
I didn't bring up the point of "rights" (at least I didn't think I did), mainly because I think "rights" in our western societies is mostly a given, especially in regards to speech and art.
You have the right to create an army that someone might be offended by...
People then have the right to complain about an army that they might be offended by...
People (like me) then have the right to point and laugh.... I mean question the validity of your outspoken feelings of being offended or distastfulized.
The whole "rights" thing is just a circular argument, we all have the right to do whatever the feth we want as long as it's not infringing on other peoples' rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's the immersion thing that gets me. I don't dislike the idea of a Nazi Guard army because "OMG NAZIS!!!". I'd dislike a Nazi Guard army for the same reason as I'd dislike a Simpson's themed Marine army, or a My Little Pony Chaos army. They break immersion and make no sense in context with 40K.
There are odd exceptions - that guy who makes the pink Necrons, or the red pipe-cleaner/googly eyes Khorne army - because those are excellent concepts well made, or just hilariously funny, but the rest, nah, Nazi's don't belong in 40K because they occupy a small part of 20th century history, not the 41st millennium. That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
This is a mostly subjective point and I can appreciate the "immersion breaking" point, to an extent.
Personally, as I said above, I've always been very flexible with 40k fluff. I hardly think GW make awesomely solid factions anyway and I've always seen the universe as being the basis for building what YOU want to do.
Now Simpsons or My Little Pony armies, to me, are just completely ill suited to 40k. They don't fit the grimdark theme in the slightest.
But I'm totally fine with it when people want to see 40k as a stepping stone to create their own fluff like "what if Nazis won and now we're in the 41st millennium" or holy wars in general. To me, they DO fit in to the universe thematically and aesthetically like Simpsons and My Little Pony don't.
But if you don't agree and feel it breaks immersion, I can appreciate that more than the "that's distasteful and offensive... now let me pull out my model which has gruesomely murdered models adorning the base".
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/10/24 15:39:21
2014/10/24 15:55:59
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
Dakka is the ork word for shooting, but the ork concept of shooting is saturation fire. Just as there is no such thing as a "miss" in a target-rich environment, there is no such thing as a "dodge" in a bullet rich one
2014/10/24 16:35:48
Subject: Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
I don't really care about them me and I don't find them distasteful either, just rubbish for the most part, unless someone is getting bent out of shape over them, then it can be quite funny !
2014/10/24 16:46:03
Subject: Re:Political " incorrect" Models, your oppinion
Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.
And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.
Driven away from WH40K by rules bloat and the expense of keeping up, now interested in smaller model count games and anything with nifty mechanics.