THE
WARP STORM

@James & @pawl : Yes, he hit the hammer on the nail head there!

A note on the elite of elite of elite Imperial orders being exclusively female or male:

40k plays on archaic strings. It's better worldbuilding by being more archaic by having the exclusive elite warrior orders mimic monks and nuns and be separate. Female Sisters of Silence and Sororitas on the one hand, and male Astartes and Custodes are much better worldbuilding ploys than mixed orders of Astartes and Custodes. You don't mix monks and nuns and retain an archaic impression.

This is one example where GW has stayed a lot truer to the spirit of 40k through all these decades, than one would expect. Kudos to GW for playing the right strings to build their setting, where so many others would have fallen for outside pressure and muddled the setting.

Of course, the elite monks and nuns situation does not apply to the Mechanicus/Titanicus (who cares little about fleshly matters) or the ragtag plebeian hordes of Imperial Guard (where any setup conceivable, such as mixed or separate regiments, or just male or even just female regiments will happen somewhere depending on local culture). Neither does the Inquisition need it, since it's such an excentric individually focused organization. Sororitas/Astartes and Custodes/Sisters of Silence is the relevant arena. They are the big shining warrior orders.

And they ought to feel archaic. This isn't the Dark Age of Technology, but the regressed, myopic and parochial Age of Imperium, where things often do not make sense and weird traditions are king. There is a good reason why Games Workshop in the 1990s abandoned the idea of female Space Marines and gave the Sisters of Battle a true remake into their very own cool thing.

Cheers

Reply to this thread on DakkaDakka, which asked what the tone of 40k should be:

40k should be science fiction gone wrong. It should be a mixture of Mad Max and Star Wars. It should draw upon the most depraved aspects of human history.

Warhammer 40'000 should be grimdark, bonkers and unrelentingly inhumane and cruel with no sane alternatives anywhere to be seen. It should be a place of unavoidable, mechanistic cruelty. It should be an era of lost hope and hypocrisy on every side, all presented with deliciously ironic humour and endless historical references and glorious aesthetics.

40k should be dark. 40k should never be dry and dull. And the Imperium should be a fortified madhouse, a hopeless dead-end of interstellar human galactic civilization and a monster on the prowl in its own right.

Note that the Tau fulfill an important function in such a setting: You need a naïve and optimistic, technologically advanced upstart to be shocked and traumatized by all the insanity and unrelenting horror reigning from end to end of the Milky Way galaxy. Contrast is key. Anyone who thinks the Tau breaks 40k's tone need to think it all over again. If everything is solidly dark everywhere, then nothing is dark. Only by contrasting the Age of Imperium against stuff like the Tau and humanity's lost golden era in the Dark Age of Technology can you hope to get the point across on just how regressed, tyrannical and murderous the dark future truly is.

@Karak Norn Clansman, excellent read. I totally agree with you on the origins of the game and the founding guys knowledge of history. I have been in this hobby now for slightly over 35 years, I was introduced to it as a child, but it was first ed of WHFB that originally took my fancy seeing all the painted minis in my school-mate dads collection, and then i discovered rogue trader. I have been a fan ever since. I have been there since nearly the start of it all, and while i will always remember the original female marines and space police, the universe has thankfully moved on.

Prior to the introduction of primaris marines, I thought the company may take 40k the way it did WHFB and just rejig the whole universe into something more akin to what Age of Sigmar is now, and that would be how they introduced female marines. It maybe something they consider going forwards, but i think 40K is too large for them to be able to do that now compared to WHFB.

Is all change good? No, I miss my green-skined football hooligans chanting "'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go", but would i give up all the history and the new products for them? No. The same thing can be said for my own favourites the space wolves. How they have been perceived by the fanbase, how they have progressed and slowly been transformed into what is on the verge of becoming a joke. Every figure i see now is practically a furbie or an all out space viking. Now the history is there and as such I will continue to collect my army in the way i originally viewed them, i don't buy anything which i can't see fitting into my own version of their lore. Hell I still try to use my space wolf Leman Russ Battle Tank when i occasionally play and my opponents allow it, seeing as i don't spam them with whatever the current meta list iss. Does that make me right? Does that make me obsolete? Does it make me less of a son of Russ? I don't think so on any of those questions. They are just my view point. I don't work at GW, I have no input into the universe other then through the power of my wallet and that is as influential to them as a single drop of rain falling into the ocean is to rising sea levels.

40K is slowly coming out of the shadows and into the mainstream thanks to certain superhero's not being ashamed of their plastic addiction and talking about it on mainstream media, and while covid-13 has been disastrous globally GW have certainly benefitted by it. It seems that it may soon be a thing of the past where every person who plays or collects this hobby is typecast in a negative way. I think that posts like these are great, as they show peoples understanding of the history and context of the original universes transition into the current one. I doubt that many people can claim to have read everything pertaining to the game, and unfortunately that can lead people to some extreme views of certain races. I have seen some people that truly believe that Astartes and the Imperium are the good guys in all this and defend their view points with abhorrent language and that has no place in this hobby. As GW recently posted, there are no "goodies and baddies" in this universe.

It is a shame that most people who join now have no idea of the libraries worth of backstory available, or that the game actually moves forward in time along with ours, just at a different rate, and it takes real dedication and resource to try and read everything produced. The only thing similar in my experience is Star Wars, as you say in your posts, which has a mammoth amount of history throughout the universe. I am only a casual fan of Star Wars, so i maybe off point here, but that seems to be a universe where everything seems to happen over a few generations? Now that is is a part of the house of mouse i expect this will change and more and more will be added over time. Now compared to 40k which is over 10+millenia, and with the reintroduction of 30K too, there is a lot of room there for stories to grow, evolve and even drastically contradict each other as over time things have changed, Englands relationship with Germany is a great example of this. If you take out 40 years of history, we have been great allies, our languages were originally similar and our points of view could also be considered similar for most of our history. Now if you had no idea about the two world wars, you would be totally justified in saying that. Also, if you only focus on the early 1900's you would argue that the two countries are mortal enemies. I think that is something that people forget in this hobbies fictional universe. both view points can be considered true, both view points can be both, and neither is truly accurate.

I slightly went off topic there, apologies. What point I was trying to get to was this: history is vast and subject to change, which is what we have seen in 40k. Things i was taught in school have been disproven by new research, some by science, some by different understandings. As an example i will look at the bible, in my own lifetime i have witnessed a change to peoples behaviour towards it. Originally it was deemed sacrosanct with only two versions permitted, the King James, and the New King James. Hard core. Now there are many versions of it, ranging from the King James through to one i recently spotted which was in, well i cant really describe it other than "kid speak", I had no idea what they were saying but my child completely got it. Now I am not saying that the bible is true, thats a very different conversation to this one. But over time peoples understanding and relationships have changed.

This is all for the better in my opinion, as long as the underlying story remains the same as it was originally intended.

@Glorfindle: Lovely post and conclusions! Agreed on all points. By the way, I've been in this hobby since 2003, meaning since thirteen years of age, and has dug deep into all older Warhammer eras. Internet does help a lot!

At least there are lore channels such as Luetin09 and wiki pages full of encyclopaedic compilations of most previous material (not to speak of clandestine download opportunities of old publications, which I've heard certain people use), so for those who think outside the box there are excellent means to take part of the libraries' worth of background for 40k that has been produced through the decades.

Also, since I missed to mention it previously: For the record, my point against female Space Marines is strictly one of organization, and nothing to do with the exactitude of techno-magic implants or lack thereof. As long as battle nuns and battle monks are kept in strictly separate orders, the exact background build could have been pretty much anything, including identical geneseed and genhanced implants for both kinds of fanatical warriors.

Yet GW in the 1990s decided to do one better, and uses the opportunity of the new Sisters of Battle to showcase the Imperium's decay by building new lore upon existing background: The Adepta Sororitas thus were power armoured bolter-wearing elite soldiers, but as a later development than the Astartes they are also thoroughly religious fanatics and lacking the Emperor's gene-craft, relying on zealous faith, fire and miracles to carry the day. Which is a lot more interesting than just Space Marines in segregated monastic orders.

All in all, 40k has had excellent development through the decades, and its future looks promising, although a more mainstream outreach will always carry a risk of developers deciding to dilute and change the background corpus (such an attempt by GW suits in the 1990s were met with a stern No by game developers, so we're good so far). I'm optimistic and not worried.

At its core, 40k is all about hypocrisy on all sides. Take Angron, for example: He rails and raves against the Emperor's slaving conqueror ways, and yet he himself enslaved his own gene-sons with Butcher's Nails. That's the setting in a nutshell.

Cheers!

Recently over on Reddit, the question was raised how Ogryns are treated in the Imperium. The question hinged on whether or not Ogryns have the chance to live a normal life akin to baseline humans, despite the latter being raised to hate the mutant, since Ogryns are loyal followers of the Imperial Cult in their simple way. Likewise, Black Library books that touch on the subjects were asked for.

It is a good question, and it would be interesting to see people's take on it. Here is my response:

Loyalty Met By Ingratitude: On Imperial Ogryns

If an author would write that Ogryns are treated by human societies in the Imperium, just as if they are baseline humans, then that is a surefire sign of bad writing.

The Imperium is meant to embody all the worst depravities of human history. Loyal Ogryns? Trampled upon. Spat upon. Enslaved and abused. Occasionally maybe even culled by pogroms. Humans who see the value in well treated Ogryns are rare exceptions, usually Imperial Guard veterans or enterprising individuals with an unusually independent mind. Imperial man will hate, fear and despise abhumans such as Ogryns. Look to Necromunda for a taste of Ogryn life under Imperial rule, where Ogryn slaves are commonplace, and where one gang in the system consist of rebelling Ogryn Slaves.

I remember a bland group effort at worldbuilding an Earth-like Imperial planet in 40k over on Warseer forums. In it, the participants had actually written that the world had an Ogryn population, and thus the baseline human population was tolerant of abhumans. That is not how you write to the spirit of the setting. If the world has an abhuman population, then that is always a reason for the baseline humans to hate and despise mutants all the more.

After all, it is rather difficult to hate something distant which you have never seen with your own eyes. Hating your neighbour, on the other hand, could not be easier.

Remember that even the most poor and miserable baseline humans, still has their hatred of filthy abhumans to cling to for some semblance of dignity in the cruel world they call home. Even the lowliest of baseline human underclass can sneer at a mutant underclass below them. The social standing of the dirtiest caste of baselines can still be better than that of shunned and even worse enslaved mutant scum. At least the baseline human paupers can find some comfort in their cultic-approved purity of blood, as true sons and daughters of Holy Terra, unlike those wicked abhumans who have deviated from the true template of sacred seed.

It is the fortyfirst millennium, and there is only man's hate for fellow man.

Karak Norn Clansman wrote: ↑25 Nov 22, 12:12After all, it is rather difficult to hate something distant which you have never seen with your own eyes. Hating your neighbour, on the other hand, could not be easier

Big delay!!

Do you feel this is true? I haven't read a huge amount about human/Ogryn relations, other than that they are appreciated for labour purposes, and often make up numbers in work gangs.

That said this sentence made me pause, as I know that real-life studies have shown that ethnic diversity in neighbourhoods has, at least in some studies, been linked with a decrease in racist sentiments and issues.
Surely it would be easier to hate the a human you never see, as you only ever hear and read the propaganda. When you actually see and interact with them you would be able to see the fallacies and untruths in the rhetoric, and as the populace generally becomes more questioning of the official line and more accepting of the individuals, they would in turn through a kind of 'cultural resonance' subconsciously encourage each other to move further in that direction, no?

Alternatively, mutants are bad and they should all be burned!

pawl wrote:

Karak Norn Clansman wrote: ↑25 Nov 22, 12:12After all, it is rather difficult to hate something distant which you have never seen with your own eyes. Hating your neighbour, on the other hand, could not be easier

Big delay!!

Do you feel this is true? I haven't read a huge amount about human/Ogryn relations, other than that they are appreciated for labour purposes, and often make up numbers in work gangs.

That said this sentence made me pause, as I know that real-life studies have shown that ethnic diversity in neighbourhoods has, at least in some studies, been linked with a decrease in racist sentiments and issues.
Surely it would be easier to hate the a human you never see, as you only ever hear and read the propaganda. When you actually see and interact with them you would be able to see the fallacies and untruths in the rhetoric, and as the populace generally becomes more questioning of the official line and more accepting of the individuals, they would in turn through a kind of 'cultural resonance' subconsciously encourage each other to move further in that direction, no?

Alternatively, mutants are bad and they should all be burned!

Well spotted! It works in both ways, as any number of festering local conflicts between people through history shows. Usually, proximity breeds familiarity and acceptance as you describe and as studies show, but when things go very wrong the constant closeness keeps anger boiling, with both sides provoking each other for a long time in ugly cycles of violence and resentment. 40k tends to draw upon the most depraved aspects of human history, so here is a case of singling out the worse parts over the good parts. Here, think more of the worst parts of Balkan history, the Troubles or recent sectarian strife in Iraq, rather than the many examples of peaceful co-existence which can be found all over the globe.

If we were drawing inspiration from Christians in the polytheistic Roman empire, we would likewise focus on periods of persecutions and bloodshed over periods of stable co-existence, since persecutions makes for grimdark drama.

For instance, Catholics and Protestants living cheek by jowl did not diminish hatred during the great bloodletting of the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe. In the longer run it helped alleviate it, but while the conflict was heated the sheer closeness of sectarians reinforced strife and ensured that it kept boiling.

Likewise, I believe that the low degree of animosity between Americans and Vietnamese these days are not just down to alliances and my enemy's enemy is my friend, and American popular culture. I'm sure that the two would have a lot of infested anger at each other even today, had they been neighbours with plenty of chances for incidents, and not separated by an ocean. It helps heal wounds.

Granted, Ogryns can often be a lot better accepted than other abhumans. Ratlings and Subs have it a lot worse almost all of the time.

Also, the above line about hating your neighbour is a reference to Terry Pratchett. It's certainly not true all of the time, but some of the time it's very true. But even the staunchest of hereditary enemies will mellow with time, as Sweden and Denmark can show today, to pick an example of two countries with a record number of wars and who once sported a deep-seated hatred in ravaged border areas (Småland in the case of Sweden).

What I've always been struck with when GW or community writers play the setting straight as an arrow and push the grimdark to the hilt, is an impression of: "Wow, this is bonkers and I wouldn't want to live there for all the gold in Klondike, but that's also what makes it such a good wargame setting."

Cheers

Recently over on DakkaDakka, the question of balanced philosophical discussion within the Warhammer 40'000 setting was raised. The discussion is a valid and interesting one, with many good points made on all sides. My own point aims in a different direction:

There are philosophical discussions within the setting, but one thing should be remembered as to strife between factions:

It is the internal talk that usually matters. To rally support and resources, to justify the war and keep war enthusiasm up. This is the realm of propaganda. Most talk will be heavily coloured by a millieu of propaganda, and an environment of warfare. Very few indeed will be able to truly think outside this box, and fewer still would dare to express such deviant thoughts.

Likewise, talk directed toward hostile sides will usually be propaganda as well, even if the effort is more wasted than the internal jargon. Talk toward hostiles would revolve around territorial claims, or claims to superiority and natural rulership, or claims to the inherent foulness of the enemy species and likewise claims to the righteousness for exterminating all their kind.

Historically, conflicts between humans rarely involved much in the way of philosophical discussions. But they did involve propaganda campaigns. Herodotus, for instance, touches on learned Persian men laying claim to the righteousness of invading Hellas because the Greeks attacked Troy in the east in the first place. The Greek legend of the Trojan war on the west Anatolian coast would have mattered very little to any Persian, but sharp Persian wits engaged in spinning tales against the recent enemy would still have picked up on it and made use of it as a dishonest argument. Anything to score a point.

Here, the discussion the touristing Herodotus had with learned Persians boiled down to cherrypicked points used as bludgeoning tools against the enemy side. It was not a balanced discussion, it was a rhetorical fistfight. And it should be remembered that extremely few would have been interested in seeking out the other side's reasons for going to war, as the curious Herodotus did.

There is a place for philosophical discussion within the setting, but most talk should definitely be driven consciously or unconsciously by agenda-hunting propaganda.