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.

Okay 40k is essentially the product of merging ad 2000, dune and the bible together.

And I don't care. Maybe 40k started as a blatant rip off of those things but it has developed (and deviated enough) to the point where only older stuff is comparable to the basis for 40k.

40K somehow managed to make this monster work (at least most of the time) no one likes to admit it but 2000 AD isn't exactly 100% original.

Also it (occasionally) has some depth. Orks are an obvious mixture of soccer hooliganism, biker culture, and Celts, visigoths, and other stuff while being pretty damn original.

BFG is probably my favorite offshoot of 40k and to my knowledge isn't ripped off. Sci fi also happens to be extremely derivative in general. The only completely original stuff that was produced (and good) can be listed off on one hand: space oddysey, Dune and maybe some others.

He'll even star wars is a boiled down Dune! Sorry if this sounded ranty but I am annoyed with all the claims of plagiarism. Sci fi is built off of derivative content.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for bad grammar this was done on my phone.

I just remembered a lot of AD 2000 artists and writers worked for GW during RT days as well. This explains most of the similardesign motifs (just look at Blanche's non GW stuff)

I'm not sure I'm seeing the point of this thread.

Is 40K derivitive? Sure. As you say, most scifi is. 40K is a little more blatant about it in some cases, though.

The fact that most scifi is derivitive though doesn't make 40K any less so.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not sure I'm seeing the point of this thread.

Is 40K derivitive? Sure. As you say, most scifi is. 40K is a little more blatant about it in some cases, though.

The fact that most scifi is derivitive though doesn't make 40K any less so.

The point I tried to make is that 40k has deviated enough after 25 years to be considered "somewhat original." GW is pretty open about it for the amount of stuff lifted (which is more than some people) and again the influx of 2000 AD artists might explain the large amounts of similarities.

If it was made now it would be considered a "spiritual successor."

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The point I tried to make is that 40k has deviated enough after 25 years to be considered "somewhat original."

Deviating from your original inspiration doesn't make you any more original if the stuff you're adding in is just as dirivitive...

 insaniak wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The point I tried to make is that 40k has deviated enough after 25 years to be considered "somewhat original."

Deviating from your original inspiration doesn't make you any more original if the stuff you're adding in is just as dirivitive...

Good point. But if you don't mind me asking what recent stuff is directly derivative? I mean you can see where inspirations are but I think derivative is a stretch.

I don't think it was ever a "rip off."

I don't know very much about either of these things, but I think the status of ripoff/copying that 40k has is the same as the novel and film series His Dark Materials having copied the novel and film series Chronicles of Narnia. A lot of people say that the first is a deliberate recasting of the second and borrowed most of its themes, but nobody says it's a ripoff, because they say the author of His Dark Materials was referencing Chronicles of Narnia on purpose to dispute what it says.

They use the same tropes to mean different things. They are both about children adventuring with talking animals to save the world. One of them is about being saved by believing in the Christians' god, and the other one is about how people don't need religion. People say 40k is a Frank Herbert and Michael Moorcock mashup, but even though it reuses their terms and symbols, it says something totally different.

Drawing inspiration from other works (or history) does not a ripoff make. In terms of scifi universes, 40k is pretty distinct.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
But if you don't mind me asking what recent stuff is directly derivative?

None of it, according to GW's testimony in the Chapterhouse lawsuit. All of GW's ideas come completely from their designers' heads with no outside influence whatsoever, and so any resemblance to any other works is clearly completely coincidental.

I was merely questioning the idea that something changing automatically made it less dirivitive than it was before...

GW are the only ones trying to deny where all their "inspiration" came from and claiming it as their own though.

EDIT mod-ninjad.

Well shouldn't they be charged with perjury?

I'm pretty sure they occasionally mention 'X is this' and 'Y is that'

They don't even try to pretend arbiter aren't judge dredd.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Well shouldn't they be charged with perjury?

I'm pretty sure they occasionally mention 'X is this' and 'Y is that'

They don't even try to pretend arbiter aren't judge dredd.

They said so in the Chapterhouse court case.

Modifying something that is not original does not make it original.

You can't take a tennis ball, paint it blue and call it a sinnet ball while claiming it's not a tennis ball, and then later on paint pink spots on and claim that while the sinnet ball was originally based on the tennis ball, it is now completely different.

Talys wrote:
In terms of scifi universes, 40k is pretty distinct.

You've obviously never read Dune.

I will say, that 40k's current lore has a unique feel and aesthetic to it.

But yeah, it's pulling from history and other universes all over the place.

40k has always read as a satire/parody to me (at least at it's conception), taking popular culture, historical content, and whatever else cramming them all into a grimdark cauldron and cranking it all up to 11. Flying space cathedrals space vikings, space vampires, along with space ww2 russians, an army of rambos, fighting undread zombie robots, green soccer hooligans, and gundams. It was never a rippoff, it was a cultural anthology passed through an 80's heavy metal satire filter.

Over recent years, it's become a lot more self-serious, which is a bit of a detriment in my eyes. The reason 40k is great its because it's so effing dumb.

Everything pulls from everything. Trying to say something is original in sci-fi is pretty difficult, as sci-fi could even be claimed to have roots in mythology and folklore.

 DarkLink wrote:

Talys wrote:
In terms of scifi universes, 40k is pretty distinct.

You've obviously never read Dune.

On the contrary. I read Dune before Warhammer 40k existed (how's that for dating me?). Have you read the novel?

Dune is all about a single, precious resource (spice) without which intergalactic travel is not possible. The events of the novel, trilogy, and series are almost entirely on Arrakis, upon which various factions vie for control. The galaxy, as it were, is controlled by humans, and there are no existential threats to the existence or dominance of the human species.

The 40k universe is about the human galactic empire at the brink of ruin, corrupted by Chaos, and about a galaxy at war. The events of the Warhammer 40k universe transpire all over the galaxy, with no planet or resource being so valuable that really nothing else matters (except Terra, by virtue of the Emperor being there). There are many species, some much more advanced than humans, some much more ancient, and the Xenos threat is ever-present.

Yes, there are some parallels and similarities (mostly on visualizations of space travel), but the premise, plotline, heroes, and villains are nothing alike. The story of the rise and fall of Warmaster and Primarch Horus is nothing at all like Baron Harkonnen. The Emperor and his primarchs are nothing like Paul Maud'dib, or his progeny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McGibs wrote:
40k has always read as a satire/parody to me (at least at it's conception), taking popular culture, historical content, and whatever else cramming them all into a grimdark cauldron and cranking it all up to 11. Flying space cathedrals space vikings, space vampires, along with space ww2 russians, an army of rambos, fighting undread zombie robots, green soccer hooligans, and gundams. It was never a rippoff, it was a cultural anthology passed through an 80's heavy metal satire filter.

Over recent years, it's become a lot more self-serious, which is a bit of a detriment in my eyes. The reason 40k is great its because it's so effing dumb.

Yeah, you get it

Talys wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

Talys wrote:
In terms of scifi universes, 40k is pretty distinct.

You've obviously never read Dune.

On the contrary. I read Dune before Warhammer 40k existed (how's that for dating me?). Have you read the novel?

Dune is all about a single, precious resource (spice) without which intergalactic travel is not possible. The events of the novel, trilogy, and series are almost entirely on Arrakis, upon which various factions vie for control. The galaxy, as it were, is controlled by humans, and there are no existential threats to the existence or dominance of the human species.

The 40k universe is about the human galactic empire at the brink of ruin, corrupted by Chaos, and about a galaxy at war. The events of the Warhammer 40k universe transpire all over the galaxy, with no planet or resource being so valuable that really nothing else matters (except Terra, by virtue of the Emperor being there). There are many species, some much more advanced than humans, some much more ancient, and the Xenos threat is ever-present.

Yes, there are some parallels and similarities (mostly on visualizations of space travel), but the premise, plotline, heroes, and villains are nothing alike. The story of the rise and fall of Warmaster and Primarch Horus is nothing at all like Baron Harkonnen. The Emperor and his primarchs are nothing like Paul Maud'dib, or his progeny.

I've read all 6 and some of the post-herbet stuff (like road to dune). Dune was about politics & religion, with a healthy dose of prescience thrown in. The spice was relatively minor to the setting until about book 4 imo.

edit: but yeah, a lot of stuff in 40k can be found in dune.

Talys wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

Talys wrote:
In terms of scifi universes, 40k is pretty distinct.

You've obviously never read Dune.

On the contrary. I read Dune before Warhammer 40k existed (how's that for dating me?). Have you read the novel?

Dune is all about a single, precious resource (spice) without which intergalactic travel is not possible. The events of the novel, trilogy, and series are almost entirely on Arrakis, upon which various factions vie for control. The galaxy, as it were, is controlled by humans, and there are no existential threats to the existence or dominance of the human species.

The 40k universe is about the human galactic empire at the brink of ruin, corrupted by Chaos, and about a galaxy at war. The events of the Warhammer 40k universe transpire all over the galaxy, with no planet or resource being so valuable that really nothing else matters (except Terra, by virtue of the Emperor being there). There are many species, some much more advanced than humans, some much more ancient, and the Xenos threat is ever-present.

Yes, there are some parallels and similarities (mostly on visualizations of space travel), but the premise, plotline, heroes, and villains are nothing alike. The story of the rise and fall of Warmaster and Primarch Horus is nothing at all like Baron Harkonnen. The Emperor and his primarchs are nothing like Paul Maud'dib, or his progeny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McGibs wrote:
40k has always read as a satire/parody to me (at least at it's conception), taking popular culture, historical content, and whatever else cramming them all into a grimdark cauldron and cranking it all up to 11. Flying space cathedrals space vikings, space vampires, along with space ww2 russians, an army of rambos, fighting undread zombie robots, green soccer hooligans, and gundams. It was never a rippoff, it was a cultural anthology passed through an 80's heavy metal satire filter.

Over recent years, it's become a lot more self-serious, which is a bit of a detriment in my eyes. The reason 40k is great its because it's so effing dumb.

Yeah, you get it

People comparing 40K to Dune have always seemed to be searching something to reach for, given how little there is to compare, except for in broadest terms.

 Bookwrack wrote:

People comparing 40K to Dune have always seemed to be searching something to reach for, given how little there is to compare, except for in broadest terms.

40k copied a lot of stuff from a lot of sources, but there's a fair bit of direct comparisons

-not allowed to make thinking machines/computers (butlerian jihad)
-las guns
-deathworlds used to train elite soldiers (sardaukar and selusa secundus, fremen and arrakis)
-post-human navigators are required to traverse deep space
-assassins defined by type (eg chaumus, chaumurky)
-personal protective shields
-feudal government
-humans repurposed to fill the role of machines (mentats, axotl tanks)
-humans trained and evolved into 'magic' powers (reverend mothers, navigators, facedancers)

Just a few off the top of my head. Like i said 40k borrowed from a lot of sources, but there's some noticable ones that came from dune.

 Bookwrack wrote:
People comparing 40K to Dune have always seemed to be searching something to reach for, given how little there is to compare, except for in broadest terms.

I so agree.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I've read all 6 and some of the post-herbet stuff (like road to dune). Dune was about politics & religion, with a healthy dose of prescience thrown in. The spice was relatively minor to the setting until about book 4 imo.

edit: but yeah, a lot of stuff in 40k can be found in dune.

I've tried to love the post-Herbert stuff, because I was such a huge fan of the original Frank Herbert's original trilogy, but I find it largely unreadable. The later books feel as much a part of Dune as Battle of Five Armies feels like it belongs a part of the Hobbit.

Right from the first book, Herbert establishes that Dune (Arrakis) is precious because the Guild needs spice for interstellar travel, and the Bene Gesserit need it for their psychic powers -- and Arrakis is the only place in the entire Dune universe where spice is found. Feel free to disagree, but in my opinion, it's central to even the original novel. In the 40k universe, there is no parallel, in the sense that there is no resource struggle. The iconic 40k threats (Chaos, Tyranids, Orks, etc.) have no equivalent in Dune.

I have always thought that any similarities were more in details (for instance, both having an Emperor, both being set in the far future) rather than in themetic or plot elements.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:

People comparing 40K to Dune have always seemed to be searching something to reach for, given how little there is to compare, except for in broadest terms.

40k copied a lot of stuff from a lot of sources, but there's a fair bit of direct comparisons

-not allowed to make thinking machines/computers (butlerian jihad)
-las guns
-deathworlds used to train elite soldiers (sardaukar and selusa secundus, fremen and arrakis)
-post-human navigators are required to traverse deep space
-assassins defined by type (eg chaumus, chaumurky)
-personal protective shields
-feudal government
-humans repurposed to fill the role of machines (mentats, axotl tanks)
-humans trained and evolved into 'magic' powers (reverend mothers, navigators, facedancers)

Just a few off the top of my head. Like i said 40k borrowed from a lot of sources, but there's some noticable ones that came from dune.

Sure, but Dune is considered widely influential to modern science fiction -- including Star Wars. Often, the comparison is that Dune is to Scifi as Lord of the Rings is to Fantasy. Both are written during the early years of their genres, and both are highly influential to later works.

I certainly don't deny that Dune influenced 40k, just as it did Star Wars. But nobody would accuse Star Wars of being a Dune ripoff.

Talys wrote:
I've tried to love the post-Herbert stuff, because I was such a huge fan of the original Frank Herbert's original trilogy, but I find it largely unreadable. The later books feel as much a part of Dune as Battle of Five Armies feels like it belongs a part of the Hobbit.

Yeah, thats pretty much why i avoided them. I got road to dune as a present, and it was an anthology with like insights into the universe and a 'first draft' of dune. It was pretty decent without trying to continue what went before, i'd recommend it for the harkonnen info if nothing else (major spoiler warning).

Talys wrote:
Right from the first book, Herbert establishes that Dune (Arrakis) is precious because the Guild needs spice for interstellar travel, and the Bene Gesserit need it for their psychic powers -- and Arrakis is the only place in the entire Dune universe where spice is found. Feel free to disagree, but in my opinion, it's central to even the original novel. In the 40k universe, there is no parallel, in the sense that there is no resource struggle. The iconic 40k threats (Chaos, Tyranids, Orks, etc.) have no equivalent in Dune.

I have always thought that any similarities were more in details (for instance, both having an Emperor, both being set in the far future) rather than in themetic or plot elements.

It's not that i disagree on the importance of the spice, but more the focus and centricity (i've invented a new word!) of it to the stories. While it featured in a few key points (like paul going into the desert to take his spice trip), the story itself was more about religion and politics imo, the downfall and rise of a noble house. But as i said, 40k borrowed from a lot of sources, and the ones i listed were those i could remember off the top of my head (it's been a few years since i last read dune).

Talys wrote:Sure, but Dune is considered widely influential to modern science fiction -- including Star Wars. I certainly don't deny that Dune influenced 40k. But nobody would accuse Star Wars of being a Dune ripoff.

I was referring more to bookwrack in this respect. Rip-off is the wrong word imo, but certain things were directly copied. 40k copied a lot of things from a lot of sources. It doesn't make it a rip-off, but it doesn't make it an original work either. Star wars borrowed from a lot of sources too. Just my 2 credits.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I was referring more to bookwrack in this respect. Rip-off is the wrong word imo, but certain things were directly copied. 40k copied a lot of things from a lot of sources. It doesn't make it a rip-off, but it doesn't make it an original work either. Star wars borrowed from a lot of sources too. Just my 2 credits.

Well, sure, in this, I won't disagree with you at all

I would still argue that the central theme of 40k (Warp travel and Eldar avarice caused the creation/proliferation of Chaos Gods) is relatively unique. As the OP pointed out, the whole "End of Days" thing borrows from the book of Revelation in the Bible -- at least I assume this is what the reference is to, as none of the other books of the bible really have anything to do with 40k (no parallels with Genesis, Exodus, etc.). But the end of the world is hardly a unique theme to the Bible.

If 40k ripped off anything, it would be that, originally, it was a space version of Warhammer Fantasy

40ks derivitive but I'd hardly just dismiss it was a giant rip off. It's a pretty distinct universe all to itself these days. there are certinly some ideas from Dune taken but plenty of ideas NOT taken from dune. Ideas I'd say that are more important to the core of the setting. some of the core ideas borrowed from Dune are also ideqas used in lots of other sci-fis. take feudal government, there are a decent number of sci-fi settings out there that use em. hoenstly feudalism makes a degree of sense in settings where travel and communication distances mean self rule by local worlds is gonna be a de facto requirement of government

Saying 40k borrowed a lot from Dune, or Heinlein, or Moorcock is givin GW too much credit. It went like this - someone else ripped them, then someone else 2 ripped the rip off, then 2000ad ripped off the someone else 2, then GW straight mixed and matched Rogue Trooper, Nemesis the Warlock, ABC Warriors and Judge Dredd both conceptualy and visualy, aded tiny bits and pieces from that classic sources like navigators from Dune and slapped a name on it. There is interview with Rick Priestley where he mentions Dune, Heinlein, Star Trek etc but most importantly 2000ad as he was working on Judge Dredd game at the time and by his own words, 'a lot of it sliped'. There was almost nothing original about 40k, even the grimdark mood is from the comic books like Rogue Trooper, it was not 'inspiration' it was a rip off, you can find Moorcock opinion on that somewhere on his forum (though we could ask Poulson first what he thinks about Moorcock heh). You can say they were friends with 2000AD and that they shared one or two artists but you cant give them credit for creating their own setting. They were pretty open about it even later btw with rules like 'we'll be back' etc but now claim its all their idea for the sake of making money from IP.

Not only that, also today you cant say it is original by any stretch, or that it's like other sf because sf is derivative, 40k stands out as uniquely unoriginal and more as something like 'best of' mix than something of its own and the only reason it's not apparent and obvious is because the old sources are more or less forgotten and scattered. Not to mention things added over the years were mostly rippoffs too, some backstory is theirs atm ofc but it's not too good anyway imo. The 6th edition Imperial codieces layout still looks like Nemesis the Warlock comic just with more money thrown at it and you can still count on GW to rip off cool things that appear in videogames, movies or other games with new releases. They take everything from everywhere, twist to grimdark and there you go, their achievement is that it somehow, almost fits together as coherent whole as long as you dont treat it seriously. 40k is just a place where you can find all your favourite things from sf fantasy and popculture fighting the idiotic endless total war. Its cool as fuk but will always be a blatant ripoff.

Not as blatant as starcraft though. Now that was unimaginative 'lets ripp off two sources' cowboys in space crap. GW at least makes the effort to combine more things.

... one of the titles of a book in the Dune series is "God-Emperor of Dune".

C'mon.

Everything is ripping off something else. The only things are 'original' are those that are old enough that no recordings of what it was ripping off survive.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Well shouldn't they be charged with perjury?

I'm pretty sure they occasionally mention 'X is this' and 'Y is that'

They don't even try to pretend arbiter aren't judge dredd.

Perhaps in the pre-Chapterhouse era.

During the court case, they tried to claim that in essence the entirety of their IP was produced by GW staff in a vacuum with no outside influence at all and was purely the product of their own imagination.

This was despite things like this..



dating from the seventies, yet, no, according to GW, Tau are totes original and this in no way resembles a Firewarrior.

Now, as many have said, there's nothing really original in sci-fi, there's nothing really original in any creative sphere (or at least such a thing is very rare) but people are ok with that. It's when people start trying to deny their influences and claiming it as all their own work that others start to take exception.

Thing is, to address the perjury thing, the truism "there's a difference between what you know and what you can prove" comes into play. If I told you that my blatant rip off was all my own work, and had come from my own mind, and the thing I'd ripped off looking so much like it was pure coincidence, how would you prove me wrong? Short of photos or video of me reading the book/watching the film/viewing the painting/building the model, it would be near impossible to prove in a courtroom. Coincidences happen, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, even the most extraordinary ones have to be taken at face value in a legal sense.

HUGE chunks of GW stuff is pulled directly from the orks of Michael Moorecock. Eldar, Chaos and the chaos gods, even down to the 8 pointed star. The high elves island, the stone arks and more.
It is funny that they fight so mhard to "protect their IP" when most of it is just ripped off directly from the works of others, only changing the spellings of the names of stuff just slightly.
Talk to Michael Moorecock on his site and you'll find that he is barely even cognizent of this and doesnt really care despite the fact that they not only gave him no credit but also no compensation.

Not that their fluff isnt good. I think they did a fairly good job of mixing all the influances together into their amalgam universe. I just wish they were honest about it and gave credit where credit is due. It would improve their image in the eyes of many.

What is 2000ad? Never herd of it.