# 1st ed ruled! How far we have fallen.



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

So I got myself a copy of 1st ed aka Rogue Trader. I am reading thru the fluff and it hits me _this is WAY better than 6th edition_.

Compared to 1st edition the current iteration of the 41st millennium is asinine. Back then the Warp was really a dimension of randomness and chaos filled with innumerable gods and monsters, not just the playground for four pathetically pontificated chaos gods and their lackeys. Back then the Emperor actually got shit done, conveying his commands thru the Custodes he ran his empire personally. Back then there was no Ministorium, the Administratum was the only priesthood the Emperor needed. He was not confined the Golden Throne by his emo children during their rebellious phase, he chose to install himself into a machine that would enhance his already prolific psychic powers so that he could guide ships thru the warp, battle the horrors of chaos and see what was going on in his realm so he could better govern the Imperium. Back then the people of the Imperium were polytheistic, the people of the worshipped any gods they wanted and no one executed you for it (more often than not the gods heard your prayers and responded). Back then Eldar were not a dying race, they were dwelling in paradise and interfered with humanity purely for lolz. Back then we had female space marines. Back then dreadnaughts were just suits of battle armor able bodied people could climb into for battle and get out of later. Back then squats road around on trikes and blew up Orks and Slann with autoguns. Back then there were robots, zombies and vampires. IT WAS AWESOME!!!

How far we have fallen since then.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I've read Rogue Trader. Frankly, while I think of it fondly in the same way that I think of other 80s sci-fi stuff fondly, I don't think it's as cohesive and well-put together as the current background material.

There are certainly things I think could be done better. Orks, for instance, are jarringly alien as compared to the rest of the setting. They are comedy relief where there shouldn't be any. They fit in well with the original setting, but where everything became more serious, they didn't change enough. The Tau still have the potential to be an integral part of the setting, but for right now they're too clean-looking, too much like a faction from a different game/universe altogether.

Those are just a couple of examples. Overall, though, Warhammer 40k is a brutal, beautifully dystopian vision of a war-filled future. It is a setting with potential for great stories to be told in a variety of different media. Rogue Trader's ceiling was never going to be greater than that of the old 2000AD comics, meaning no disrespect to another property for which I have a lot of fond memories (Judge Dredd, Rogue Trooper, etc.).


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Agreed, Phoebus. 

The Rogue Trader era certainly had its moments, and did very well in capturing the overblown, gothic insanity and weirdness of the Imperium and 40k. (Space Marine and the Inquisition War series anyone?).

Sometimes it's more whimsical, satirical take on 40k worked, othertimes not so much. Some things i'm glad are out- human and eldar procreation, squats, other jarring elements. 

3rd edition is when i think it all came together, the 3rd ed rulebook is one of the best for background fluff and a sense of what 40k was, what life in the imperium was like. That could be nostalgia talking though. 

Rogue Trader and second edition did produce some truly fantastic supplements however.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Rems said:


> Agreed, Phoebus.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's more whimsical, satirical take on 40k worked, othertimes not so much. Some things i'm glad are out- human and eldar procreation, squats, other jarring elements.


I am pretty sure that human/eldar hybrids are still canon.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> I've read Rogue Trader. Frankly, while I think of it fondly in the same way that I think of other 80s sci-fi stuff fondly, I don't think it's as cohesive and well-put together as the current background material.
> 
> There are certainly things I think could be done better. Orks, for instance, are jarringly alien as compared to the rest of the setting. They are comedy relief where there shouldn't be any. They fit in well with the original setting, but where everything became more serious, they didn't change enough. The Tau still have the potential to be an integral part of the setting, but for right now they're too clean-looking, too much like a faction from a different game/universe altogether.
> 
> Those are just a couple of examples. Overall, though, Warhammer 40k is a brutal, beautifully dystopian vision of a war-filled future. It is a setting with potential for great stories to be told in a variety of different media. Rogue Trader's ceiling was never going to be greater than that of the old 2000AD comics, meaning no disrespect to another property for which I have a lot of fond memories (Judge Dredd, Rogue Trooper, etc.).


The early ed's were great there's no doubt in that, but then GW decided to appeal to the 8+ crowd, don't believe me, read ultramarine fluff and compare it to COD The similarities are not surprising. 

For the orks making them into one of the most sadistic races in 40K is easy, you just have to get creative.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> I am pretty sure that human/eldar hybrids are still canon.


They're not. 

Aside from the immense cultural loathing the two sides have for one another, (hatred of the alien being a fundamental religious tenet of humanity and the eldar viewing mankind as vermin, as a lower class of animal than themselves) eldar don't even share the same DNA as humans or reproduce the same way. 

Humans and eldar are entirely different species its like trying to breed a person and a horse, but the horse is from a planet on the other end of the universe with a completely different biological makeup down to the sub-cellular level.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Rems said:


> They're not.
> 
> Aside from the immense cultural loathing the two sides have for one another, (hatred of the alien being a fundamental religious tenet of humanity and the eldar viewing mankind as vermin, as a lower class of animal than themselves) eldar don't even share the same DNA as humans or reproduce the same way.
> 
> Humans and eldar are entirely different species its like trying to breed a person and a horse, but the horse is from a planet on the other end of the universe with a completely different biological makeup down to the sub-cellular level.


The Dark Eldar codex says pretty explicitly that human/eldar hybrids are a common occurrence in Commorragh. There is also Kaarja Salombar from The Chapter's Due who is described as having eldar blood in her veins. 

As far as the how, humans and eldar were both engineered by the Old Ones. Eldar were created as weapons to fight the necrons and the humans were made for lolz.


----------



## vipertaja (Mar 20, 2010)

I have to admit that as I managed to get myself the realm of chaos books years ago, I have since had a 
certain love for the utter randomness and insanity of the warbands they had and it serves as an 
inspiration for my forever unfinished chaos marine army. Those books are amazing. I can't imagine how 
complicated it must have been to play a large warband of completely unique and random misfits. Kind of 
like in the movie "Wizards". Just legions of mutants, monsters, mongrels, demons, mercenaries and 
armoured lunatics. Scum of the earth. Luckily chaos is so vast and varied a thing that this all still fits in 
just fine, just without insanely many random rules (which admittedly would be fun).

Other than that, I do think it's a shame the black humour isn't there as much anymore and the imperium is
portrayed a bit too kindly these days (they're still not nice or anything). I liked the absurd fascism of the 
old material. Of course I like the new stuff and depth of fluff now, but the old stuff does have charm.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Reaper45 said:


> The early ed's were great there's no doubt in that, but then GW decided to appeal to the 8+ crowd, don't believe me, read ultramarine fluff and compare it to COD The similarities are not surprising.


That's a sweeping and inaccurate generalization. To begin with, it's ridiculous to argue that even the baseline of 40k is mean to appeal to pre-teens. Not beyond the actual game, that is. Evil gods, sadistic torturers, genocide, chainsaw swords, racism, and fascism are not themes meant to appeal to young kids. You might convince me that certain stories (some of the Ventris material, for instance) could fall under the PG-13 label, but you can't tell me that the marquee stories do that. It would take a *very* creative perspective to argue that Gaunt's Ghosts, the Horus Heresy, the Night Lords trilogy, etc., are aimed at young teens or pre-teens.

Incidentally, what do you mean by COD? Call of Duty? I can't begin to imagine how Call of Duty and the Ultramarines intersect, except for the most commonly basic themes.



> For the orks making them into one of the most sadistic races in 40K is easy, you just have to get creative.


That's hypothetical, though. In execution, only the feral orks are really treated seriously. And even then, the same silly terminology pervades.

Speaking for myself, I can't begin to tell you how much it ruins my suspension of disbelief when high-ranking Imperial officers toss around terms like "Waaagh", "Nob", "Boss", "Telyporta", etc. I'm not saying those concepts aren't fun _in their own right,_ but they're just jarringly dissimilar when put next to _virtually anything else_ that's 40k.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Rems said:


> its like trying to breed a person and a horse


That probably wouldn't stop some wealthy Imperial-types with a penchant for the _unusual_..... :spiteful:


----------



## Logaan (May 10, 2012)

Have been in two minds about this. As I have mentioned frothingly on more than one occasion on here, I love RT40K, it was my introduction into the hobby and I spent vast swathes of my youth playing it. The openness of the system made for some awesomely individual armies (a friend used to run a Rogue Trader warband that would arrive on the table in converted Huey Hogs....) and the rules allowed and encouraged lists and vehicles like this.

However, with this in mind, the game and fluff needed reigning in and refined quite a lot. Have a browse through the RT40K rulebook and Space Marines are vastly different to how they are in later editions and some of the concepts seem to have been created with the aid of tippex and toilet duck. The game needed the Heresy, it needed the ideas of today to bind the game together. 

As mentioned in a previous post, 3rd ed was the version of the 40k universe that seemed to get it spot on. 2nd ed was shiny and non threatening. RT40K had a grim setting but was also hugely, well, mad across the board for much of the fluff, background and scenarios (seriously, check out the scenarios......)


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Logaan said:


> (seriously, check out the scenarios......)


That pesky Abdul Goldberg! :threaten:


----------



## Logaan (May 10, 2012)

Tawa said:


> That pesky Abdul Goldberg! :threaten:


I'll see you at Greasy Kim's bar and diner :crazy:


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Fun times!

*fires up the jetbike* :good:


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Phoebus said:


> That's a sweeping and inaccurate generalization. To begin with, it's ridiculous to argue that even the baseline of 40k is mean to appeal to pre-teens. Not beyond the actual game, that is. Evil gods, sadistic torturers, genocide, chainsaw swords, racism, and fascism are not themes meant to appeal to young kids. You might convince me that certain stories (some of the Ventris material, for instance) could fall under the PG-13 label, but you can't tell me that the marquee stories do that. It would take a *very* creative perspective to argue that Gaunt's Ghosts, the Horus Heresy, the Night Lords trilogy, etc., are aimed at young teens or pre-teens.


Some people here get off by dismissing WH40k as nothing more than childish literature all the while they continue reading the latest stuff.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

As others have said, the lore is much more clearly organised and coherent now than it was back in the Rogue Trader-era. I think most people, myself included, look back are the pre-3rd editions with nostalgia rather than truly believing they were 'better'.

I don't exactly agree with all of the lore developments over the last few years and am quite often dismissive of the quality of several BL publications, but its hard to deny the setting is much more coherent now, and maintains a wider scope than it ever has.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> As others have said, the lore is much more clearly organised and coherent now than it was back in the Rogue Trader-era. I think most people, myself included, look back are the pre-3rd editions with nostalgia rather than truly believing they were 'better'.
> 
> I don't exactly agree with all of the lore developments over the last few years and am quite often dismissive of the quality of several BL publications, but its hard to deny the setting is much more coherent now, and maintains a wider scope than it ever has.


The coherency is part of the problem. Back in the day the galaxy was filled with wide open spaces where who knows what could be lurking. These days the 41st millenium seems filled in, especially where the warp is concerned. 

Chaos used to be this infinite realm that could give rise to anything. Now there are four chaos gods who have a handful of different servant-types. It is lame.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> Back then we had female space marines.


Wat? No.



GabrialSagan said:


> pretty explicitly


Something can't be "pretty explicitly". It's either explicit, or it's not. Is there are quote from the DE codex about this?



Logaan said:


> 2nd ed was shiny and non threatening.


Wat? No.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> Wat? No.


You have no idea what you have just unleashed mate. *starts battering down the hatches*


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> Wat? No.


Rogue Trader page 153. Read it for yourself.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> Rogue Trader page 153. Read it for yourself.


I say again, "Wat? No."

I own _two_ hard copies of Rogue Trader, lol. No mention of ladymarines on that page. The only mention of gender in the Space Marines section are "he" and "his" when talking about any Marines, including the rank and file. They are specifically called "battle brothers". Additionally, they are referred to as "warrior monks" which while not specifically a male term, is typically associated with males.

Please, by all means, point out some reference to female Marines. Because Rick Priestley's article "The Origins of the Legiones Astarte_s_" was published in White Dwarf in February of 1988 (four months after the game came out) and goes on to explicitly (see what I did there?) say that all Space Marines are male.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Jacobite said:


> You have no idea what you have just unleashed mate. *starts battering down the hatches*


Did I poke a known troll? :laugh:


And you should batten down the hatches. If you batter them down, they'll probably be broken. :wink:


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> I say again, "Wat? No."
> 
> I own _two_ hard copies of Rogue Trader, lol. No mention of ladymarines on that page. The only mention of gender in the Space Marines section are "he" and "his" when talking about any Marines, including the rank and file. They are specifically called "battle brothers". Additionally, they are referred to as "warrior monks" which while not specifically a male term, is typically associated with males.
> 
> Please, by all means, point out some reference to female Marines. Because Rick Priestley's article "The Origins of the Legiones Astarte_s_" was published in White Dwarf in February of 1988 (four months after the game came out) and goes on to explicitly (see what I did there?) say that all Space Marines are male.


I am looking at the page right now and I see nothing that indicates that all astartes are male. Perhaps in 1988 they decided to make the change. But in 1987 there was not a word that said "all marines are male."


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Who really likes the uber-serious tone 40k has taken? Don't y'all think that their is something to the levity of the 80s that made the setting more approachable? 

I mean who actually likes whiny emo marines anyway?


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> I am looking at the page right now and I see nothing that indicates that all astartes are male. Perhaps in 1988 they decided to make the change. But in 1987 there was not a word that said "all marines are male."


:taunt:

You can't prove something exists by claiming that there's no proof that it doesn't exist.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> :taunt:
> 
> You can't prove something exists by claiming that there's no proof that it doesn't exist.


Thank you for making my point. You cannot prove that space marines are exclusively male by saying that no female pronouns are used. Especially in english where the default plural pronoun is masculine.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Veteran, I think you're getting trolled.

Escape while you can!


----------



## Old Man78 (Nov 3, 2011)

What about the bi sexual trans gender transvestite marines on pg 153 of Rogue Trader!


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Oldman78 said:


> What about the bi sexual trans gender transvestite marines on pg 153 of Rogue Trader!


Ultramarines....? :laugh:


----------



## Lost&Damned (Mar 25, 2012)

would most probably be the Emperors children.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Oldman78 said:


> What about the bi sexual trans gender transvestite marines on pg 153 of Rogue Trader!



Chapter Master Thomas Curry.

Non-sequitur:

Do you prefer your Imperium as a monotheistic theocracy where the Emperor is the only (impotent) god or your Imperium as a polytheistic police-state where the Emperor is one god among many?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

GabrialSagan said:


> Who really likes the uber-serious tone 40k has taken?


I do



GabrialSagan said:


> Do you prefer your Imperium as a monotheistic theocracy where the Emperor is the only (impotent) god or your Imperium as a polytheistic police-state where the Emperor is one god among many?


Monotheistic


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

What Phoebus said, and more bluntly what darkreever said too. It's strange that one minute you should claim 40k is trying to appeal more to the younger and/or childlike audiences, but then complain about the serious and dark tone it has taken on instead of the more gimmick filled days. And just as Phoebus said, that is a wildly sweeping generalisation to say the novels are all trying to appeal to the teenage market, have you even read _Eisenhorn_, the Night Lords trilogy, Heresy novels like _Fulgrim_, _The First Heretic_, _Prospero Burns_ and many others, all of which are intensely adult themed and are on a literacy level that would frankly be lost on most teenagers and I'd wager quite a few young adults. 

Your argument for female marines is also beyond retarded. You can't give a page as proof and fact when it contains no such thing and then fall back on the *worst and weakest argument in the world* of 'if it doesn't say they don't exist...then they do', have you heard of Russell's Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's an argument from ignorance, and is about as credible as OJ Simpson.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Angel of Blood said:


> What Phoebus said, and more bluntly what darkreever said too. It's strange that one minute you should claim 40k is trying to appeal more to the younger and/or childlike audiences, but then complain about the serious and dark tone it has taken on instead of the more gimmick filled days. And just as Phoebus said, that is a wildly sweeping generalisation to say the novels are all trying to appeal to the teenage market, have you even read _Eisenhorn_, the Night Lords trilogy, Heresy novels like _Fulgrim_, _The First Heretic_, _Prospero Burns_ and many others, all of which are intensely adult themed and are on a literacy level that would frankly be lost on most teenagers and I'd wager quite a few young adults.


I dunno really how far I'd go praising the literary level of the Black Library novels. They're competently written, but they're just pulp fiction. The best of them are "decent", and a few border on downright silly. In the end, no matter how "adult" you try to theme it, 40K is still a cartoon universe full of pop-culture tropes that try to kill one another.

The reality is that teenagers and young adults _love_ that kinda stuff. Just like a movie being rated R doesn't stop kids from wanting to see them, neither does the subject matter being "adult" in nature stop kids from reading these books. There's a very good reason why sexual themes are more or less forbidden, because Games Workshop knows its audience. And they don't want part of that audience getting caught with something their parents might take away. Especially since parents may be funding their purchases in whole or in part. 

Teenagers aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be. Especially the demographic that plays 40K. And they'll eat up mass produced pulp action novels.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> That's a sweeping and inaccurate generalization. To begin with, it's ridiculous to argue that even the baseline of 40k is mean to appeal to pre-teens. Not beyond the actual game, that is. Evil gods, sadistic torturers, genocide, chainsaw swords, racism, and fascism are not themes meant to appeal to young kids. You might convince me that certain stories (some of the Ventris material, for instance) could fall under the PG-13 label, but you can't tell me that the marquee stories do that. It would take a *very* creative perspective to argue that Gaunt's Ghosts, the Horus Heresy, the Night Lords trilogy, etc., are aimed at young teens or pre-teens.
> 
> Incidentally, what do you mean by COD? Call of Duty? I can't begin to imagine how Call of Duty and the Ultramarines intersect, except for the most commonly basic themes.
> 
> ...


So in other words you have no clue what games kids play today?

Let me enlighten you.

Saints row Has BDSM and being able to hit people with dildo's
COD Has levels where you massacre civilians. I can assure you few people skipped it. 
Halo Entire game is based around the concept of genocide.
GTA Has a level dedicated to torturing an innocent man and shows everything. 

If you can't see how your cod character is similar to wards ultramarines I really suggest you play a few cod games, it's in black and white.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> I dunno really how far I'd go praising the literary level of the Black Library novels. They're competently written, but they're just pulp fiction. The best of them are "decent", and a few border on downright silly. In the end, no matter how "adult" you try to theme it, 40K is still a cartoon universe full of pop-culture tropes that try to kill one another.


The same could be said not just of the science fiction and fantasy genres, but of _fictional literature,_ period.

Just because something starts off at a certain level (and I assure you, the critical and popular opinions of fantasy and science fiction did not equate the genres as a whole to Tolkien, Asimov, or Heinlein) doesn't mean that it can't evolve or get better.



Reaper45 said:


> So in other words you have no clue what games kids play today?
> 
> Let me enlighten you.


Yes, please do.



> Saints row Has BDSM and being able to hit people with dildo's
> COD Has levels where you massacre civilians. I can assure you few people skipped it.
> Halo Entire game is based around the concept of genocide.
> GTA Has a level dedicated to torturing an innocent man and shows everything.


... And you just proceeded to list a number of video games that, in the US at least, earned "Mature, 17+" ratings from the ESRB for, among other things, "Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Intense Violence, Strong Language".

What does the ESRB have to say about these games?



> _"Games with this rating contain content which the board believes is suitable for those aged 17 or up;"_


The ESRB ratings are, of course, not legally binding, but it says a lot that a majority of of American retailers self-regulate sales and are ostensibly supposed to restrict sales of Mature-rated games to minors,

Bottom line, you're simply citing things that minors are _exposed to_ - not what is *designed* for them. They are, at best, inaccurate analogies.



> If you can't see how your cod character is similar to wards ultramarines I really suggest you play a few cod games, it's in black and white.


In only the most generic sense possible. In the most simplistic, 'I am a good soldier that is fighting against bad guys, in a war where the lines between "good" and "bad" are blurred.' This is not a "black and white" case at all.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

darkreever said:


> I do
> 
> 
> Monotheistic


+1 to both of those. The very basis of why I enjoy this lore in fact.


@Veteran Sergeant: The user in question has tried multiple times to prove that SM's can be female and every time has failed to convince anybody. The last time she/he tried it was claiming that the 6th edition rule book had retconned the lore to allow female SM's. The way that it generally progresses is this:

1 - GS claims that it's been retconned or always has been so with a vague "reference" which she/he claims is concrete proof. _- tick -_ 

2 - GS provides said "reference" and it turns out to be highly debatable and/or highly circumstantial and generally involves an absence of an explicit statement that would contravene her/his point. She/he claims this is concrete fact that their can be female SM's - her/his train of logic says that "because it doesn't implicitly state that it cannot be done it must therefore be possible despite all the other evidence to the contrary". In other words as AOB says "Russells Teapot". _- tick -_

3 - GS claims we are all sexist, misogynistic, chauvinistic male pigs and are threatened by the idea of female space marines and strong women. _- Don't worry this one will come along soon._ -

4 - GS either gets smacked by the mods or leaves in a huff _- only a matter of time -_


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. 

GW definitely tried to make the game more kid friendly, I presume as a sales tactic. However, it isn't more kid friendly right now. 

The release of 3rd edition did an awful lot to strip out the more explicit parts of the game lore, and to drastically simplify the rule set. 

2nd edition was fairly solid fluff wise. It was still adult without being quite as inconsistent as Rogue Trader. The rules were also more consistent, but still included a massive amount of special rules (a chief target of GW's editors).

Over the ensuing editions, GW has slowly and consistently re-introduced more adult themes and game content, as well as raising the threshold for special rules. Compare the army books from 2nd edition, 3rd edition, and 6th edition and you will see that 2nd and 6th have more in common in many ways than 6th and 3rd.

(I find it an interesting aside that fantasy battle was never as restricted with childish constraints as 40k.)

While I don't particularly like a lot of the black library stuff, it has definitely been a good way for GW to develop a lot of the more mature themes they eschewed, while simultaneously keeping them out of the main books. In essence, allowing GW to prevent the content from being exposed to the basic mainstream audience, while allowing those who were interested to buy it.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Phoebus said:


> The same could be said not just of the science fiction and fantasy genres, but of _fictional literature,_ period.
> 
> Just because something starts off at a certain level (and I assure you, the critical and popular opinions of fantasy and science fiction did not equate the genres as a whole to Tolkien, Asimov, or Heinlein) doesn't mean that it can't evolve or get better.


Well, I'll wait, lol. 



Jacobite said:


> 3 - GS claims we are all sexist, misogynistic, chauvinistic male pigs and are threatened by the idea of female space marines and strong women. _- Don't worry this one will come along soon._


That sounds like the fun part. Should I not have stopped?


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

VS go read Pariah/P.Burns then revist this thread and feel free to hit the edit button on your post/


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*Malus*,

I would rep you if I could.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> I dunno really how far I'd go praising the literary level of the Black Library novels. They're competently written, but they're just pulp fiction. The best of them are "decent", and a few border on downright silly. In the end, no matter how "adult" you try to theme it, 40K is still a cartoon universe full of pop-culture tropes that try to kill one another.
> 
> The reality is that teenagers and young adults _love_ that kinda stuff. Just like a movie being rated R doesn't stop kids from wanting to see them, neither does the subject matter being "adult" in nature stop kids from reading these books. There's a very good reason why sexual themes are more or less forbidden, because Games Workshop knows its audience. And they don't want part of that audience getting caught with something their parents might take away. Especially since parents may be funding their purchases in whole or in part.
> 
> Teenagers aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be. Especially the demographic that plays 40K. And they'll eat up mass produced pulp action novels.


Your description of 40k novels as pulp is probably the best way to think of BL's works, though with the exception of Sandy Mitchell I have yet to read a 40k novel that was "competently written" (Even he made a pure lemon with Greater Good). Remember though that pulp is written to be shallow and fun, not deep. 40k goes back and forth between targeting a young audience and an older audience, but not in terms of its gore factor but in how they deal with mature themes of the brutality and harsh realities of war. 

I think the lack of sexual themes has less to do with fear of parents and more to do with the fact that GW thinks that 40k fans do not want to read about sex. 
@Jacobite: I never huff. And if y'all are not bothered by the idea of female space marines, why do try people so hard to prove that they are a bad idea? 

I really do not want to make this a rehashing of an old dance. So why don't y'all agree to drop the FSM hate.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

darkreever said:


> Monotheistic


Why? 

For me, the idea that every planet has its own pantheon of spirits and gods is fascinating. The concept that there is an entire spiritual dimension to the Imperium that is deeper than "Emperor good, chaos bad" opens the door for all sorts of interesting stories and themes that are a lot richer than four rather banal antagonistic gods, two of whom represent concepts (change and pleasure) that you would have to be pretty weird to consider evil.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> @Jacobite: I never huff. And if y'all are not bothered by the idea of female space marines, why do try people so hard to prove that they are a bad idea?


Haha good one, that made me laugh. It's got nothing to do with them being female or it being a good or bad idea. It's exactly the same reason people have an issue with the idea of a Grey Knight being corrupted. It's got to do with the fact it has no basis in the current fluff despite you trying so hard to prove otherwise. And you know what, like Squats returning (sorry clock reset), every time you bring it up the little GW monkeys reset the clock on it. 



GabrialSagan said:


> I really do not want to make this a rehashing of an old dance. So why don't y'all agree to drop the FSM hate.


Could have fooled anybody who remembers you. If you didn't want to go through it why'd you bring it up again. Or you could stop banging the same lonely sad drum in the corner thinking it's a different tune. It's not and it's boring.

That's number 3 now. So I will leave you to your nice bridge.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> Haha good one, that made me laugh. It's got nothing to do with them being female. It's got to do with the fact it has no basis in fluff despite you trying so hard to prove otherwise.
> 
> Or you could stop banging the same lonely sad drum in the corner thinking it's a different tune. It's not and it's boring.
> 
> That's number 3 now.


I did not bring it up, Veteran Sergeant was the one who decided bring the issue up. 

You are avoiding the question. I asked why is it a bad idea. Fluff changes. The Horus Heresy and chaos gods did not exist in the 1st edition while robot soldiers and squats were part of the lore. Space marines were not all male until someone said that is the case (which I am told is 1988, several months after Rogue Trader was published). Why do you think that all space marines being male is a good idea? 

Personally I think the idea of space marines being boys recruited at childhood is profoundly stupid, how can anyone tell who is going to be a great warrior before they turn 13? How much battle experience can a child have before they have their adult body? If I were retconning things I would have astartes come from the ranks of the various Imperial services like the arbites, guard, navy, PDF, ect. Soldiers (men and women) who went above and beyond the call of duty and performed heroic feats in the face of overwhelming odds. These soldiers would be approached by the chapters and offered to join their ranks. Then they would be genetically and cybernetically modified to become the Emperor's chosen defenders of humanity. 

That is my opinion, you can agree or disagree, but if you take the stance that whatever GW says in this moment is best then there is nothing to discuss.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

GabrialSagan said:


> Why?


Because it represents an ever greater tragedy. The Emperor, knowing what superstition and religion could and would do tried to remove it completely and instate an empire of logic, reason, and science. He went so far as to claim he was not a god when others worshiped, humiliating one of his own sons for doing so.

And in the end, in the present, he is worshiped as a god in a rotting empire where logic and reason are often considered heresy and the likes of superstition and religion are dominant forces.


There being multiple god like figures worshiped throughout the Imperium robs that entire tragedy of meaning for me, and likely the vast majority. It works in fantasy, because as I have said before fantasy takes place on a monumentally smaller setting.


As an aside for this thread: why do you assume that female space marines are at all a good idea?



GabrialSagan said:


> how can anyone tell who is going to be a great warrior before they turn 13?


If this is all you really take from why boys just entering puberty are the prime target for transforming into spae marines than I am afraid you miss the point entirely.

And I do believe you were told the clarification article was released four months after the release of rogue trader. Not even six months went by, gives it quite a bit of weight.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

All I see in this thread is Gabe Sagan (once again) trying to justify female space marines. 

And the old lore, from what I've seen of it, is nowhere near the quality of the current setting. I think the more serious and tragic tones are much better, the idea of the heroes being on the losing side and doom apparent is a refreshing change from all the happy ending sci fi stories dominating the genre.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Gabriel, I've seen you on these forums for several years now.

Your line of questioning however is having the same shock factor everyone had when Horus turned. You should not be thinking female space marines might exist or should.

@Phoebus: Why can't you


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> Bottom line, you're simply citing things that minors are _exposed to_ - not what is *designed* for them. They are, at best, inaccurate analogies.


Tell that to the parents who buy them for their kids, I mean seriously they're flooding XBL I have yet to play a match with no squeaky voices. Take a good look at the fan base, most cod players want change however they're drowned out by the kids who can't go two minutes without killing something.



> In only the most generic sense possible. In the most simplistic, 'I am a good soldier that is fighting against bad guys, in a war where the lines between "good" and "bad" are blurred.' This is not a "black and white" case at all


Really? I mean really? Cod is one step away from saying, yeah all military personally are useless fucks aside from your squad, there games themselves contain enough guys saying how they want to be like you.


----------



## Old Man78 (Nov 3, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> Chapter Master Thomas Curry.
> 
> Non-sequitur:
> 
> Do you prefer your Imperium as a monotheistic theocracy where the Emperor is the only (impotent) god or your Imperium as a polytheistic police-state where the Emperor is one god among many?


I like the monotheistic stalinist esque police state, I think it adds to the tragedy that is the Imperium of man, I think if you hsve lots of religions it would smack too much of personal freedom which I do not think would gel with the grim dark of 40k. As for female space marines, can us boys for once not just keep something for ourselves, is it too much to ask?!


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> I did not bring it up, Veteran Sergeant was the one who decided bring the issue up.
> 
> *Sigh* Yes you did:
> 
> ...


And with that I'm out, had enough with beating my head up against a brick wall. I'm sure there will be others along for you to preach too soon enough.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

darkreever said:


> Because it represents an ever greater tragedy. The Emperor, knowing what superstition and religion could and would do tried to remove it completely and instate an empire of logic, reason, and science. He went so far as to claim he was not a god when others worshiped, humiliating one of his own sons for doing so.
> 
> And in the end, in the present, he is worshiped as a god in a rotting empire where logic and reason are often considered heresy and the likes of superstition and religion are dominant forces.
> 
> ...


When you put it like that. I am almost inclined to agree with you. The Emperor as a tragic icon and symbol of ultimate irony is very powerful. Though I am of the mind that I prefer the Emperor of the 1st ed. A mysterious entity of unknown origin who still has a proactive roll in governing the Imperium through orders he conveys through the Custodes. I also like the idea that there is more to the warp that just four chaos gods. 

To answer your question. I see no good reason to make the distinction. Some of the toughest bravest real life soldiers and marines I have known are women. When the armor goes on and the helmets are in place there is no way to tell who is inside. 
Keep in mind a big part of this goes back to my general dislike of how the fluff portrays marines being made to begin with. The idea of taking children away from their families and indoctrinating them to become soldiers reminds me a little too much of real world African warlords. This may be the correct tone of grimdark for some people but for me space marines are supposed to be beacons of light in the darkness. Warriors strive to bring peace to normal people by embracing a life of endless war. 

As I posted above, I would prefer for astartes to be recruited as adults from among the people who have put their lives on the line to protect their fellow man from the alien, the mutant and the heretic. Normal men and women who have shown they have the spirit to do what needs to be done to face down the overwhelming enemies of man and given the body and weapons to match.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

darkreever said:


> If this is all you really take from why boys just entering puberty are the prime target for transforming into spae marines than I am afraid you miss the point entirely.


By all means then, clarify the point for me.


----------



## Old Man78 (Nov 3, 2011)

Space marines taken as boys, is partly a rip off of the whole Spartan warrior culture and fluff wise you need to get them before all the bones fully fuse so you can grow them bigger, also it ties in with the whole grim dark theme, to be a savior of mankind you must sacrifice the chance to be a normal man and be apart from that which you protect, it is all part of the 40k tragedy, as a space marine you get all the boosts a normal human would love but not a normal life in which to enjoy them, the whole premise of 40k is that way inclined


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Oldman78 said:


> I like the monotheistic stalinist esque police state, I think it adds to the tragedy that is the Imperium of man, I think if you hsve lots of religions it would smack too much of personal freedom which I do not think would gel with the grim dark of 40k. As for female space marines, can us boys for once not just keep something for ourselves, is it too much to ask?!


I see your point about polytheism having implications toward personal liberty. Ibn Warraq wrote a passage in his book "Why I am not a Muslim" to a similar effect.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

GabrialSagan said:


> By all means then, clarify the point for me.


At puberty the body is going through the most change, and is at the height of accepting those changes. 

And honestly, it really is that simple. Young minds left relatively unfilled in bodies about to undergo the greatest amount of change the human body tends to experience in a relatively short amount of time.


Also you have an edit button, please start using it.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> As I posted above, I would prefer for astartes to be recruited as adults from among the people who have put their lives on the line to protect their fellow man from the alien, the mutant and the heretic. Normal men and women who have shown they have the spirit to do what needs to be done to face down the overwhelming enemies of man and given the body and weapons to match.


Nothing about 40k is supposed to be this idealistic. It's supposed to give the _illusion_ of idealism to the ignorant masses, to make them think they're safe.

Meanwhile the soldiers, the fleets, the secret organizations and the marines are privy to the truth. The galaxy is vast and uncaring and filled with a host of enemies and disasters just waiting to tear every living thing from its comfort zone and destroy it. 

Sure, you can dress courage up and make it sound heroic. But that doesn't change the fact of the setting. Most people who embrace war are given no other choice but death, and most of them will still die anyway. 

Grimdark.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Oldman78 said:


> Space marines taken as boys, is partly a rip off of the whole Spartan warrior culture and fluff wise you need to get them before all the bones fully fuse so you can grow them bigger, also it ties in with the whole grim dark theme, to be a savior of mankind you must sacrifice the chance to be a normal man and be apart from that which you protect, it is all part of the 40k tragedy, as a space marine you get all the boosts a normal human would love but not a normal life in which to enjoy them, the whole premise of 40k is that way inclined


You make a good point and the tragic element adds to the grimdark. I would counter that spartans were trained universally as soldiers, those that did not survive the training and died were of no major loss to the polis because there were others to take their place. Astartes on the other hand are selected from among the crowd and each one represents a huge investment in the form of the gene seed. Each time a aspirant fails it is a huge loss. The Astartes cannot afford to casually give them away to boys that they have little evidence base their decisions on.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

You realize that space marines do, in fact, have a fairly extensive process for determining the best candidates to undergo the process right?


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

darkreever said:


> At puberty the body is going through the most change, and is at the height of accepting those changes.


That is an artificial imposition that the fluff writers chose to make. They could just as easily said that only fully grown adult bodies are hardy enough to survive the transformation process. They could have said that only a mind stabilized by a lifetime of experience and hardened by facing down the harsh realities of war are strong enough to maintain their sanity as their bodies are broken down and rebuilt to become angels of death.

I understand that they are supposed to have extensive screening methods. I just question how effective they can be on determining which children will make good astartes. I also assert that whatever methods they supposedly use on children would be more effective on adults.

There is also the element of backstory. Every astartes has the same origin, they were taken from their homes (usually a hut in some feral-world village or a hive-slum) before their 15th birthday. If I had my way every astartes would have a story of how they did something in the Emperor's service to earn the right to join a chapter.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Reaper45 said:


> Tell that to the parents who buy them for their kids, I mean seriously they're flooding XBL I have yet to play a match with no squeaky voices. Take a good look at the fan base, most cod players want change however they're drowned out by the kids who can't go two minutes without killing something.


That has zero to do with your original assertion, which was that "GW decided to appeal to the 8+ crowd". Parental irresponsibility in regards to purchasing Mature-rated video games in no way constitutes evidence that GW's target audience are minors.



> Really? I mean really? Cod is one step away from saying, yeah all military personally are useless fucks aside from your squad, there games themselves contain enough guys saying how they want to be like you.


Yes, really. I don't mean to be insulting, but I can't express strongly enough how over-generalized and off-the mark your comparisons have been.

Look at it from the reverse angle. How seriously would you take someone who argued that Soap McTavish and the Ultramarines are the same? The former is a Scottish-born Special Air Service operator who is the epitome of "unconventional warrior". He goes rogue to defy military and political leaders who engineer a war to bring about a new world order. The latter are genetically-enhanced, psycho-indoctrinated super-soldiers whose training and culture is informed by Roman-Spartan traditions and whose ethos are defined by worshipful obedience of a codex that encompasses (as far as most of them are concerned) the totality of war. They are unquestioningly loyal to an Imperium that scoffs at the idea of personal freedom or accountability to its citizens.

Again, only the most basic comparisons apply. They're both "elite warriors". They're both intended to be used as characters/models/whatever by the player. They're both (generally) intended to be viewed as heroes. They're both... white (predominately, where the latter are concerned).

I mean, are we seriously having this conversation? A week ago I have Lux telling me that an ambush is not ambush. Now we're comparing 21st century apples to space oranges of the very far dystopian future? :wink:


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

mmmm, space oranges....


----------



## Lost&Damned (Mar 25, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> Keep in mind a big part of this goes back to my general dislike of how the fluff portrays marines being made to begin with. The idea of taking children away from their families and indoctrinating them to become soldiers reminds me a little too much of real world African warlords. This may be the correct tone of grimdark for some people but for me space marines are supposed to be beacons of light in the darkness. Warriors strive to bring peace to normal people by embracing a life of endless war.


you can only choose one
-Beings created for endless war, physiologically shaped to bear the burden and psychologically geared towards the utter destruction of enemies, usually other human, and regularly having to kill the people they protect, to save the people they protect (grey knights seems to kill a few billion humans every day)
-beacons of light



in addition, I have always seen the fact Space marines primarily use children (this is from a psychological perspective) is because they are somewhat akin to an open book, they come with no (relatively) preconceptions,they dont have as much emotional baggage, their minds are completely open, waiting to be filled by ideas, desires and tactical concepts that the chapters feel fit to instill, they dont have to "unlearn" any previously learned bad habits, they will lack empathy with humanity (makes easier when you are killing them), they will believe they are capable of anything, surmount any odds, overcome any barrier, because they kids with godlike bodies.

They wont have had years of experience with the IG and so will have no qualms with using them as fodder, they are just kids, usually orphans, so if they fail, they wont be missed, unlike adults who had shown such propensity as to be allowed to become an SM.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Phoebus said:


> I mean, are we seriously having this conversation? A week ago I have Lux telling me that an ambush is not ambush. Now we're comparing 21st century apples to space oranges of the very far dystopian future? :wink:


If its any consolation I'm just as baffled at the logic being used here, or lack of I should say. As are the majority reading this in fact.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

SPESS APPELZZ!!! :shout:


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

Gret79 said:


> mmmm, space oranges....





Tawa said:


> SPESS APPELZZ!!! :shout:


Oh dear lord, now I am reminded of Joe Dirt and his "space peanut".:laugh:

As for the female space marine thing, it has been covered multiple times in various threads. Doing so here again is giving that poor dead horse another unnecessary beating.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

"In space, no one can hear you NERD-RAGE!" :ireful2:


----------



## Logaan (May 10, 2012)

Returning to the madness of RT40k, may I point you in the direction of page 41 - The effect of damage on Dreadnought Suits;

12+ -Bang! The suit explodes killing the pilot unless he can make his basic saving throw or use his *ejector seat*......


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

GabrialSagan said:


> There is also the element of backstory. Every astartes has the same origin, they were taken from their homes (usually a hut in some feral-world village or a hive-slum) before their 15th birthday. If I had my way every astartes would have a story of how they did something in the Emperor's service to earn the right to join a chapter.


And as has been said before, if they did it your way than those groups would constantly be made weaker for it. 

A young officer in the guard manages to survive horrendous wounds, rally a routed force, and defeat some great warlord. He is then taken by the space marines and made their own, and now we no longer have Creed or Macharius or Gaunt.



Gabrial Sagan said:


> I just question how effective they can be on determining which children will make good astartes. I also assert that whatever methods they supposedly use on children would be more effective on adults.


Most chapters require aspirants to show feats of bravery, skill, and be in superb physical form. This is often done by them killing a great beast, besting ancient trails of their world, claiming glory in the raid of one clan by another, or being able to kill another aspirant bare handed.

Then theres mentally, aspirants needing to have relatively blank minds that will easily accept indoctrination and everything a chapter needs to teach them.

There is some credit to the saying about teaching an old dog new tricks, your just continually choosing to blatantly ignore it no matter what everyone tries to tell you.


And I'm out, because its becoming abundantly clear that no matter what anyone tries to explain to you your not interested in listening and likely never will be. So, yeah, I'm done wasting my time here; to everyone else willing to try good luck beating your heads against the wall.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> I think the lack of sexual themes has less to do with fear of parents and more to do with the fact that GW thinks that 40k fans do not want to read about sex.




Somehow I have a feeling there are only a handful of tiny demographics of male readers 14-29 who don't want to read about sex. And they're not the ones playing 40K, lol.



> @Jacobite: I never huff. And if y'all are not bothered by the idea of female space marines, why do try people so hard to prove that they are a bad idea?


Nobody's arguing they are a bad idea.

They just don't exist. Maybe it's a completely arbitrary decision which can be argued is ridiculous, but it's actually one of the few pieces of fluff that has _never_ changed, even slightly. GW (and all of their licenses like FFG) still publishes Rick Priestley's article more or less verbatim in current books. It's, quite literally, the oldest surviving piece of fluff in 40K. In a game universe where so many things have changed, that never has. Out of everything you could quite possibly argue, female Space Marines is the most ridiculous, because next month that article will be 26 years old, and still being used.

Chapters turned into Legions that split into Chapters. Istvaan (or Isstvan, lol) went from three Chapters being utterly destroyed to 9 survivors, to a few dozen, to a few hundred to large portions of the Legions not even being present, lol. The Space Wolves went from warrior monks eating in silence to being drunken vikings riding wolves into battle. Terminator suits had invulnerable saves in 3rd edition because they were really tough instead of the current fluff where the crux terminatus generates a power field of some sort. Space Marine Commanders turned into Primarchs. So many things about the Space Marines changed over the years, the fluff from Rogue Trader is nearly unrecognizable to newer players. And yet they _still_ spit acid, eat brains for memories, and can't be girls.

We joke about the only things in life that are unavoidable are death and taxes. In 40K, it's no female Space Marines. Orks are now Space Fungi that reproduce by getting killed. Space Marines can't be girls. Dark Eldar quite literally didn't exist until the game was 12 years old. Space Marines can't be girls. Necrons turned _into_ Space Egyptians instead of just being Egyptian-themed Terminators. Space Marines can't be girls. Sisters of Battle went from sociopathic religious fanatics to D&D clerics with magical powers. Space Marines can't be girls. Squats stopped existing (so hard they _wrote one out of an old novel_, lol) then suddenly existed again. Space Marines can't be girls.

I'd ask what the point of even bothering to start this argument, but the answer is, of course, Because Trolling. 

And I shouldn't feed you, but it amuses _me_ to write these kinds of comedic replies, so perhaps we're both winning.




> As I posted above, I would prefer for astartes to be recruited as adults from among the people who have put their lives on the line to protect their fellow man from the alien, the mutant and the heretic. Normal men and women who have shown they have the spirit to do what needs to be done to face down the overwhelming enemies of man and given the body and weapons to match.


I guess you don't like 40K then.

I was a real Marine. I don't get offended that the Marines in 40K are sociopathic assholes recruited as impressionable children. I just laugh that the Space Army is so tiny.












Malus Darkblade said:


> VS go read Pariah/P.Burns then revist this thread and feel free to hit the edit button on your post/


If only I had a dollar for every time somebody said "Read X and it will change your whole opinion!"

Let's just agree to disagree on this one and you can be happy you enjoy the books as much as you do.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Tawa said:


> "In space, no one can hear you NERD-RAGE!" :ireful2:


I believe that in space you can ONLY hear the nerdrage.



darkreever said:


> And I'm out, because its becoming abundantly clear that no matter what anyone tries to explain to you your not interested in listening and likely never will be. So, yeah, I'm done wasting my time here; to everyone else willing to try good luck beating your heads against the wall.


Welcome to the club. I think lux is somehow breeding....Maybe it's some form of parasite or a fast growing bud.


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> Awesome argument post of über


+Rep for you good sir. That was a great post explaining it all pretty darn efficiently and on the spot.


----------



## Lux (Apr 17, 2010)

How curious...


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Oh no....


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

See I told you Gabrial is lux's spawn.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> If only I had a dollar for every time somebody said "Read X and it will change your whole opinion!"
> 
> Let's just agree to disagree on this one and you can be happy you enjoy the books as much as you do.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

darkreever said:


> And as has been said before, if they did it your way than those groups would constantly be made weaker for it.
> 
> A young officer in the guard manages to survive horrendous wounds, rally a routed force, and defeat some great warlord. He is then taken by the space marines and made their own, and now we no longer have Creed or Macharius or Gaunt.


We are talking about one million selected from literally hundreds of trillions. A human brain is incapable of fathoming how small a drop in the bucket this is. 




darkreever said:


> Most chapters require aspirants to show feats of bravery, skill, and be in superb physical form. This is often done by them killing a great beast, besting ancient trails of their world, claiming glory in the raid of one clan by another, or being able to kill another aspirant bare handed.


How effective can these trials be when half the marines fall to chaos?


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

locustgate said:


> See I told you Gabrial is lux's spawn.



Who is this Lux person that you speak of?


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Becoming a Space Marine is not supposed to be a reward; it's not a good thing. Space Marines are organic machines of war, whose humanity has been stripped away. They're children who have been taken away, experimented upon, indoctrinated then thrown into a life of unrelenting war against the horrors of the galaxy. They're the awful necessity of a species engaged in a war for survival. There's no place for them in the society they're protecting, in the future they were envisioned to create.

Having the ascension to the ranks of the Space Marines become a reward for good service cheapens the thematic concept of the sacrificing of your humanity for humanity, it doesn't fit the grim darkness and desperate situation of mankind in the forty first millennium. 



GabrialSagan said:


> How effective can these trials be when half the marines fall to chaos?


Hyperbole.

Space Marines turning in the modern Imperium is very rare. It's one of the reasons the recruitment process is so much more stringent than it was in the days of the Great Crusade.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> I guess you don't like 40K then.


I like 40k very much. I just don't respect it. 40k is a cheap ripoff of dozens of sci-fi novels that came before it. The Astartes are just repackaged Mobile Infantry with a bit of a Teutonic flair. The Arbites and hive cities are just Judge Dredd wannabees, Navigators came straight out of Dune. The phrase "space marine" that the doucheholes at GW tried to claim they owned was coined by the Lensmen series. This does not take away from the badassitude of the 40kverse. But there is nothing sacred about it, it can always use improvement. 

Space marines are cool, but they are not as cool as Scalzi's CDF, or Heinlein's MI. Heck even the Royal Manticoran Marines would give them a run for their money. 

If GW wanted to give the astartes back their edge they need to make changes, throw out what seems dated and stupid and replace it. You can argue with what is good and what is bad. All I am saying is that most of the changes that have made since 1987 have been bad ones.



Veteran Sergeant said:


> I was a real Marine. I don't get offended that the Marines in 40K are sociopathic assholes recruited as impressionable children. I just laugh that the Space Army is so tiny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for your service. But I disagree with your interpertation of Astartes as sociopathic assholes. Gabrial Angelos, Captain Titus, Captain Gries, and techmarine Drumon all display compassion towards civilians. Astartes are not just killing machines, they are His bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> I like 40k very much. I just don't respect it. 40k is a cheap ripoff of dozens of sci-fi novels that came before it. The Astartes are just repackaged Mobile Infantry with a bit of a Teutonic flair. The Arbites and hive cities are just Judge Dredd wannabees, Navigators came straight out of Dune. The phrase "space marine" that the doucheholes at GW tried to claim they owned was coined by the Lensmen series. This does not take away from the badassitude of the 40kverse. But there is nothing sacred about it, it can always use improvement.
> 
> Space marines are cool, but they are not as cool as Scalzi's CDF, or Heinlein's MI. Heck even the Royal Manticoran Marines would give them a run for their money.
> 
> ...


There's thousands of chapters and those are only a few characters who show any kind of humanity.

Frankly the wolves and the salamanders (perhaps the crimson fist because of rynn's world) are the only chapters that have any sort of humanity in them.

Take a good look as to how the astartes live, most of them live secluded from the rest of the people of their planets, aside from the salamanders who are cool with humans talking to them like equals.

90% of the time when you read about an astartes who treats a human decently it's because said human did something badass enough to warrant the attention.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

GabrialSagan said:


> repackaged Mobile Infantry with a bit of a Teutonic flair.


WAIT WHAT! In what way are SM anything like the MI, I'm assuming starship troopers. The MI were normal humans armed with exosuits, space marines are Super Humans armed with power armor and guns that shoot explosive bullets. If you are saying they are the same is like saying that the Imortals are like the navy seals.


----------



## Lost&Damned (Mar 25, 2012)

If anyone who actually reads the books desires to understand the general way space marines deal with humans, or indeed are forced to deal with them, read the short story "sacrifice", its about grey knights.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I'll point out that in many cases where astartes speak with humans, it's out of necessity or military process rather than anything else. 

Either of the first two Ultramarines novels shows that there are astartes who will happily speak with humans as a requirement of duty. One commander to another, one soldier to another. They have something in common, that is a foe to kill and a military mindset which influences the way they think. There is little there in the way of smalltalk between them. But there is still a strong sense of detachment between them.

Because whereas the humans are still capable of integrating into a civilian life, the marines are not. They have nothing in common besides being a soldier. And for the marine, that's all there really is.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> Because whereas the humans are still capable of integrating into a civilian life, the marines are not. They have nothing in common besides being a soldier. And for the marine, that's all there really is.


I think you're selling the marines shot. They have a culture. Almost all of them. You can see how radically different say a Ultramarine views life than a Space Wolf.

I'm not discounting that the Space Marines have a skewed version of life, but they do have more stuff than training and killing the enemy.

I'd say it's a combination of being a Space Marine AND growing up in a different culture.

It seems that people that grow up in the same culture have a better appreciation for their quirks.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

There are absolutely valid comparisons to be made between Warhammer 40k and other works of fiction (science fiction or otherwise) out there. In fact, it's remarkably difficult for any fictional setting to be created from whole cloth. Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Babylon Five, etc., all draw on various literary and cinematic works.

And yes, Warhammer 40k is "guilty" of perhaps drawing too closely from certain aspects of other works. The Navigators of _Dune,_ for instance, fulfill practically the same function as their counterparts in this setting; the hives of the Imperium of Man are, likewise, much like the Mega-Cities of _Judge Dredd._

Look into the details, though, and you can see that direct comparisons don't stand. In _Dune,_ the Navigators are one of three factions that outright control the doings of their Imperium. In 40k, the Navigators are a confederation whose individual status varies greatly from House to House, and whose sum total of power - while certainly very considerable - is but a fraction of what it is in _Dune._

Similarly, while there are superficial similarities between the Mega-Cities of Dredd lore and the Imperium's hives, the two are in actuality nothing alike. The Mega-Cities are defined by the *lack* of control the Judges have over them; the hives, by contrast, are the very picture of totalitarian control.

The same applies to other comparisons that have been brought up. Mobile Infantry? Truly? In what way, other than that both Heinlein's M.I. and 40k's Adeptus Astartes wear power armour and can deploy from orbit? What if we employed the same criteria to other fiction? Is Emilio Salgari's _Black Corsair_ a rip-off of Dumas' _Three Musketeers_ simply because the eponymous pirate and D'Artagnan both wield _swords?_

The other end of the argument shouldn't be using hyperbole either, though. It's too simplistic to say that "only a few characters" out of the "thousands" of Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes (and there are only said to be a thousand to begin with, incidentally) show sympathy and compassion toward normal humans. Point of fact, we are only privy to the motivations of a handful of Chapters. Those Chapters that we do get to observe demonstrate a great deal more compassion than some posters here would believe.

The Ultramarines, for instance, and Successors of theirs such as the White Consuls, base their entire ethos around being not just distant protectors of humankind but as the rulers of the worlds they have been charged with. Even if their "compassion" is no more than what we might expect to see in _Gates of Fire,_ that's leaps and bounds beyond "any sort of humanity".

But it goes beyond the scions of the XIII Legion, or other First Founding Chapters like the Salamanders and the Space Wolves. The Celestial Lions and the Lamenters paid stiff prices for their appreciation of human life. The Iron Snakes of Ithaka provide evidence that a Chapter need not necessarily identify with human concerns to be sympathetic toward normal human beings. Note that I'm not proposing that the Adeptus Astartes are a "humane" organizations, nor do I pretend to know what percentage of them are "humane". I'm just pointing out that, of the known Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes, a not-insignificant number of them - and not just individual characters - are more "humane" than the Imperium they serve.

*EDIT:* Hailene makes a very good point regarding Chapter culture. I haven't done any exhaustive research on this, but most of the Chapters that maintain a "humane" outlook seem to have strong cultural foundations that go beyond just the Chapter's rituals, recruitment practices, etc. The two polar opposites that I can think of where this is concerned are the Ultramarines and the Dark Angels.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> I like 40k very much. I just don't respect it. 40k is a cheap ripoff of dozens of sci-fi novels that came before it. The Astartes are just repackaged Mobile Infantry with a bit of a Teutonic flair. The Arbites and hive cities are just Judge Dredd wannabees, Navigators came straight out of Dune. The phrase "space marine" that the doucheholes at GW tried to claim they owned was coined by the Lensmen series. This does not take away from the badassitude of the 40kverse. But there is nothing sacred about it, it can always use improvement.
> 
> Space marines are cool, but they are not as cool as Scalzi's CDF, or Heinlein's MI. Heck even the Royal Manticoran Marines would give them a run for their money.
> 
> ...


among every group of sociopathic assholes, there is a couple of humanitarian idealist. to give of more of an idea of hope. just how often have space marines abandoned the field to pursue their own agenda?
trust me you dont want to know.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Haskanael said:


> just how often have space marines abandoned the field to pursue their own agenda?
> trust me you dont want to know.


This is Warhammer40k. how many times do Imperial organizations, period, abandon Imperial citizens for their own agenda? 

Hint: A lot.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> The Ultramarines, for instance, and Successors of theirs such as the White Consuls, base their entire ethos around being not just distant protectors of humankind but as the rulers of the worlds they have been charged with. Even if their "compassion" is no more than what we might expect to see in _Gates of Fire,_ that's leaps and bounds beyond "any sort of humanity".
> 
> But it goes beyond the scions of the XIII Legion, or other First Founding Chapters like the Salamanders and the Space Wolves. The Celestial Lions and the Lamenters paid stiff prices for their appreciation of human life. The Iron Snakes of Ithaka provide evidence that a Chapter need not necessarily identify with human concerns to be sympathetic toward normal human beings. Note that I'm not proposing that the Adeptus Astartes are a "humane" organizations, nor do I pretend to know what percentage of them are "humane". I'm just pointing out that, of the known Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes, a not-insignificant number of them - and not just individual characters - are more "humane" than the Imperium they serve.
> 
> *EDIT:* Hailene makes a very good point regarding Chapter culture. I haven't done any exhaustive research on this, but most of the Chapters that maintain a "humane" outlook seem to have strong cultural foundations that go beyond just the Chapter's rituals, recruitment practices, etc. The two polar opposites that I can think of where this is concerned are the Ultramarines and the Dark Angels.


I'm fairly certain that the wolves were the only chapter whose compassion towards humanity will never be topped.

For one their serfs are volunteers, and in battle the wolves treat them as equals, willing to sacrifice themselves to save them.
They also called the inquisition out because of Armageddon. Allot of chapters faced censure but I'm fairly certain none would have went as far as the wolves did during the months of shame.

So is it fair to say that out of thousands only a few care about humans, I'd say it is.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

GabrialSagan said:


> Thank you for making my point. You cannot prove that space marines are exclusively male by saying that no female pronouns are used. Especially in english where the default plural pronoun is masculine.


Except you didn't say "Back then we might have had female space marines". You said "Back then we had female space marines" as if it were a certainty 

You seem to think that vague language means there were definitely female space marines when in reality, it just means there might have been because there's no clear statement on the matter (even so, note the use of the male terms "monks" and "brothers")


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Reaper45 said:


> I'm fairly certain that the wolves were the only chapter whose compassion towards humanity will never be topped.


I think you're selling other Chapters short. I mean, look at the Lamenters.

In the 9th Black Crusade, the Mortifactors and Lamenters are set to defend the hive world of Corilia from Chaos attack...until the superstitious Mortifactors (the Lamenters is a Cursed Founding) leave the planet. What do the Lamenters do? They stay and die protecting the human hives from Chaos--an Ultramarine and White Scar battlegroup broke the siege, but only after the Lamenters Chapter is whittled down to barely 200 marines.

Then there's the grand daddy that is the Liberation of Slaughterhouse III. It's against the Ork empire of Charadon. Deep behind the Ork lines is a human slave world. Nothing short of a full-battle group had any real hope of success. The Lamenters push for the operation, but the chances of success is so low that Calgar, overall leader of the Crusade, tells the Lamenters that he's unwilling to support the Lamenters. The Lamenters accept this this and go with what they have--a single battle barge.

The "strategic" reason the Lamenters are even allowed to go is to destroy the mining complexes and whatever minerals the Orks have harvested to slow down the Ork build up. The Lamenters are there to save the millions of humans enslaved there. And they are initially successful--too successful. They blast apart the local Ork forces and free millions of human slaves, many times more than they can rescue. So what do they do?

They stand and fight and die to buy as much time for their techmarines and former slaves to get as many Ork vessels warp-capable. The book describes their resistance as so savage that even the Orks recoil from them. An "unprecedented" number Lamenters fall to the Black Rage.

And, likely, the Lamenters' strike force would have died trying to save as many humans as possible if prisoners themselves had not asked the Lamenters to leave them. With a heavy heart, the Lamenters destroy the mine complexes with most of the slaves still onboard.

They make out it with less than 10% of the 3 million slaves they had freed. 

In terms of strategic goals, the operation was a success. The Lamenters had destroyed the mining complexes, and the Orks began fighting amongst themselves for the rights to what remained. The only blemish, as seen from the other Chapters, was the losses suffered by the Lamenters while attempting to rescue the slaves.

The Lamenters were bitter over their failure to save the majority of slaves. Calgar himself offered the Chapter the honour of an Iron Halo, but the Lamenters refused it. In their own eyes, they had failed.

I mean, c'mon, there. A little long-winded (maybe I should have shorten it, but I really love the story), but look at how far the Lamenters go for a bunch of people they don't even have any real stake in.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*QF*



Reaper45 said:


> I'm fairly certain that the wolves were the only chapter whose compassion towards humanity will never be topped.
> 
> For one their serfs are volunteers, and in battle the wolves treat them as equals, willing to sacrifice themselves to save them.
> They also called the inquisition out because of Armageddon. Allot of chapters faced censure but I'm fairly certain none would have went as far as the wolves did during the months of shame.
> ...


Of the thousand Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes, only two hundred and fifty (or so) are actually named in any source. Of those, maybe a fourth or a fifth have been vested with background material exceeding a sentence or two. Few Chapters beyond the First and Second Foundings have been described in any detail. Only a dozen or so are described in a way where we get an idea as to how they feel about normal humans.

Is that a valid sample size?

Sure, you have your Marines Malevolent, who are callous about collateral damage, and your Unforgiven, who will sacrifice innocents in the name of the Hunt. But you also have your Celestial Lions, and your Ultramarines and their Primogenitors, and your Iron Snakes, and so on.

Again, I'm not saying that all Chapters fall under the "friendly champions/rulers" category. I just think it's quite a leap to assume to that most Chapters simply don't care about those they are charged to protect. I think it's far more plausible to assert that the Adeptus Astartes don't know what it's like to be a normal human and that they are prepared to make grave sacrifices in their defense.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> Of the thousand Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes, only two hundred and fifty (or so) are actually named in any source. Of those, maybe a fourth or a fifth have been vested with background material exceeding a sentence or two. Few Chapters beyond the First and Second Foundings have been described in any detail. Only a dozen or so are described in a way where we get an idea as to how they feel about normal humans.
> 
> Is that a valid sample size?
> 
> ...


I'm not doubting that there isn't good chapters out there, most of them are more concerned with the mission instead of humans.

Take the reclaimers for instance. The smart thing to do would be using their strike cruiser's firepower to help the PDF destroy that space hulk, because of their ties to the mechanium they chose to board it.

Despite the fact that anyone with any intelligence should have realized what was going to happen. 

Which did happen and could have been allot worse considering who was infected.

the wolves on multiple occasions fought other astartes because they didn't believe killing them of suspected taint was right.

Would the ultramarines go to those extents?


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Can anyone think of examples in fluff where battle brothers of rank have portrayed indifference or hostility toward the civilians that they were trying to protect? I am not talking about moments where they look down on humans for their weakness or putting down humans who could potentially carry xenos or chaos taint. I am talking about times where astartes have chosen to willfully ignore civilians caught in the crossfire. Times when the astartes slaughtered innocent humans out of indifference or for pleasure. Why is their any reason to believe that acting with compassion is abnormal for astartes? 

Every example of astartes I have ever read in lore shows them doing their duty, which is to protect the human race. Certainly they are not out at the bars socializing with normal people, but they are not killing people needlessly either. 

When Gabrial Angelos first set foot on Tartarus his first priority was to evacuate the civilian population. Gabrial Angelos is the ideal of what an astartes should be, someone willing to order exterminatus on his own homeworld, someone willing to kill his best friend when the seeds of corruption had taken root in his mind. But also someone who protects the innocent and understands his job is to keep humanity alive, not just kill his enemies.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Reaper45,

We're dancing around in circles now! 

You offered the opinion that "There's thousands of chapters and those are only a few characters who show any kind of humanity."

I've pointed out two things to you:
1. That, of the thousand Chapters that are out there, we only have a clue on the "humanity" of only a couple dozen Chapters.
2. That, of those couple dozen Chapters, at least a few contradict your opinion. That, far from "only a few characters", entire Chapters display the characteristics in question.

And just so we're all using the same standards, what characteristics are those? Humanity, in the sense that we're using (that is, being humane), is most commonly defined as "compassion, sympathy, or consideration". Compassion is "... a feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc." Sympathy is "... the feeling that you care about and are sorry about someone else's trouble, grief, misfortune, etc." Consideration is "the act of thinking carefully about something you will make a decision about."

"Humanity," first and foremost, isn't necessarily how we _act,_ but how we _feel._ It's how we relate to our fellow people.

With that in mind, the Adeptus Astartes are of course "more concerned with the mission instead of humans." But that can be said of virtually every other Imperial agency as well. The question is whether the priorities of the Space Marines are born out ofsheer callousness or if they recognize the moral ethical challenge inherent in many of their decisions.

It's clear that, in many of those Chapters for which we have more than a blurb about a campaign record, *that is the case.* But again, if you're focused on how they ultimately act, then you're applying an unfair standard on the Adeptus Astartes.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> I am talking about times where astartes have chosen to willfully ignore civilians caught in the crossfire. Times when the astartes slaughtered innocent humans out of indifference or for pleasure.


- The Minotaurs actions at the Defence of Hermetica - Smashing through a Cathedral's central plaza to attack Word Bearers despite civilians fleeing there for safety.
- Marines Malevolent during the 3rd War of Armageddon - Using refugee camps as bait for Orks and then bombarding said refugee camps with Whirlwinds.
- Flesh Tearers actions of Lucid Prime where after defeating the enemy they go on a bloody rampage slaughtering innocents. This is debateable Seth claims they were tainted however the SW's claim otherwise
- Flesh Tearers at Gaius Point during the 3rd War of Armageddon - after pushing the Orks into the waiting guns of Militia and SOB they storm the barricades themselves and slaughter the militia.

Then there is the Great Malagantine Purge where 5 Chapters (known collectively as the Manus Ire) a_t the command of the High Lords no less_ (bearing in mind they don't have to follow the High Lords command) slaughter untold billions of civilians. Only 3 of the 5 chapters are known by name: Charnal Guard, Fire Hawks, Silver Skulls. The command being "_Spare none and set a bloody, fearful example to the realm of Mankind_" . 

And that is just off the top of my head. Trying to say that all Chapters do this or that is not going to get you anywhere. They are all very different in their ideologies and ways of war. Some protect humans, some see them simply as a irritation.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> Reaper45,
> 
> We're dancing around in circles now!
> 
> ...


I'll concede on the point that we don't have enough of a sample size to make any judgements,

however the bar for being decent towards beings is very high. That's all I'm saying.



GabrialSagan said:


> Can anyone think of examples in fluff where battle brothers of rank have portrayed indifference or hostility toward the civilians that they were trying to protect? I am not talking about moments where they look down on humans for their weakness or putting down humans who could potentially carry xenos or chaos taint. I am talking about times where astartes have chosen to willfully ignore civilians caught in the crossfire. Times when the astartes slaughtered innocent humans out of indifference or for pleasure. Why is their any reason to believe that acting with compassion is abnormal for astartes?
> 
> Every example of astartes I have ever read in lore shows them doing their duty, which is to protect the human race. Certainly they are not out at the bars socializing with normal people, but they are not killing people needlessly either.
> 
> When Gabrial Angelos first set foot on Tartarus his first priority was to evacuate the civilian population. Gabrial Angelos is the ideal of what an astartes should be, someone willing to order exterminatus on his own homeworld, someone willing to kill his best friend when the seeds of corruption had taken root in his mind. But also someone who protects the innocent and understands his job is to keep humanity alive, not just kill his enemies.


Iron hands The codex supplement is filled with tons of examples, granted they learned their lesson the hard way.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> Can anyone think of examples in fluff where battle brothers of rank have portrayed indifference or hostility toward the civilians that they were trying to protect? .


In addition to some of the others, the Space Sharks sabotaged the reactor cores of the Badab hives, which more or less murdered most of the planet's population, lol.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Reaper45,

We certainly can't make assumptions about the 950 or so Chapters for which we have next to no information, but can we agree that it's not just a few characters who demonstrate humanity? That, in fact, there are several Chapters that do so?

I would be interested to know what your bar for decency is, as relates to Warhammer 40k, though. 



GabrialSagan said:


> Can anyone think of examples in fluff where battle brothers of rank have portrayed indifference or hostility toward the civilians that they were trying to protect? I am not talking about moments where they look down on humans for their weakness or putting down humans who could potentially carry xenos or chaos taint. I am talking about times where astartes have chosen to willfully ignore civilians caught in the crossfire. Times when the astartes slaughtered innocent humans out of indifference or for pleasure. Why is their any reason to believe that acting with compassion is abnormal for astartes?
> 
> Every example of astartes I have ever read in lore shows them doing their duty, which is to protect the human race. Certainly they are not out at the bars socializing with normal people, but they are not killing people needlessly either.
> 
> When Gabrial Angelos first set foot on Tartarus his first priority was to evacuate the civilian population. Gabrial Angelos is the ideal of what an astartes should be, someone willing to order exterminatus on his own homeworld, someone willing to kill his best friend when the seeds of corruption had taken root in his mind. But also someone who protects the innocent and understands his job is to keep humanity alive, not just kill his enemies.


The Marines Malevolent come to mind - see their conduct during the Third War for Armageddon for an example.


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

Phoebus said:


> . Few Chapters beyond the First and Second Foundings have been described in any detail.


What you say is true Phoebus, however I cannot help but want to disagree with you. I have seen a growing trend over the last 3 years where writers are starting to explore many of these smaller "2nd Generation" Chapters and the history behind them. Slow, it may be, but they have already made some progress with the Lamenters, Soul Drinkers, and Mortifcators(off the top of my head, I'm sure thier are more). Don't you think we may eventually see enough to make such a judgement call. 

On that same note that both you, and Jacobite, bring up an excellent point in arguing the humanity of the Space Marines. While I think they still fight for the greater good of the human race they seem to care very little for the "survivial" of regular humans around them. I think this is aminly due to having waged brutal and ruthless war for so long that a few thousand human lives justifies the end means to save millions. As for Jacobite and your example of the High Lords ordering Marines to slaughter civilians that is the first I have heard of such things. Was it an order fro the HT or the Inquisition? Corruption of the High Lords???



Angel of Blood said:


> It's strange that one minute you should claim 40k is trying to appeal more to the younger and/or childlike audiences, but then complain about the serious and dark tone it has taken on instead of the more gimmick filled days.


Gimmick....maybe in the 90's. Since I have been playing in early 2003 it has been all about "Realism." As with everything in our modern era Warhammer 40k is falling to the popular culture movement of making everything more "Realistic." From Video Games to Cinema, Food to Toys, even a freak'in diaper for baby is so plain and "functional" they don't have esigns on them. Warhammer 40k is no exception and the writers/GW know this is what makes money. 



Veteran Sergeant said:


> In the end, no matter how "adult" you try to theme it, 40K is still a cartoon universe full of pop-culture tropes that try to kill one another.


That is the most God aweful, stupidest thing I have ever heard. Warhammer 40k is not cartoony in the slightest; and honestly why a lot of people like it over the pop culture LOTR, or Anime TT games. Warhammer 40k is Dark, Brutal, and Forthright. Realistic as it can get while creating an decent story about a grim future for the Warrior, History enthusiast, and Geek/Nerd gamers. There is no place for kids in 40k.....really man I'm putting a gernade down your hatch and slamming it shut on you. :ireful2:

On that same note I find 4th Edition was still the best of all time. Rules were relatively simple, Core Lore and Codex didn't change too much, and the game was generally fun. Then came 5th edition and everything went up the arse.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

emporershand89 said:


> As for Jacobite and your example of the High Lords ordering Marines to slaughter civilians that is the first I have heard of such things. Was it an order fro the HT or the Inquisition? Corruption of the High Lords???


It's from IA9: Badab War Part 1 pages 68 and 69. There is limited information on it, it's one of the Selected Battle Honors of the Fire Hawks chapter. The High Lords directly ordered it as I said when I brought it up. The records for what happened are sealed even from the Inquisition. The High Lords were not corrupted, it seems they were simply using the presence of a few heretics an excuse for making a show of force i.e: we will destroy an entire system and untold billions of civilians just because of the presence of a few enemies. We will obliterate and virus bomb whole worlds because we can. You really want to go up against us? Their order specifically mentions it being the action as being a "bloody, fearful example to the realm of mankind".


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

There's also of course any campaign the Iron Hands conduct. 

Mortal casualties, civilian or military, are of no consequence. Purges of civilians are conducted without hesitation. 

The Iron Hands are, however, one of the more insane chapters, with some very real psychological issues. They do provide a demonstrate of what Astartes detached from their humanity are like though.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

emporershand89 said:


> That is the most God aweful, stupidest thing I have ever heard. Warhammer 40k is not cartoony in the slightest; and honestly why a lot of people like it over the pop culture LOTR, or Anime TT games. Warhammer 40k is Dark, Brutal, and Forthright. Realistic as it can get while creating an decent story about a grim future for the Warrior, History enthusiast, and Geek/Nerd gamers. There is no place for kids in 40k.....really man I'm putting a gernade down your hatch and slamming it shut on you. :ireful2:


It's only stupid because you don't understand what cartoon means, lol. 

But if you think for a second a setting with a bunch of rowdy gits with Cockney accents who have watched ten too many Mad Max movie marathons and travel around the galaxy on composite space junk heaps and captured asteroids while lacking even a remotely believable system of infrastructure to power their interstellar war machine is a serious and realistic setting, well... :laugh:

Or the trans-dimensional slave-driving S&M fetish elves who wear platemail bikinis and ride on stolen Green Goblin hoverboards...

Or giant wolf-riding space vikings...




You know, a setting where there are shoulder fired rocket rifles and giant titans and orbital laser strikes, but carrying a pistol and a sword is considered a perfectly viable battlefield tactic. Realistic is the _first_ thing that comes to mind, lol.



Nearly every villain in the setting is a two-dimensional mustache twirler with questionable motivations. Half the universe functions solely on author fiat. The whole thing is goofy and silly, and each part tries to keep a straight face for just long enough to finish its story. 

I hate to break it to you son, but it's just a giant cartoon. It's not dark, it's not brutal. It's just pretending to be, while instead being utterly ridiculous. But you're just supposed to suspend disbelief and follow along for the ride.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

You missed a golden opportunity there Vet:

40K is realistic?










Nuff said.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

And yet here you are VS on a forum about the lore no less. 

The examples you gave, with the exception of the Orks, are not accurate whatsoever.

First, there are no wolf-riding Space Vikings anymore. Abnett and other authors have reinvented them. 

Titans are expensive and they are very limited. So it's not hard to see why melee weapons/pistols are a viable alternative when the situation calls for it. 

Even today, top martial artists say they prefer fighting someone with a gun vs a blade.

In a war, bullets run out. Blades do not. Just be thankful we haven't seen a war where its come down to using blades as opposed to bullets which would allow us to draw reference from.

The Dark Elves focus on pleasure. Revealing their bodies is a form of said pleasure. They combine that with their love for enslaving and raiding. While this does appeal to certain male audiences, it still fits lore-wise and I don't see how its childish.'

I would appreciate a list of these two-dimensional villains you're talking about. Top of my head, is Sara Cawkell's portrayal of Huron. And remember that some authors can reinvent previously established characters and completely revamp them.

@Jacob: A commissar is shouting orders from atop a tank and wielding his sword for emphasis/authority. Where is the unrealistic part?


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)




----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

emporershand89 said:


> What you say is true Phoebus, however I cannot help but want to disagree with you.


I'm not sure how that works, but let's press on...



> I have seen a growing trend over the last 3 years where writers are starting to explore many of these smaller "2nd Generation" Chapters and the history behind them. Slow, it may be, but they have already made some progress with the Lamenters, Soul Drinkers, and Mortifcators(off the top of my head, I'm sure thier are more). Don't you think we may eventually see enough to make such a judgement call.


Not any time soon, we won't. You're trying to make an argument while working off of memory. I went ahead and at least invested some time trying to find a comprehensive list of known Chapters.

Again, best as I can tell, after over two decades of this game being around, less than a quarter of the thousand Chapters are even named. Of those, _maybe_ a fourth or a fifth have any detail whatsoever - like campaign record blurbs. Maybe half of _those_ Chapters are described to an extent where we get to see their mindset. So, roughly, on average, a Chapter a year. By the time we're all dead, maybe we'll be privy to the humanness (or lack thereof) of perhaps 10% of the Adeptus Astartes.



> That is the most God aweful, stupidest thing I have ever heard.


You know, I don't even agree with *Veteran Sergeant's* latest post, but that's a ridiculous statement to make.



Veteran Sergeant said:


> Or the trans-dimensional slave-driving S&M fetish elves who wear platemail bikinis and ride on stolen Green Goblin hoverboards...
> 
> Or giant wolf-riding space vikings...


I won't contend that there aren't a lot of tropes within Warhammer 40k that could use a great deal more work and creativity. That having been said, man, it's not exactly an objective take when you focus on everything that's bad while eschewing anything that's good.



> You know, a setting where there are shoulder fired rocket rifles and giant titans and orbital laser strikes, but carrying a pistol and a sword is considered a perfectly viable battlefield tactic. Realistic is the _first_ thing that comes to mind, lol.


Here's where you lose me altogether. The question to ponder is whether the setting presents plausible reasons for certain concepts. In this case, we're discussing melee combat in an age of obviously viable ranged weaponry. I don't disagree that the Imperial Guard should not be in the business of melee combat. There are, however, factors of survivability and mobility that make melee combat viable for most other functions.

Beyond that, think of the many beloved science fiction settings that have challenged the suspension of disbelief with concepts that were obviously informed by the "rule of cool" as opposed to realism: Flash Gordon, Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune, etc. 



> Nearly every villain in the setting is a two-dimensional mustache twirler with questionable motivations.


I suppose this comes down to the realm of personal preference, but I really fail to see how Warhammer 40k sports proportionately more such villains than other fictional genres.



> Half the universe functions solely on author fiat.


Again, that's the case with most science fiction.



> The whole thing is goofy and silly, and each part tries to keep a straight face for just long enough to finish its story.


I suspect authors like Abnett would sincerely disagree with you in regards to their approach to their work.


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

YIKES!!! I can understand the decision especially considering what a pain Huron was being. Still it seems excessive considering they have had so many better "examples" to use that would have had a much larger impact than the few worlds of the Badab War. I'm curious if there was a personal reason behind it, but still it i quite a ruthless move. Thnxs for the info 



Jacobite said:


> 40K is realistic?


....and this....



Veteran Sergeant said:


> I hate to break it to you son, but it's just a giant cartoon. It's not dark, it's not brutal. It's just pretending to be, while instead being utterly ridiculous. But you're just supposed to suspend disbelief and follow along for the ride.



HAHAHAHAH, that was a good laugh. Still thats a Meme man. Warhammer, both 40k and Fantasy, seems to be turning towards the "Realism" path if you ask me. 

If you want a great example look at the development of the DOW series. Before Dawn of War came round I would almost agree with Vet; it was slighty cartoonish. Even when the origional DoW came, and it's "Winter Assault" DLC it was still cartoonish. Then suddenly you have gruesome Marines being impaled on Eldar blades, and massive army's slaughtered for your gaming pleasure in Dark Crusade. Dawn of War 2 (specifically Retribution) only made it all the more realistic by adding the fucking Nids just eating everybody. 

Think that is stupid, tell me, Mr. Jacobite and Mr. Vet, just what Gaunt and Cain are. I don't see some muscular hulking cartoon figure standing triumphantly over his dead enemy like a child's poster from Middle School. I see dirty, scruffy, somewhat depressed and ragged men who continuously fight just to see the next day. I don't see heroic leaders, I read of men who make hard choice (if a bit comical for Cain). I see Sarpeon of the Soul Drinker fight a loosing battle only to grimly meet his death at the hands of Imperial Fists. The Codex's, prime example, are not filled with crappy PG-13 art like 3rd-4th edition. No it is all filled with CG editted, realistically gruesome artwork of the terrifying world of 40k. Finally I would add most villians are some twisted, disgusting hunk of nastiness cook up from the mind of some Choas-panzy favoring author who wants to make the biggest, baddest, nastiest enemy of Mankind the 40k fandom has even seen. Don't really know where you get this "moustache twirling" bad guy, this ain't Anime son.

I'm sorry gentlemen, but in the last 2 years in particular I don't see cartoons in Warhammer 40k. Halo is about Genocide, COD endorses mass murder in multiple levels for the sake of "historical realism", Battlefield 3 was about wide scale slaughter to get a better feel, and let us not even discuss the recent "Watch Dog" game. As a good freind stated in another 40k forum, "The game is meant to be fun, you either like playing it or you don&t. Those of us that enjoy it aren't stupid, either. Genetically modified superhuman or not, charging into a screaming horde armed with a pistol and a sword isn't a good idea, but it doesn't really matter if it's all that realistic, it makes for some nice cinematic imagery. And the outcome is based almost entirely on how the dice roll at that."


Thus to conclude my little rant I will say that Warhammer 40k was not marketed to be the "Ultimate War Simulator." That being said the modern trend is realism, and the more realistic the artwork/models/novels/games/cinema the more profit rolls in. Till that changes I think this is the path the game is going to end up in; cartoons don't have a place here period! 



Rems said:


> The Iron Hands are, however, one of the more insane chapters, with some very real psychological issues.


Quite, but I would venture to state the Blood Angels are even worse. The Iron Hands/Black Templars are just "Emporer Happy," and kill in his name. Blood Angels, especially once the Black Rage takes them (and this is completely at random) just kill anything and everything.



Malus Darkblade said:


> Even today, top martial artists say they prefer fighting someone with a gun vs a blade.


This is true Darkblade, and if you are "Skilled," key word right there, then this may work for you. However to the avergae Joe a gun is still the best way to stop someone. It takes skill to fight another human being up close and always come out on top. Only takes a moron with a happy trigger finger to kill someone with a gun.



> You're trying to make an argument while working off of memory


Indeed Phoebus, and I agree on both points. Still it leaves for some good creative works in the future; I look forward to the results.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> Reaper45,
> 
> We certainly can't make assumptions about the 950 or so Chapters for which we have next to no information, but can we agree that it's not just a few characters who demonstrate humanity? That, in fact, there are several Chapters that do so?
> 
> ...


The criteria isn't too bad,

they have to respect the abilities of humans, such as not forcing them to make glorious charges when they are better suited for emplacement fighting.

They don't kill everyone they see because they were seen.

They try and protect who they can when they can without compromising their fighting ability. 

and are generally decent to be around.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I'd say those Chapters I mentioned off-hand meet the criteria you listed. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

emporershand89 said:


> YIKES!!! I can understand the decision especially considering what a pain Huron was being. Still it seems excessive considering they have had so many better "examples" to use that would have had a much larger impact than the few worlds of the Badab War. I'm curious if there was a personal reason behind it, but still it i quite a ruthless move. Thnxs for the info


Mother of god in a cheese cutter bouncing up and down on a bungee cord while belting out "Burn It Down" in f flat, EH, if you aren't even able to figure out what battles were involved in the Badab War and what weren't, even with the help of the internet, then I'm really at a loss as to what the point of responding to you is. Do yourself a favor and read these two links, taking careful note of the dates:

The Great Malagantine Purge: happening between 770-791.M38: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Malagantine_Purge

The Badab War: happening between 901.M41 and 913.M41: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Badab_War

There is over a 3 thousand year difference between the two. For the third time, are you aware of how the concept of time works? Huron wasn't even born when the Purge was happening, and before you say that's debatable it's not. Dante is the oldest Space Marine not in a Dreadnaught (Bjorn) and he is about 1300 years old (possibly older). And no I don't care if you've just worked 40 hours straight and have about 5 minutes before you have to do another 40 hours before you roll that old chestnut out again.

As for the rest of your post and responding to @Phoebus as well. I think the best way I can sum it up is: A individual story can be serious within a non realistic or comedic setting. Just because something or someone takes it's self seriously does not necessarily mean that it's surroundings, or the conventions that govern it's surroundings, are realistic or serious. You watch any sitcom and you'll see example after example of this. 

I completely agree with you Phoebus when you say things like: _Beyond that, think of the many beloved science fiction settings that have challenged the suspension of disbelief with concepts that were obviously informed by the rule of cool as opposed to realism_ and _the question to ponder is whether the setting presents plausible reasons for certain concepts_ I am more than happy to suspend my disbelief for certain elements of 40k, however as soon as I start to suspend my disbelief the setting doesn't become "realistic". I'm more than happy to do that though, 40k is escapism.

EH, you've brought up the 40k version of Flashman as an example of "realism"and you've gone in the space of two posts from saying 40k is:

"_Realistic as it can get while creating an decent story about a grim future for the Warrior, History enthusiast, and Geek/Nerd gamers. There is no place for kids in 40k....._" to saying "_Warhammer 40k was not marketed to be the "Ultimate War Simulator."_and quoting other people saying _but it doesn't really matter if it's all that realistic, it makes for some nice cinematic imagery_"

Sounds like in about 3 posts you'll have changed your mind again. 40k artwork is "_realistically gruesome artwork_" is it? I would ask some of the members of the forum who have served in war zones if the artwork would be described as a realistic depiction of the conditions present in a war zone, the mud, blood and the effect weapon systems have on human bodies however that would be an entirely inappropriate question to ask and one that I'm not willing to do. 40k art may be grim, it may be dark but it's not realistic, just in the same way 99% of movie violence is not realistic. 

40k is escapism and entertainment and you know what... there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I enjoy that about it. If I want sci-fi that makes me ponder my own existance I'll read Peter F Hamilton. If I want some good page turning escapism I'll read Abnett.

So in your own words (correcting your spelling mistakes though) "Really man I'm putting a grenade down your hatch and slamming it shut on you." well at least in my world anyway. *finds ignore button, presses it, walks off whistling Burn It Down.*


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Phoebus said:


> Beyond that, think of the many beloved science fiction settings that have challenged the suspension of disbelief with concepts that were obviously informed by the "rule of cool" as opposed to realism: Flash Gordon, Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune, etc.


Okay, so then I'm 100% correct about the setting eschewing any semblance of realism.

You can't have it both ways. It's either realistic, or it's rule of cool. I wasn't judging it as being _bad_ because it's a cartoon. It's just that it's a cartoon.


> I suspect authors like Abnett would sincerely disagree with you in regards to their approach to their work.


Abnett, the heavy idea-borrower who churns out an average of four full-length novels a year(which is probably why almost all of them have rushed and sudden endings) across multiple licenses? He's good at colorful prose and setting descriptions. Other than that, his work is best described as that of an adequate author. Heck, if anything, he's the proof to what I'm saying, lol.

Somebody mentioned Prospero Burns recently. Ahh yes, the story about Kasper Hawser who goes by the name Ahmad ibn Rustah even though he's really more like Ahmad ibn Fadlan and the entire novel is more or less a 40Kization of his travels amongst a strange Norse culture originally fictionalized in Crichton's Eaters of the Dead, as well as a host of other fairly generic fictional storylines about a stranger in a strange land (who eventually becomes a warrior in his own right. Oh lord if he'd only taken that one step further and had the 13th Grand Company, making Hawser the... 13th Warrior). The story where the Space Wolves apparently mid-Crusade just hang out on Fenris a lot, and get involved in disjointed battles against giant robots. Space Wolves who, despite being an advanced spacefaring culture don't have the capability or interest to record their own histories because, ya know, fuck it, they're just a thinly veiled 10th century viking trope anyway and otherwise there'd be no premise for the novel if they didn't beat that horse absolutely to death and make them need a skald to tell their stories. I mean, I get that some of you aren't very well read in both fiction and/or history, so you don't notice that these novels are often just rehashing old/classic tales or archetypal storylines and 40Kizing them with as many plot devices as possible. And the pretty language is fairly distracting if all you wanted was some extravagant battlescapes and to see glimpses of Bjorn the Fell Handed and Leman Russ. But come on, can you guys stop trying to convince me that this stuff is some kind of masterpiece fiction? It's mass-produced license pulp. Several of these authors are fairly talented when it comes to prose, and the books are fairly entertaining and easy to read, but they're just churning out generic stuff that is "decent" at best. Abnett didn't even _try_ to mask the fact that he was just mashing a bunch of other material in Prospero Burns, probably because he knew most of you wouldn't even notice so long as there was some easily consumed page-turning action, snappy dialog, and characters you recognized. And he was right. It was the first Heresy Novel to hit the NYT bestsellers list simple because it was about Space Wolves, lol.

So yeah, Abnett's work is _exactly_ the kind of stuff I'm talking about. This is the guy who basically ported a World War Two fighter squadron serial into 40K complete with a pilot who meets and falls in love with a local woman at a diner in his off time.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Malus Darkblade said:


> And yet here you are VS on a forum about the lore no less.
> 
> The examples you gave, with the exception of the Orks, are not accurate whatsoever.


They're not?



> First, there are no wolf-riding Space Vikings anymore. Abnett and other authors have reinvented them.


Hi there, Codex Space Wolves would like to have a word with you.



> Titans are expensive and they are very limited. So it's not hard to see why melee weapons/pistols are a viable alternative when the situation calls for it.


F35's are expensive and they are very limited. So it's not hard to see why melee weapons/pistols are a viable alternative when the situation calls for it. That's it applied to modern day kit. Pistols and "Combat Knives" (can be found in the section labled "string cutters/can openers") are personal defence weapons used when you don't actually have a rifle to hand.



> Even today, top martial artists say they prefer fighting someone with a gun vs a blade.


Even today, top soldiers prefer fighting someone with a blade versus a gun.



> In a war, bullets run out. Blades do not. Just be thankful we haven't seen a war where its come down to using blades as opposed to bullets which would allow us to draw reference from.


Eh. Bayonet charges have been a thing in Ghanners.



> The Dark Elves focus on pleasure. Revealing their bodies is a form of said pleasure. They combine that with their love for enslaving and raiding. While this does appeal to certain male audiences, it still fits lore-wise and I don't see how its childish.'


"ooh titties" is not childish? They're fucking ace, I'll give them that, but seriously? "How do we appeal to 13 year old boys? I know, Boobs!" Chainmail bikini's do not provide any pleasure whatsoever. You're hit with a rapid firing rocket launcher. You're disintegrated. And no, don't use that "increased mobility" bullshit, because there's numerous occasions of other Eldar in armour being able to dodge bullets. 



> I would appreciate a list of these two-dimensional villains you're talking about. Top of my head, is Sara Cawkell's portrayal of Huron. And remember that some authors can reinvent previously established characters and completely revamp them.


Any of the CSM Codex.
Any of the Daemon Codex.
Tyranids.
Necrons.
Orks. 
Not saying the "goodies" are any better. They exist because "ooh here's a new special rule".

Even in 40K, the big bads don't get much showtime (except Lucious Lucius, but Graham Macneil enjoys getting rimjobs off him, so puts him in whenever he can to provide some fake gravitas by including 40K creations); the Primarchs are in fact some of the few multi-faceted characters presented, but some of them are just retarded; Fulgrim, Perturabo, the Lion, Ferrus Manus, Magnus... 

@Jacob: A commissar is shouting orders from atop a tank and wielding his sword for emphasis/authority. Where is the unrealistic part?[/QUOTE]
There's a reason the CROWS system and the radio was invented.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Jacobite,

My objection to the setting being described as cartoony or comical. Of course there are elements of it that meet that criteria: I myself am talking about how I wish the Orks wouldn't be thus in another thread. I just don't think that the setting _as a whole_ is that way.

As far as realism, though? That's not something I'm trying to argue. I'm simply saying that the setting presents certain concepts in a way that - for the most part, with the obvious caveat I provided above - allows for the reader to switch their suspension of disbelief on. I daresay that most science fiction aren't realistic _by default._ Sure, some are more realistic than others (Heinlein's earth government, since _Starship Troopers_ was brought up earlier), and a few are set soon enough in the future that we don't second guess many of their concepts (_Bladerunner_ comes to mind). I think it's fair to say, though, that a majority of the genre rely heavily on made-up technology and fanciful imaginings of societies that might somehow come to be in the far future. That goes doubly so for those genres that also heavily borrow from fantasy - such as Star Wars, for instance.

There is quite a leap to be made between "not realistic", which is a label that much of the genre is saddled with, and "goofy", "silly", and "utterly ridiculous", which is Veteran Sergeant's take on the setting.

Speaking of which, come on *Veteran Sergeant*, you have got to be more fair with your comparisons. Crichton didn't make up Ahmad ibn Fadlan. More importantly, though, Hawser doesn't fill the same role as the Arab. Or did I miss something? Did the latter also serve as an unwitting fifth columnist that the Wendol intended to exploit against the Bulliwyf's band of Norsemen?

You then go on to offer a hash of opinion - to which you're obviously entitled - as to the quality of said novel, before making a colossal assumption regarding the reading habits of those who disagree with your premise. Do we really want to get into a dick-waving context about who's better-read, or are you man enough to accept that maybe - *just maybe* - a lot of the stuff you're throwing out there just comes down to taste, and isn't _an objective appraisal of the setting as a whole?_

Fun fact: _The First Heretic_ hit the New York Times Bestseller list before _Prospero Burns._ I suppose it, too, simply borrowed on earlier works and relied on its intended audience's poor readership for success? :wink:



Vaz said:


> Hi there, Codex Space Wolves would like to have a word with you.


Every reader is entitled to agree or disagree as to whether Abnett achieved his aim of making the Space Wolves more interesting. That having been said, Codex: Space Wolves was released in October of 2009. _Prospero Burns_ was intended to be released at least six months after that. I sincerely doubt that Abnett will ever get a chance to affect the writing of a Codex being written concurrently with one of his novels, let alone one that had probably been in development before he even got started with his story.

Obviously I'm not privy to the working relationship (or lack thereof) between Black Library novelists and Games Workshop Codex writers... but given the fact that the last Codex: Space Marines still assumes the Legions are as they were circa decade-old Index Astartes articles... I'm going to assume Abnett was never going to affect the development of crap like "Thunderwolf Cavalry".



> F35's are expensive and they are very limited. So it's not hard to see why melee weapons/pistols are a viable alternative when the situation calls for it. That's it applied to modern day kit. Pistols and "Combat Knives" (can be found in the section labled "string cutters/can openers") are personal defence weapons used when you don't actually have a rifle to hand.


We also don't have superhuman soldiers in powered armour that can shrug off small arms, who are able to deploy within seconds (or minutes) in the heart of strategic targets. Melee combat becomes somewhat more viable in such situations. I know that, if I could run as fast as a cheetah and could pulp bones beneath armour with my armored hands or shred through tanks with certain melee weapons, I'd be less worried about taking cover and engaging with three-round bursts.



> "ooh titties" is not childish? They're fucking ace, I'll give them that, but seriously? "How do we appeal to 13 year old boys? I know, Boobs!" Chainmail bikini's do not provide any pleasure whatsoever. You're hit with a rapid firing rocket launcher. You're disintegrated. And no, don't use that "increased mobility" bullshit, because there's numerous occasions of other Eldar in armour being able to dodge bullets.


Alright, so you crossed Wych Cults off the list. What about the rest of the Dark Eldar?

Besides that, though, two things:

1. Yeah, obviously it's best when cheap attempts at sexuality aren't used as a marketing device.
2. But seriously, if those are the criteria by which we're going to judge Warhammer 40k, I hope we're all *incredibly selective* with our choice of fiction/science fiction/fantasy, and are simply slumming in these forums for laughs.



> Any of the CSM Codex.


Wait, by what criteria are we judging them? By the gaming background material, or by the novels they're appearing in? This is an important qualifier for me because I don't play the game. I read the novels and I've played the computer games. Of course I read the Codices and background material as well, but I take into consideration the fact that there are novelists, there are aspiring novelists, and there are people who simply like writing background material for gaming hobbies. 

As such, there are two sides to Abaddon the Despoiler. He has been a two-dimensional, megalomaniacal tyrant in gaming background material... and, as a secondary character in three different novels, his motivations have largely been kept away from the reader. But that's not to say that _The Talon of Horus_ won't make him a captivating character. Again, opinions will vary, but I don't think you can read Dembski-Bowden's arguments on the character and the Black Legion and plausibly argue that he's just cashing in a check and telegraphing a bunch of tropes.

Moving on down the list, I think Lucius has potential for a secondary character. It remains to be seen how well he will be used.

Typhus is another question mark. If he's two-dimensional, it's because he has largely been a set of stats thus far. In the two stories in which he's been part of the supporting cast, we've never been given insight as to what drives him.

Ahriman is just starting to become accessible. _Atlas Infernal_ touched on his goals a bit, and a trilogy of novels purports to tell his tale. I'm not sure if you've read any of them or not (I haven't, yet).

Kharn certainly seems to be getting away from a guy who keeps yelling "KILL MAIM BURN".

I agree that Fabius Bile is telegraphed. I've yet to see anything - even from the Horus Heresy novels - that gives him any life beyond "typically brilliant, yet cruel and mad scientist".



> Any of the Daemon Codex.


Never read it. I imagine the biggest challenge authors face when writing these into novels is the classification system. It makes matters easier for a game, I'm sure, but what a hurdle for someone more worried about a fulfilling story?



> Tyranids.


I'm up in the air about the Tyranids insofar as how they've been used in novels. I was more a fan of the Genestealers.



> Necrons.


I think these are still a work in progress.



> Orks.


Agreed wholeheartedly.



> ... the Primarchs are in fact some of the few multi-faceted characters presented, but some of them are just retarded; Fulgrim, Perturabo, the Lion, Ferrus Manus, Magnus...


I thought Fulgrim's portrayal was amateurish, and depended on stereotypes more than anything else. Ferrus Manus is just aggravating to me - he's angry for the sake of being angry. I didn't think anything was wrong with the Lion or Magnus. I agree that Perturabo vacillated to easily from reasonable and idealistic to brutal and callous in _Angel Exterminatus._ But what can you say? McNeil's work vacillates so easily from promising to disappointing.



> There's a reason the CROWS system and the radio was invented.


That's not even a licensed piece of artwork... :wink:


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

Wait... isn't 1st Edition the era of characters like Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau? 

Yeah, I think I will stick with modern 40k, thank you.


----------

