PDA

View Full Version : Why Are There So Many Skulls On Everything?



YorkNecromancer
12-06-2015, 06:41 AM
Why Are There So Many Skulls?
or,
Why Do They Always Send The Poor?


WARNING: this article contains spoilers for ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’; make sure you watch the film before you read this.

Not even joking, stop doing everything and go watch it. You won’t regret your choice.

Dane and The Devil

If, like me, you’re old as balls, there’s a good chance that you’ve read seminal 90’s comic ‘The Invisibles’. Dating from the time when DC actually wrote comics for adults (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertigo_comics) (come back Karen Berger!), ‘The Invisibles’ tells the tale of the titular group of super-cool freedom fighters as they take on the terrifying minions of the Outer Church. It’s a completely bananas storyline, and any attempt to summarise it is near impossible due to the fact that writer Grant Morrison basically replaced his blood with LSD and scorpion venom in order to get high enough to write the thing.

http://comicsalliance.com/files/2012/08/untitled-1-1345588934.jpg
Pictured: if you’re like me, you too miss the days when a superhero team could be made up of a random American woman, a scouse chav, a time-travelling self-insert fanfic writer, Jerry Cornelius, and a gender non-conforming bruja. And that’s not a joke either. *sigh*

Anyway, one of my favourite scenes is in the ‘Black Science’ arc, where Dane – a Scouse thug and future Buddha – has been captured by the forces of the Outer Church in their super-science evil base of evil.

Now, by this point, Dane is essentially Invisible number 1. He’s not in charge, but he is the most important member of the group because he’s the most Enlightened-with-a-capital-E. The Outer Church put him in a cell with a chessboard. Then, a blind, unnamed character enters. We’ve seen this man before, and it’s been established that the Outer Church are terrified of him, because it’s clear (though never stated) that this is The Devil. As in the literal King of Hell. He sits opposite Dane, and the two of them talk, discussing their side’s respective philosophies.

And what the two of them do, is agree that the Invisibles and the Outer Church are, to all intents and purposes, the same. These two ‘enemies’, the diametrically opposed representatives of Freedom/Chaos (The Invisibles) and Order/Control (The Outer Church) are - in every way that matters - one and the same.

Because, for all their affectations of competence, all either side really does is kill people who don’t deserve it. The Invisibles may be the most literal freedom fighters in fiction, and the Outer Church may be trying to defend humanity from destruction at the hands of eldritch horrors beyond measure… But from outside the conflict, looking down at the tangible, concrete results of each side’s actions, it’s clear: neither side has any real entitlement to call themselves anything but the most self-entitled butchers. The Outer Church’s ham-fisted attempts at exerting control on the world are little more than massacres; the Invisibles’ attempts at liberation are barely more than bloodbaths. Why? Because neither side has any respect for the people they both claim to be ostensibly trying to save. Their soldiers and leaders have calcified inside their separate ideologies, and are now so justified in their pursuit of their goals, so certain that what they’re doing is justified, that they have utterly discarded any morality at all. The members of each faction sees themselves as above such things.

But Dane and the Devil? They don’t. Neither of them runs a thing, instead, acting as untouchable outsiders. As the apex of their respective factions, they stand apart. And it’s only if you pay attention to the scene, that you notice something about the way Dane and the Devil are sitting. They may sit at the table, across the game of chess between them… But they’re sat at right angles to the board.

Neither of them is playing the game.

Neither of them has ever played it.

Because, unlike everyone beneath them, they can see that, like all games, it’s only a diversion; it’s just a convenient way to ignore what’s happening in real life.

Witness me.

One of the best films of 2015 is ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’, and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise. I mean, not very well and not very hard, but I’ll give it a damned good go.

If, like me, you were holding your breath through Imperator Furiosa’s desperate first escape from the War Boys, then there’s a bit that will doubtless have stuck in your mind.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KlSuGNt8e4

I swear to Throne, when that happened, I very nearly pooped myself with awesome. I mean, seriously, that hardcore motherfrakker’s got an ARROW IN HIS BRAIN and he’s so full of UNFETTERED MASCULINITY that he stops, he takes a moment to PAINT HIS TEETH CHROME, THEN KILLS A CAR WITH A SPEAR.

A SPEAR

No matter how any of us might go out, our death will never be that awesome.

And all those crazy motherfrakkers around him, before it happens, they’re all cheering him on, begging him to do it, because they know it’s going to awesome, just like we do. And then he does it and they’re like WITNESS and you’re watching going WITNESS along with them and there’s no blood left in your brain because you’ve got the kind of tumescence/wide-on that normally only arrives after 2oo millilitres of intravenous horse Viagra.

https://media.giphy.com/media/ZoKRb3Hw6wo8g/giphy.gif
Pictured: Bill Murray knows how that feels.

Martyrs.

Those of you who’ve seen my favourite film ever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpDiQimK6U) will know that the word ‘martyr’ originally meant ‘witness’.

The thing about war, is that war is simply the use of state-sponsored violence to accomplish political aims. And the thing about violence, is that it tends to make people dead. And the thing about people is, that for the vast majority of us, we don’t really want to be dead. After all, being alive, for all its manifold problems, is usually kind of awesome.

Which is a dilly of a pickle if you want to run things. After all, if people are more concerned with being alive than with what you want, well. No matter how much they agree with you, no matter how strongly they cling to their ideals, they might decide that the chance of being not alive outweighs their dedication to you getting what you want.

http://www.catersnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2_CATERS_BUFFALO_CHASE_AWAY_LION_09-800x498.jpg
Pictured: I’M NOT RUNNING; I’M ATTACKING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION!

Historically, this has a bit of problem for governments generally. After all, people don’t really tend to care about politics unless it touches on their lives, which means that for most people at least, political ideals are kind of impersonal. Abstract even. After all, while a person might believe in the nationalisation of those services which benefit the public sector, well… A march is one thing, but unless they’re reaaaaally into The Cause, it’s not usually something people are ready to die for.

This is why armies have to use a wide variety of sophisticated techniques (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_education_and_training) to break people’s brains.

We’ve all seen ‘Full Metal Jacket’ (and if you haven’t, you’ll have heard the quotes. R. Lee Ermey’s performance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Lft6EQh-Y) is the stuff of legends). The first half of the film is about the resocialisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resocialization) of a group of new military recruits. It’s a little outdated perhaps, but the core ideas are the same as today: a group of people who’ve never fought professionally before are psychologically altered until they are capable of doing so.

All armies do this. It’s impossible to run a successful army that doesn’t, because if you don’t, people tend to decide that killing people they don’t know for reasons they’re not entirely clear on is a poor life decision, and so they end up deliberately missing the enemy (http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm). Or worse, they decide that continuing to be alive is more important than following orders, and thus they bugger off.

While you can introduce Draconian penalties to prevent your soldiers from scarpering, really, it’s better to convince them that they want – or better still, need – to be on your battlefield. As a result, armies have to convince their soldiers to be prepared to not live, which, on the surface, sounds like a really hard thing to do. After all life has great things in it. Family, friends….

http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/96/32/6b32e4eb9643a531230711f29efefbc5-satisfying1.gif
Excessively complex coffee creations…

Which means whatever the army chooses to offer the soldiers instead of their life, it has to be attractive. Much more attractive. More attractive than being here any more, doing the things you love, spending time with the people you love, playing with your children. It needs to be something so attractive, you’d give all those things up willingly… All to help people in power you’ve never met in ways you’ll never personally benefit from.

As a species, we respond better to personal ideas than abstract ones, and so what the military has to do is takes the army’s intellectual, abstract political objectives, and translate them into emotive, concrete, personal motivations that the common soldiery can relate to.

There are many ways this is done, but for all their differences, they only really boil down to two things. Most armies offer both.

The first is the idea of being a protector. They work to convince their neophyte soldiers that through the army’s ministrations, they will become defenders. Of exactly what varies according to cultural and religious beliefs, but mostly? It requires telling the recruit that their actions as a soldier are of real, direct benefit to that soldier’s loved ones.

So, ‘We require you to go to this particular piece of land and attack these people who used to be our allies and to whom we have sold many, many weapons for a variety of reasons including renegotiated trade treaties, the religious factionalism of our allies and the political necessities of making concessions to certain industrial groups who have lobbied hard for this through thirty separate business channels’ becomes ‘You’re keeping your mum safe from bad men who want to kill her.’

This first motivation is enough for a lot of people. After all, who doesn’t want to defend their family? Who doesn’t want to keep their mum safe? Their husband? Their kids?

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/What+am+i+doing+with+my+life+i+wanted+to_600663_51 22392.gif
Maybe this guy? I can’t imagine the horrible sequence of catastrophic life choices that could possibly lead a person inexorably to what we’re seeing in this gif…

Of course, I’m going to be talking about 40K, so this positive motivation isn’t the one I’m going to be looking at today…

Why Are All The Slogans The Same?

In Britain, we have a thing called the Old Lie. Well, not everyone calls it that, but a lot do. It’s this: ‘Dulce Et Decorum Est, Pro Patria Mori.’

Translated, it means ‘It is right and proper to die for your country’. It was a standard sort of proverb, bandied around the best sorts of Grammar schools in the UK, and a generation of young men grew up believing in it. That the ideals of England were absolutely worth their lives. After all, they had been told so.

Then World War One happened.

There are only three villages in the whole of the UK who didn’t lose a member to the Great War. Every other city, town, village and hamlet – all 43,000 of them – has a monument in it to the men and boys (and that’s literal boys, not metaphorical ones) they lost on the battlefields. And every Remembrance Day, beneath the solemn thoughts and compassionate words, is a dark and terrible – and quite unspoken – conviction: that these deaths were pointless.

That these young men were lied to, died horrible, agonised deaths in the mud and mire, and it was for no reason. They didn’t save the world. They didn’t defend their country or their families. They just died.

That belief suffused so much of my experiences growing up and discussing the army. Whether it was with friends, family, relatives, the same ethos coloured everything: the military may be respectable, but they will kill you, and no matter what you died for, it won’t be enough.

I mean, when you talk about World War 2 you’ve got that funny little man and his funny little moustache. Him and his fascists remain an undeniable evil that needed to be fought. World War One had fourteen year old boys choking to death on their own blood in clouds of chemical weapons because the King of England and his cousin, the Kaiser of Germany, wanted to play at war with real lives.

So in the UK, you can’t use the Old Lie any more. It’s why the army says things like ‘Securing Britain in an uncertain world’ and ‘Get real qualifications, valuble skills and friends for life’.

But, there was a time, however alien that may seem, when ‘It is right and proper to die for your country’ is something that people absolutely believed in. During World War 2, Russia’s army had a similarly interesting motto.

‘Die for the motherland’.

Hmmm. There’s a lot of overlap between those two isn’t there? I wonder if there are other, similar phrases…

‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots’.

There are more. I’d be prepared to think most – maybe all – armies have used phrases like these, ones which extolling the virtues of dying. Why? Because if fear of your family dying is the stick, then this the carrot; an ego-massaging carrot of such deliciousness that for some, it seems impossible to turn down:

Proof that their existence mattered.

Martyrdom Cultures

Many cultures have traditions of extolling the virtues of martyrdom: the idea that even if your life is worthless, your death can have value. You many have no money, no friends, no lovers, no hope… But you can always choose the method of your dying. To someone who’s lived a life of abject vulnerability, one without any real control at all, such a thought can be intoxicating. With the added impetus of a righteous cause in whose name to die, it can be irresistible.

After all, if you dedicate your life to a cause, and then die for it, you’ve not only protected it, not only demonstrated its virtue… But you’ve elevated yourself by inspiring others. In doing so, you change the nature of death. It goes from being a negation - a terrible loss, an undoable cessation - and becomes an act of creation. You generate new followers, new believers. New people to take up where you left off. You don’t even need to believe in an afterlife, to know – to truly know – that your death helped those you love. Helped preserve your ideas. Helped those you left behind, even if they don’t ever know.

In a world where people take photographs of their food and post them onto social media, all in the desperate hope that they’ll receive a ‘like’ and confirmation that their life has some meaning to others, it’s easy to see how powerfully enthralling the idea of a meaningful death might be. The idea of turning yourself from a person into a symbol.

You only have to look at the religions they’ve built around martyrs to see the appeal.

The Most Feminist Character in ‘Fury Road’.

There were a bunch of people who were angry that Mad Max wasn’t the protagonist of his own film. And they’re right – he wasn’t. It’s pretty much open knowledge now that the film doesn’t have one main character; it actually has a pair of them: deuteragonists, with equal agency in the plot, and equally engaging character arcs:

Imperator Furiosa and Nux.

https://49.media.tumblr.com/6f8e18cc6b052794df7591fe47afe921/tumblr_nq1rynSsPX1u9vvg9o1_500.gif
That’s this model of sanity right here.

There have been numerous articles explaining how the true protagonist of ‘Fury Road’ is Furiosa (http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/22/why-imperator-furiosa-not-mad-max-is-the-hero-for-our-age/), and I have to both agree with them, and praise the film for that. Furiosa is awesome.

But I don’t think Max is the secondary character either, because he doesn’t have a character arc.

http://kimthompsonauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/dara-marks_slides0001.jpg
Pictured: honestly, I’m not sure. Witchcraft maybe? Sure, let’s just call it witchcraft.

In simple terms, a character arc is the journey a character goes on. In the beginning of the story, they’re flawed in some way: Tony Stark is a selfish meatus. Thor is an arrogant turd. Bruce Wayne is scared of the whole world. We see them struggle to change, fail, but then, when the chips are down, and everything’s on the line, they confront their weakness, master it, and save the day. In doing so, they overcome it. Tony Stark starts to think of others; Thor accepts responsibility; Bruce Wayne learns to wield fear as a weapon.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEduP3MtcXX8LSoFO/giphy.gif
Fear and a relentlessly potent masculinity.

Max starts mad and ends mad. He doesn’t explicitly defeat any of his personal demons… If you can even call them that. Sure, he sees a whole bunch of dead Australians, but I assume that’s just what happens if you live in the Outback for long enough. And he’s still seeing them at the end. He overcomes nothing. Maybe a refusal to help anyone but himself, but that’s arguable.

No, Nux is the real deuteragonist.

Nux starts the film as, effectively, an Ork. He likes two things: driving fast and blood transfusions. His only goal in life is to die gloriously. How committed to this goal is he?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHJnE4H0idQ

Yeah, he’s pretty committed to it.

Over the course of the film, Nux is the way we learn about the War Boys. It’s a brilliant bit of world building, and an absolutely critical piece of the story. Because, looked at from the outside, the War Boys are f**king crazy. I mean, seriously f**king crazy. They’re a bunch of high-octane psychopaths, screaming lunatic mantras about Valhalla and chrome and living again… An insane cult of fruitloops who it’s perfectly okay to kill.

Because they can’t be saved, can they? They’re a lunatic death cult, drunk on religious fervour, ritual scarification and petrol fumes.

Over the course of the film, the director uses Nux to show us how wrong that perception is.

Because Nux isn’t some random madman. He wasn’t born like that. He was made that way, through systemic, structural, institutionalised abuse. Nux – and by extension, every single War Boy - is a victim.

In the opening of the film, we’re shown Immortan Joe’s stronghold, and we see hundreds of shaven-headed young boys, daubed in the white paint of the War Boys. Without one word, the film makes it clear: the cult catches them young. It takes little boys, and turns them into ravening monsters. It gives them things to do: cars to drive, wars to make. It gives them friends: we constantly see the War Boys screaming and laughing and cheering together. Even if they fight and argue, they work as one (and belonging is a critical need in life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)).

Most importantly, it gives them a philosophy: Immortan Joe is the best. Help him, and you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

The film shows Nux has multiple terminal tumours. He’s barely in his twenties, and he’s dying. He’s knows it too. He’s got no life ahead of him, no hope for the future; he’s never going to accomplish anything… and the film is very explicit about how unfased he is by this. It makes it clear: diseases like this are typical. In a world where you’re going die without ever getting a chance to live, what do you have to offer the world except your death?


“These War Boys have no choice. They're culturally impoverished: There's no books, there's no internet, there's no theaters, no radios, no music. All they have are the detritus of the past and they refashion it so a steering wheel becomes a religious artifact; they do the sign of the V8; the engine they scarified on their bodies, because an engine is much more permanent than the human body; they chrome their teeth, because chrome is such a rare thing. So like all cults this is another cult invented by the Immortan Joe in order to get people to die on his behalf.” - George Miller

And that’s how Immortan Joe keeps his power. Because for all his grandiosity, for all his fine robes and cool skull masks, the king of The Citadel is nothing but a fat, sad old rapist, riddled with disease, kept alive by life support machines. He’s not even capable of dressing himself. He’s in power because of his War Boys. Their absolute loyalty to him is his only power. The film makes it relentlessly, explicitly clear: Immortan Joe is completely self-serving. He doesn't provide guidance, or leadership, or protection for his people. Maybe once he did, but that was a long-forgotten time ago. Now he’s just two hundred pounds of crap in a hundred pound sack; a useless sadist who exerts control in the name of his own self-aggrandisment. Everything he does is about him.

And his War Boys stay loyal to him because they believe his lies wholeheartedly. They don’t even know they’re lies, because there are no conflicting opinions. Like an internet echo-chamber, they support each other in their self-sustaining worldview. Look at the reactions to that first War Boy’s demand to be witnessed: they cheer him like a hero. Then look at their reaction when he explodes: they cheer even harder…

But who are they cheering for? After all, the nameless, martyred War Boy can’t hear it. He’s deader than fried chicken.

They’re cheering for themselves.

That cheer is every War Boy telling every other War Boy – including himself: ‘my death will not be pointless. My death will not be purposeless. My death will have value.

‘Which means I have value.’

Fundamentally, the War Boys provide one another with self-esteem – which is very near the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and so of serious importance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs).

By building his cult around the negation of death, Immortan Joe keeps himself in power, able to starve his people, rape women, and generally be an irredeemably vile human being without the slightest constraint. And does he hold his War Boys in esteem?

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/62793596.jpg

Not really.

Over the course of the film, Nux constantly fails. First he fails to die gloriously during Furiosa’s initial escape. Then, he fails again, even more horribly, as his lord, master and prophet watches him, and declares him ‘mediocre’. And it’s this absolutely breaks him. He curls up and waits to die, because there’s no more hope for him now. He’s never going to get to Valhalla.

Which is what allows Capable to reach him.

While everyone else freaks out at Nux’s appearance, only seeing the War Boy regalia, Capable doesn’t. She sees herself, reflected back.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1a/3b/98/1a3b987aaebca54550b7261a76e2ca63.gif
Pictured: we call this a ‘metaphor’.

This is where the director uses Capable to show us that Nux is as much of a victim of Immortan Joe as the five ‘wives’ are. Capable explains it: Nux never had a say in his own life. He’s been abused just as fully, just as thoroughly as the wives have. Not in the same way – and it shouldn’t need stating, but it always does: Nux’s degradation in no way diminishes that of the wives and vice versa – but it creates an interesting parallel, and, in my opinion, an extremely brave one, because it shows that the War Boys are human. They’re not mindless savages, killing for the thrill of it by choice. They’re not orks, born for fightin’ and winnin’.

They’re what happens when you so completely groom a child that you convince him up is left and right is Thursday. You so reprogram and repurpose the totality of his mind that he can’t even conceive of a world outside the one you tell him there is. Nux isn’t a caricature; he’s a person, as fully realised and three-dimensional as Imperator Furiosa, both of them victims of the rapacious desires of a worthless old man.

Just like Space Marines.

And They Shall Know No Fear.

Take a boy from a world of violence. Tell him you’ll make him a god of the skies; an angel of death. He doesn’t understand the price until you implant him with twenty different transhuman organs, designed in a time when gods walked the Earth. By the time they shred the humanity in him, remaking his body into the weapon you need him to be, it’s too late. The work you’ve done on his mind, removing fear, doubt, any trace of even the slightest possibility of hesitation has left him incapable of anything except ferocious certainty. Give him the best wargear humanity ever invented and tell him he’s a righteous servant, fighting for a cause that is true against an enemy that is as relentless as it is despicable.

Because before you came to him, he was worthless. His world was dust. His people were dust. He was dust. All he had to offer the world before was his death. Now, he can offer that same death in the name of something bigger and brighter than him.

Of course, here’s the question: which Marines am I talking about? Loyalists or Traitors?

Dane and the Devil sit at ninety degrees to the chessboard.

The Imperium convinces its marines to die for the Emperor; Chaos convinces its marines to die for the glory of Chaos. But whether they’re the servants of the False Emperor or the Ruinous Powers, all Marines are victims, just as Nux is. They’re all the same. Lost men, dying in the name of power that’s not theirs, never was and never can be. Raised, indoctrinated and resocialised, Astartes and Traitors alike do not create. They do not form real, reciprocal relationships with communities outside their own. They don’t even interact with other humans in meaningful ways. After all, ‘chapter serf’ is just another way of saying ‘chapter slave’: even the best of the Ultramarines and Space Wolves and Salamanders still stand apart from normal humanity.

So, no matter how brave their deeds, no matter how heroic their actions, these remain emotionally mutilated men, only capable of seeing the universe in the wretched, amputated way they were taught to. Men who are in love with death, because that’s how they were built, programmed to never question why they’re dying, or for who.

In truth, they’re dying because it’s all they know. Asking why is as likely to occur to them as asking the Reclusiarch if he’d like them to bake cupcakes.

The Reason There Are Skulls On Everything.

Nux dies in the end of ‘Fury Road’. Despite everything, despite receiving and reciprocating compassion, his situation never meaningfully changes. All he has to offer is his death. So he decides to spend it on saving people who cared for him. He doesn’t die for his own glory. He doesn’t die as a way to aggrandise himself. He dies to save others. When he says ‘Witness me’ for the final time, it’s not the furious defiance of a man screaming in the face of a world that has denied him everything.

It’s a request.

Please.

Tell me my life mattered. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/28/every-conversation-meaningless-beeps-charlie-brooker )

Even at the end, his death remains the only value he thinks his life has – the only measure of control he can conceive of possessing.

And that’s why there are skulls on everything.

In order to convince soldiers to lay down their lives, you can either convince them to protect the things they love, or convince them their death will have meaning. When your civilisation offers no true love, no true connections, no personal things to protect, all that’s left is death. And so the symbols of death become ubiquitous. Yes, it looks badass. And yes, it’s useful as a tool to strike fear into the heart of your enemies.

But mostly? It’s a reminder: this is all you have.

And by constantly reminding your populace of that, it prevents them from ever thinking that there might be another way. By keeping them focused on the way of their death, they never think about the alternative.

They never even realise there is an alternative.

This is all you have.

And thus, the people stay under control forever.

Addendum

So, this is my last blog of 2015, and I’m at something of a crossroads. My goal for this year was fairly simple: one piece of quality writing every month. One article of the kind that I’d like to read myself. Something detailed, developed, and hopefully engaging.

Going into 2016, I’m not sure what direction to take this blog, so if possible, I would like some feedback: what would you like to see? At the moment, I’m planning to keep things mostly as they are, but if people have alternative suggestions, I’m open to them. Should I try to make these shorter? Less rambling? I know a lot of people don’t like the TL;DR nature of my stuff, but I rather do, so I’m of two minds.

I’ve done game resource stuff in the past, but I don’t know if anyone ever read that or was interested in it. I’ve also done modelling and hobby tutorial articles; they seemed to get a fairly good response. So, I suppose the simple question is this: what content should I create going into the new year?

Also, I have been mulling over the idea of collating this years’ set of articles as a free ebook; is this a thing people would be interested in?

Suggestions gratefully received below.

Haighus
12-06-2015, 08:34 AM
Excellent read there York.

I think this is why I like how Grimaldus is portrayed in Helsreach. I think he has some idea of this. He is fighting alongside men and women who are fighting to survive, fighting for their homes and their lives against Orks, and for each other, but he isn't the same, and he knows this, even if the Marines under his command do not. It is almost like he realises there is more to fighting the enemies of the Emperor, and that makes him more confident, and assured in his role. I really enjoyed the book.

I think this comes form the fact that the Black Templars are the strongest martyrs in an Empire dominated by martyrdom, to the point that even fighting on the defensive is something that feels wrong to them. So being thrown into a position where suddenly they are the ones being forced to protect an entire Hive, and I think that is what allows Grimaldus to see there is more than fighting for a glorious death in the Emperor's name.

It interests me that you mention Salamanders at the end too, because the same book sort of portrays them as having already realised this, as a Chapter.

Denzark
12-06-2015, 06:49 PM
I hope you're not conflating this into modern military service because you are going well askew if you are. You are right about the point of basic training. You take a useless taxpayer, break them down into their basic character blocks, and put them together in a way that suits your service best.

But you're not close what the end goal is. It is not a mindless automaton who can kill - its about service before self. That could be - cancel your weekend plans, you're filling sandbags in a floodplain. It could be 'don't be a fatty, do gym work in your own time'. It could be close with and kill the enemy, sure. The technical nature of a 1st world nation's military means a large number of highly academic, highly qualified, intensely self aware people join - it is not all council estate badboys and losers who can be sold a jingo and bullshiit sandwich. The killing is almost an aside that a small percentage encounter.

Because it is such an extreme thing, it is the leadership cadre which is even more key - you need to convince these self aware people from the self and instant gratification play station generation, to take risks they may not wish to.

The skull thing - I think you have wrong. Skulls in actual 40 kits - its because its grimdark and GW are laying on heavy. Skulls in fluff, badges, the imperial way of life - originated because in 1988 when a sculpter carved the first commissar it was easy to do a skull. But the skulls/death imagery don't convince the IG to lay down their lives - otherwise whyfore the commissariat? Skulls & Ecclesiarchy - because again skull is a motif that can't be offensive linked back to a real life church.

You talk about Imp and Chaos marines being 2 sides of the same coin, dying for their cause. But hang on - in your opus magnum about why CSM can't have Gucci equipment, you said they can't have ATSKNF is because they are self aware and value their own safety! You can't have it both ways Yorkie.

Finally, what is the subtitle about 'why do the always send the poor?' about? I couldn't spot it from the article and again, it is erroneous in both real militaries and 40K - Volpone BLUEBLOODS (the one example I can be arsed to cite) doesn't seem like the poor old poor people being manipulated and used because of their poverty trap and lack of social mobility, to keep the nasty carrion emp on his throne does it? Or is Jeremy Corbyn about to do a stint as a Tau Ethereal?

Captain Bubonicus
12-06-2015, 11:03 PM
I loved this strictly for the passing Jerry Cornelius reference.

Andrew Thomas
12-07-2015, 03:06 AM
The skull thing - I think you have wrong. Skulls in actual 40 kits - its because its grimdark and GW are laying on heavy. Skulls in fluff, badges, the imperial way of life - originated because in 1988 when a sculpter carved the first commissar it was easy to do a skull. But the skulls/death imagery don't convince the IG to lay down their lives - otherwise whyfore the commissariat? Skulls & Ecclesiarchy - because again skull is a motif that can't be offensive linked back to a real life church.

You talk about Imp and Chaos marines being 2 sides of the same coin, dying for their cause. But hang on - in your opus magnum about why CSM can't have Gucci equipment, you said they can't have ATSKNF is because they are self aware and value their own safety! You can't have it both ways Yorkie.

Finally, what is the subtitle about 'why do the always send the poor?' about? I couldn't spot it from the article and again, it is erroneous in both real militaries and 40K - Volpone BLUEBLOODS (the one example I can be arsed to cite) doesn't seem like the poor old poor people being manipulated and used because of their poverty trap and lack of social mobility, to keep the nasty carrion emp on his throne does it? Or is Jeremy Corbyn about to do a stint as a Tau Ethereal?

Or they could've been thinking of pre-WWII era Germany, where Death's Heads were a common motif, as an aesthetic inspiration.
I think what he's getting at is that both the BIoM and the forces of Chaos are, in their own respective ways, a type of death cult, although, and I think the fluff does a much better job of presenting that than the rules, there's an assuredly qualitative difference between sacrificing yourself for a cause, which is the refrain of the Imperium to its troops, and sacrificing others to appease a more-or-less tangible force, in the case of Chaos. Self-sacrifice is kept as a nebulous ideal in the Imperium, to weed out threats to society by way of social programming, and more conventionally, to inspire the conventional army (the Astra Militarum) to stay in the fight rather than run. In the case of Astartes, and to a lesser extent, Sororitas, its more clear as to what your sacrifice is potentially buying, but still, it's more a matter of personal honor than the kinds of transactional processes that Chaos engages in.

As to the "Why Do They Always Send the Poor," reference, it does speak to the Voluntarist fallacy of elective military service, in that the majority of soldiers in an all volunteer military are there more due to a response to social and economic pressures to serve than solely to a sense of duty to god and country. In a system as large and diverse as the Imperium, Militarum regiments like the Volpone, the Jantine Patricians, or the Vostroyan Firstborn, are likely middle class at best, given the characteristically obscene wealth of the Ecclesiarchy, the High Lords of Terra, and the various Rogue Trader and Navigator Houses. While it's safe to assume a general level of reverence for military service, there are still worlds within the Imperium that do not provide Militarum levies, or otherwise have little direct involvement in the war effort.

It relates here because of the Raison D'etre of the War Boys: they're conditioned to think that death isn't just the only choice they have left, but that it's the best, most rewarding choice they ever get to make. Likewise, all Astartes, to some degree, are conditioned to believe that anything less than a fighting withdrawal is anathema, so they rarely choose to flee as a result. Bottom line: none of these groups are operating as if their ground-level members are there to choose when to die, only why and how.

Charon
12-07-2015, 05:01 AM
The "complaint" of too many skulls does not extend to the iconography. We always had this and it was fine. Winged skulls as emblems, skulls on banners, trophy skulls, skulls on bases,...

The "too many skulls" notion comes from a skull axe with skulls on skulls that spawn skulls out of their blade that has a skull texture.

Everything was fine till the actually started to sculpt skullshaped guts and models startet to sweat/breed/spawn/bleed skulls from their flesh.

CoffeeGrunt
12-07-2015, 06:05 AM
The buildings are a bit silly with all the skulls as well.

Also on the note of enlisting, anecdote upcoming, but I know a few people who signed up, attempted to signup or are in the services, and the majority of them were lacking in cash and flunked their GCSEs. Some of them have signed up because they have literally screwed up at everything else and believe the army will offer them a better life, and "sort them out."

Anecdotal, it would be better to have data on the types of people enlisted by the Army, but then it'd likely vary from country-to-country. In the Imperium, using the Macharius series as a benchmark for the average Guardsmen, the main characters all grew up together on a minor industrial world and were destined for either a life in the Hive Gangs or death on the assembly line. Faced with either ignoble fate, they chose the Guard, because at least they get to die for a cause.

MacKinley Johnston
12-07-2015, 11:23 AM
Very engaging read as always, although I believe you put much more thought into GW's skull fetish than they do. Personally I'd love it if I could play on a board that didn't look like a mass grave until after my guard army get's wiped off the table :P

But then again, maybe that's why I like my Elysian guard so much. I've always pictured them as coming from a saner place than most in the 41st millenium. A wealthy world that contributes regiments of volunteers who have already seen the galaxy for the brutal place it is, likely while protecting the vital trade lanes that provide them and likely many others on their world with enough of a portion of it to eke out a reasonably tolerable existence. My point being is that they come from a stable, wealthy world whose environment isn't deadly toxic, 3 very good reasons to live that 99% of Imperium doesn't have, thus, why bother with this skull cult when they can use that protector reasoning?

As for future direction, I'd say keep things as deep and analytical of the 40k universe as they are now. No complaints from me, you are a talented writer and I always marvel at how well put together your articles are, often explaining two different, complex subjects and then tying them in with making a point about something in 40k.

If anything, I'd say maybe do a few more on topics relating to xenos. The Imperium is mine and the most common anchor of perspective in terms of narrative(and why not? They're human and easy to relate to/get into their heads for the purposes of writing about them), but there are plenty of other interesting cultures out there beyond Imperial society. The Eldar are basically post-apocalyptic space elves. I know some of their stories, particularly after The Fall, have had some of the strongest emotional effects on me with their bleakness, horror and refusal to just die out. The Tau, often cited by many as the real 'good guys' are actually super Orwellian while I once heard the Orks being described as the most relatively fair, equal society out there(they're essentially a meritocracy, free trade ect ect.). I'd love to hear your thoughts and perspective on some of those more exotic areas of 40k fluff.

YorkNecromancer
12-07-2015, 12:16 PM
If anything, I'd say maybe do a few more on topics relating to xenos. The Imperium is mine and the most common anchor of perspective in terms of narrative(and why not? They're human and easy to relate to/get into their heads for the purposes of writing about them), but there are plenty of other interesting cultures out there beyond Imperial society. The Eldar are basically post-apocalyptic space elves. I know some of their stories, particularly after The Fall, have had some of the strongest emotional effects on me with their bleakness, horror and refusal to just die out. The Tau, often cited by many as the real 'good guys' are actually super Orwellian while I once heard the Orks being described as the most relatively fair, equal society out there(they're essentially a meritocracy, free trade ect ect.). I'd love to hear your thoughts and perspective on some of those more exotic areas of 40k fluff.

Looking back at what I've done, I hadn't noticed that I hadn't really touched on the various Xenos species. Huh. Right then, I'll give it some thought and maybe try for a column or two looking at them...

acprince
12-07-2015, 12:21 PM
I just won't to point out the term useless taxpayer, was used, just think about that for a second.

Alaric
12-07-2015, 12:42 PM
I just won't to point out the term useless taxpayer, was used, just think about that for a second.

He isnt wrong. Most of em are. They think the world just sorts itself out lol

As always, took forever to get to the point lol and while Mad Max was good still not sure why people are so into it but thems is personal tastes.
Enjoyable read. For next year, try breaking up the way you write a bit. They all have the same shtick lately: topic. Roundaboot talk.meandering Pop culture reference. Actual point of article. Closing.
I know you live for my opinion so just jot them ideas down on your favorite notepad and kiss your autographed headshot of me goodnight and get back at er next year.
Enjoyable read York.

Path Walker
12-07-2015, 01:02 PM
I hope you're not conflating this into modern military service because you are going well askew if you are. You are right about the point of basic training. You take a useless taxpayer, break them down into their basic character blocks, and put them together in a way that suits your service best.

But you're not close what the end goal is. It is not a mindless automaton who can kill - its about service before self. That could be - cancel your weekend plans, you're filling sandbags in a floodplain. It could be 'don't be a fatty, do gym work in your own time'. It could be close with and kill the enemy, sure. The technical nature of a 1st world nation's military means a large number of highly academic, highly qualified, intensely self aware people join - it is not all council estate badboys and losers who can be sold a jingo and bullshiit sandwich. The killing is almost an aside that a small percentage encounter.
Because it is such an extreme thing, it is the leadership cadre which is even more key - you need to convince these self aware people from the self and instant gratification play station generation, to take risks they may not wish to.


But you have to break them to get to that point, sorry if you find this idea personally offensive but it is about killing, that's what soldiers are for. Soldiers are people remade to be able to kill people, people aren't good at killing people, so you have to change them.

Yes, you get them to do all that other stuff that a normal person who hadn't been broken down like that would tell you to **** off unless you gave them a lot more money, but the end goal is to remake people into humans who can kill other people and go into situations where they themselves might die, the rest is all just a result of changing warfare more than anything else, if we didn't need soldiers to do the killing people think needs doing, we wouldn't have soldiers. We only have soldiers because we still have people who think other people need to be killed.




The skull thing - I think you have wrong. Skulls in actual 40 kits - its because its grimdark and GW are laying on heavy. Skulls in fluff, badges, the imperial way of life - originated because in 1988 when a sculpter carved the first commissar it was easy to do a skull. But the skulls/death imagery don't convince the IG to lay down their lives - otherwise whyfore the commissariat? Skulls & Ecclesiarchy - because again skull is a motif that can't be offensive linked back to a real life church.

You talk about Imp and Chaos marines being 2 sides of the same coin, dying for their cause. But hang on - in your opus magnum about why CSM can't have Gucci equipment, you said they can't have ATSKNF is because they are self aware and value their own safety! You can't have it both ways Yorkie.

Finally, what is the subtitle about 'why do the always send the poor?' about? I couldn't spot it from the article and again, it is erroneous in both real militaries and 40K - Volpone BLUEBLOODS (the one example I can be arsed to cite) doesn't seem like the poor old poor people being manipulated and used because of their poverty trap and lack of social mobility, to keep the nasty carrion emp on his throne does it? Or is Jeremy Corbyn about to do a stint as a Tau Ethereal?

I think Yorkie is always just offering his own opinion pieces in an interesting why, its not comprehensive, more just what he thinks of ideas in the 41st millenium and how they relate to modern life.

I do think he's right on this though, skulls are a symbol of death, the idea that death is never far away is both true and convenient for the Imperium of Man (and probably true because it's convenient), on every world, including Elysia, human life is cheap. It's always been a central tenant of 40k since the 80s, this is a galaxy where humans are around in their countless trillions working endlessly for the Imperium and yet there are no real luxuries for the common worker, they are downtrodden, abused and lead to believe that their life is cheap.

Therefore it's easy to see how introducing this element, that by dying a matyrs death you can do good, can work. Hell it works now on people who live a relatively (to that of your average worker in the 41st millenium) easy life, you have people in the UK who at worst would have to endure poverty and life on the breadline who instead willingly signing up to earn next to nothing and be sent to die to pad the egos of politicians.
The skull as a symbol of death things is so common that its inclusion in 40k can't be an accident, it is everywhere because "there is only war", death is everywhere, so skulls are everywhere so everyone in that world knows that death is everywhere.

And come on, you know as well as we all do that most soldiers are poor and most officers are from the higher classes, the same is true in the Bluebloods, in the books it's their Officers who are upper class twits (in a satire of WW I generals) and the common soldiery are just that, but have a rather higher opinion of themselves due to the name and reputation of the regiment which tends to get them punched by others. Some of the NCOs of the Bluebloods turned out to be decent people and saw their officers as the ***** they were. The officers were safe out of the way of the battle and so the royals from that planet (like on ours) accepted the social pressure to sign up and do their tour because they knew it was unlikely that they would ever seen any danger, the Bluebloods are actually a perfect example of the rich playing soldiers and letting the poor do the dying.

- - - Updated - - -


I just won't to point out the term useless taxpayer, was used, just think about that for a second.

Essential part of breaking a soldier is convincing them that the people that balk at what they have to do and ask they to be held accountable if they do something bad are just useless tools to allow the armed forces to do what they need to do.

Denzark
12-07-2015, 06:25 PM
The purpose of breaking someone down during recruit training is not simply to enable them to kill. Its not. It is about putting service before self. It is about obeying orders immediately. Note immediately - not unquestioningly - immediately. Sure that order might be to kill. Sometimes it may be 'don't kill'. Sometimes in combat you may see you mate's head get blown off, then all of a sudden, just when you have his killer at your mercy, that killer surrenders. You are expected to stop trying to kill them and give them first aid, in accordance with triage - yes, you might treat them before your own comrades if medically necessary.

But its not purely about killing. No matter how many times you've seen Full Metal Jacket and watched marines shout 'what makes the grass grow' etc it is not purely about killing - that is merely a useful aspect. Basic training is a lot softer now, and the military discipline system a lot laxer, fairer, more sensible in punishments. But even in the old days - the bad old days where recruits were beasted and beaten - figures show as high as 50000 rounds per enemy casualty in WWII. Because people don't want to kill - but the trick of rendering someone to their basic psychological blocks is still just as prevalent today - to get people raised on a diet of x-factor and instant gratification, to conform to something.

The reason I have gone off topic on this is as follows. The idea of a mindless automaton who wants to kill so joins the military, is balls. Similarly the idea that only no-hopers use it as a last chance saloon isn't just wrong - its offensive. For sure some soldiers will be in that position, but by no means a significant proportion.

People come on these forums and say 'GW should do this because I got a 2:2 in business studies from Lancaster Polytechnic' or 'GW's marketing should do that because I run the adverts for the Lincolnshire Echo'. Well I'm coming on this forum and telling you, having been a commissioned officer in the RAF for 15 years, having seen basic training, having served alongside the Army and the Navy in Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan - and finally finding myself at a tri-service establishment delivering basic training - the stereotype being portrayed, is quite simply that - a stereotype. It is an insult to the quality, motivated, self aware young men and women coming through to state that was their only chance in life, and that all we do is teach them to kill people.

I can't be arsed to deconstruct the piece about officers and class with current figures suffice to say in the RAF we send our officers to do the fighting nowadays - all combat aircraft are exclusively crewed by officers. The idea of high class toffs largeing it up in a chateau whilst sending their troops forward to be killed is just Ben Elton/Blackadder bollocks - have a look at the casualty rates amongst 2Lts in Afghanistan, and also amount of decorations won - as a proportion. In the UK Armed Forces leading from the front is inculcated to leaders at all levels, from Lance Corporal upwards.

Luckily, instead of frothing at how uninformed the average civvy is:




Essential part of breaking a soldier is convincing them that the people that balk at what they have to do and ask they to be held accountable if they do something bad are just useless tools to allow the armed forces to do what they need to do.

I just remind myself of Voltaire - 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it'.

Thaldin
12-07-2015, 07:46 PM
I will second what Denzark is saying, as a former military person myself. It's about molding people... so they understand what it means to be an individual, but also a member of a team. Knowing you can trust and rely on your fellow soldiers, that they can trust and count on you... That's what it's about.

Whether it's in combat or in peacetime.

Jewelfox
12-07-2015, 09:55 PM
About humans' skull fetish: There's a part in Kauyon where one of the Tau commanders calls humans "Morbid Ones." It's the most apt name I've seen given to the Imperium's people, and I like to think it's what gue'la means.

Besides that, there's a part in the fluff of one of the terrain datasheets in The Rules which implies human skulls are enshrined in their buildings and stuff, and it's like a "ancestors watching over you" thing. Even if they had a crap job in life, I imagine. :P So it's like, even the workers have a martyrdom culture thing going on.

Military training, what is it for? I'm pretty sure that from the perspective of someone who wants you to die for them, an ethos of honour and self-sacrifice is just a necessary stop on the road between civvy and grave.

YorkNecromancer's writing: I love it. Send more. <3

You could probably cut down on the tangents a little, and if you want to do hobby essays that'd be cool. But I've really loved reading your thoughts about the sociology and "big picture" aspects of 40k, because they're so well thought out and draw on so many useful IRL and fictional parallels. Don't let me down with a future Tau article that has any less care put into it.

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 02:53 AM
The buildings are a bit silly with all the skulls as well.


Wall of matyrs or whatever it's called is ruined by this.

Path Walker
12-08-2015, 03:06 AM
The purpose of breaking someone down during recruit training is not simply to enable them to kill. Its not. It is about putting service before self. It is about obeying orders immediately. Note immediately - not unquestioningly - immediately. Sure that order might be to kill. Sometimes it may be 'don't kill'. Sometimes in combat you may see you mate's head get blown off, then all of a sudden, just when you have his killer at your mercy, that killer surrenders. You are expected to stop trying to kill them and give them first aid, in accordance with triage - yes, you might treat them before your own comrades if medically necessary.

But its not purely about killing. No matter how many times you've seen Full Metal Jacket and watched marines shout 'what makes the grass grow' etc it is not purely about killing - that is merely a useful aspect. Basic training is a lot softer now, and the military discipline system a lot laxer, fairer, more sensible in punishments. But even in the old days - the bad old days where recruits were beasted and beaten - figures show as high as 50000 rounds per enemy casualty in WWII. Because people don't want to kill - but the trick of rendering someone to their basic psychological blocks is still just as prevalent today - to get people raised on a diet of x-factor and instant gratification, to conform to something.

The reason I have gone off topic on this is as follows. The idea of a mindless automaton who wants to kill so joins the military, is balls. Similarly the idea that only no-hopers use it as a last chance saloon isn't just wrong - its offensive. For sure some soldiers will be in that position, but by no means a significant proportion.

People come on these forums and say 'GW should do this because I got a 2:2 in business studies from Lancaster Polytechnic' or 'GW's marketing should do that because I run the adverts for the Lincolnshire Echo'. Well I'm coming on this forum and telling you, having been a commissioned officer in the RAF for 15 years, having seen basic training, having served alongside the Army and the Navy in Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan - and finally finding myself at a tri-service establishment delivering basic training - the stereotype being portrayed, is quite simply that - a stereotype. It is an insult to the quality, motivated, self aware young men and women coming through to state that was their only chance in life, and that all we do is teach them to kill people.

I can't be arsed to deconstruct the piece about officers and class with current figures suffice to say in the RAF we send our officers to do the fighting nowadays - all combat aircraft are exclusively crewed by officers. The idea of high class toffs largeing it up in a chateau whilst sending their troops forward to be killed is just Ben Elton/Blackadder bollocks - have a look at the casualty rates amongst 2Lts in Afghanistan, and also amount of decorations won - as a proportion. In the UK Armed Forces leading from the front is inculcated to leaders at all levels, from Lance Corporal upwards.



Sorry that your conditioning has made you unable to see what your service is actually for. Its also made you dismiss all criticism of the armed forces without taking on board what it's saying, no one mentioned people who wanted to be killers, quite the opposite in fact. I know you will just keep talking about "service before self", or whatever variation of the old idea is currently en vogue, same as every good soldier will. That's part of the idea, you can't fully comprehend the process if you're a part of that process.

Bear in mind that Yorkie, myself, Ben Elton and 40k all were using WWI as a model where that did happen. The generals, who were all upper class toffs, sent thousands to their death everyday for no reason other than a poor grasp of tactics and not caring about casualty rates. This actually happened, it wasn't bollocks.

That doesn't mean that the casualties in all wars since there was such a thing as class inequality have had most casualties come from the working class and often, their deaths are seen as a necessary part of achieving an objective.

CoffeeGrunt
12-08-2015, 05:33 AM
I just won't to point out the term useless taxpayer, was used, just think about that for a second.

Yup. That was a fun comment, because us useless taxpayers are the ones paying for the bloody army...


Wall of matyrs or whatever it's called is ruined by this.

Oh God yes. I really wanted to paint up our local store's one, but there's so many silly corpses all over it that not only make painting a pain, but also looks completely over the top, that I just couldn't be bothered.

On the note of military training, I'm pretty sure that you could take almost any military training through the ages and it would be the same thing of, "we're training you to be independent, resourceful and quick thinking individual! As well as how to kill. Come to us for cameraderie and brotherhood no civilian could experience, see the world! And possibly kill some people there."

Heck, the Reich knew that you could sell love easier than hate, that's why Hitler's speeches all focused on community, and a coming together of the German people. They simply picked out the minorities bit-by-bit as they homed in on what they wanted said community to be. They died defending their Fatherland for that same dream. They were still executing minorities by the truckload for that dream.

Or how the Soviets sold love of their country and demands for vengeance to their soldiers, so they'd die against said Germans by the droves in order to crush the Reich once and for all.

Or how ISIS currently recruits young men from their wish for vengeance, or a need to take control of their home's destiny by attacking the powers they feel are controlling it.

The boots on the ground are rarely wholly evil, but the common thread is that they all kill, and all die, because they believe it's for something far greater, like York has been saying. I've had arguments with service personnel before, and it's a common theme that you've all been conditioned to believe you're truly fighting to defend this country.

You're not. Britain hasn't had to defend itself for decades, and the enemy we're facing now simply laughs at the idea of an army stopping them. The combined forces of the RAF, Navy and Army couldn't do jack to stop the 7/7 bombings, short of putting an armed platoon on every street corner.

So the politicians tell us some other countries' responsible, though the intelligence to back that up is shaky, and you go to attack it because you've been promised that going to fight there keeps us safe.

It isn't. Arguably, d*cking over the Middle East repeatedly has only given us more problems since 9/11.

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 05:39 AM
useless taxpayer

Come on, it's clearly used in the same tone as anyone moaning about bloody customers. Yes they pay for it, but the job would be easier without their input?


Oh God yes. I really wanted to paint up our local store's one, but there's so many silly corpses all over it that not only make painting a pain, but also looks completely over the top, that I just couldn't be bothered.

Yeah, I considered buying one, then I realised the stuff round the base wasn't a conversion. Also not really a fan of the cadian aesthetic and it basically ignores all the other guard types, no matter how limited their current availability.

Cutter
12-08-2015, 05:54 AM
...you can't fully comprehend the process if you're a part of that process.

So, to follow that train of thought, someone who works for GW can't really comment on the business of GW, because they are part of the process?

"Working at Games Workshop

At Games Workshop we are looking for people who will do their best to understand the needs of the company and to put those needs first when they are at work. Because of this we believe that what you are like, hence the attitude you show to work and the way you choose to behave is even more important than your skills or experience."

Service before self?

CoffeeGrunt
12-08-2015, 06:53 AM
Service at a GW or Maccy-Ds is a bit different to service in Helmand, don't you think? I mean, it's pretty demeaning to your own military service to compare it to a retail job. Apples and oranges, y'know? Until GW puts its employees through months of 'rebuilding' before making them sign documentation accepting the possibility you'll die in their service, then you can't really compare them.

Not to mention the fact that GW managers typically have no clue what's happening in the head office where the real decisions are made, and thus as an example actually kinda undermine your point...

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 06:58 AM
*head tilt*

YorkNecromancer
12-08-2015, 07:26 AM
You know, I've got Denzark on block for a reason. But then everyone started quoting him, and I couldn't help but read some of it, and I wasn't going to say a thing and then my eye landed on this crap:


useless taxpayer

Like firefighters? Nurses? Doctors? Teachers? Police?

All of whom are also public servants. All of whom also risk their lives in that service? All of whom keep the nation safe at home while the armed forces are away, serving on foreign shores?

To call them 'useless', I think, reveals more about the mindset (which might be called an arrogant one) that the military drills into its servants than it does anything else.

Of course, I believe I did point out that the military does this in my piece. I said:


The first is the idea of being a protector. They work to convince their neophyte soldiers that through the army’s ministrations, they will become defenders. Of exactly what varies according to cultural and religious beliefs, but mostly? It requires telling the recruit that their actions as a soldier are of real, direct benefit to that soldier’s loved ones.

So, ‘We require you to go to this particular piece of land and attack these people who used to be our allies and to whom we have sold many, many weapons for a variety of reasons including renegotiated trade treaties, the religious factionalism of our allies and the political necessities of making concessions to certain industrial groups who have lobbied hard for this through thirty separate business channels’ becomes ‘You’re keeping your mum safe from bad men who want to kill her.’

This first motivation is enough for a lot of people. After all, who doesn’t want to defend their family? Who doesn’t want to keep their mum safe? Their husband? Their kids?

Who wouldn't feel proud to be a defender? Who wouldn't feel that little bit better than everyone else who doesn't do that? Who wouldn't feel like maybe they deserved special treatment for putting their life on the line in a way that's clearly and fundamentally different from what firefighters, nurses, and the police do? Who wouldn't feel that because they're risking everything, that puts them a step above everyone else who doesn't?


useless taxpayer

I mean, a firefighter running into a burning building... That's obviously materially different to the kind of risks a soldier takes each and every day.


useless taxpayer

Likewise, the nurse who has to talk down knife-wielding drunken fratboys on a Friday night... That's obviously materially different to the kind of risks a soldier takes each and every day.


useless taxpayer

Likewise, the teacher who spends fourteen hours a day, marking and planning and suffering from a stress-related heart attack because all they want is for the young people in their charge to succeed in later life as happy, empowered members of society... (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/01/headteacher-kills-herself) That's obviously materially different to the kind of service a soldier makes each and every day.


useless taxpayer

Likewise, the police officer who has to step out into a world that loathes her each and every day, a world than might kill her at any moment... That's obviously materially different to the kind of risks a soldier takes each and every day. Especially in the UK, where the police don't ordinarily carry guns.


useless taxpayer
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Malala_Yousafzai_at_Girl_Summit_2014.jpg/450px-Malala_Yousafzai_at_Girl_Summit_2014.jpg

useless taxpayer
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg/494px-Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg

useless taxpayer
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/12/6/1386350773511/Stephen-Hawking-010.jpg

useless taxpayer
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Tyson_-_Apollo_40th_anniversary_2009.jpg/565px-Tyson_-_Apollo_40th_anniversary_2009.jpg

useless taxpayer
http://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/longform/stories/sandyhook/img/KaitlynRoig02.jpg

useless taxpayer


The idea of a mindless automaton who wants to kill so joins the military, is balls.

Never said the military were mindless; your Strawman arguments become obvious here.

I never said the military were mindless; I said they'd been reconditioned. That can happen to anyone - geniuses included.

Clever people are better at believing things than stupid ones, because they're better at justifying why they're right. Unless a person questions their beliefs relentlessly, they are quite capable of going through life with all kinds of assumptions.


useless taxpayer

I don't think the vast majority of the military are stupid. I've talked to lots of them. Taught lots of them. Some of them are the cleverest people I know. They're not stupid.

But they are reconditioned.

You can see that because we all know that more than a few soldiers have a hard time fitting back in with civilian life (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/07/why-so-many-ex-soldiers-end-prison).

I think a great many highly intelligent individuals populate the army. I do. But as I also said,


whatever the army chooses to offer the soldiers instead of their life, it has to be attractive

What could be more attractive than seeing yourself as better than literally everyone else in the world?


useless taxpayer

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Cutter
12-08-2015, 07:58 AM
Service at a GW or Maccy-Ds is a bit different to service in Helmand, don't you think?

I do.


I mean, it's pretty demeaning to your own military service to compare it to a retail job.

I didn't, and in any case, my military service isn't the issue.


Apples and oranges, y'know?

Not the only fruit. Quite.


Until GW puts its employees through months of 'rebuilding' before making them sign documentation accepting the possibility you'll die in their service, then you can't really compare them.

Explain the sense and context in which I compared them.


Not to mention the fact that GW managers typically have no clue what's happening in the head office where the real decisions are made, and thus as an example actually kinda undermine your point...

I didn't mention the fact, but since you raise it, what counts as head office for the armed forces?

++

To clarify, CG, the walker of the path asserted that Denzark was in no position to comment on the issue as he is inside the process.

What the process may be is largely irrelevant, it is Denzark's position relative to it that apparently disenfranchises his opinion.

I find this position fascinating.

- - - Updated - - -


Like firefighters? Nurses? Doctors? Teachers? Police?

Today?

Mostly teachers.

I hope you did that on a free period...

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 08:03 AM
Have you never thought teaching would be easier without the kids Yorkie? I know my job would be easier without customer interference...
I think you're all reading too much into it.

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 08:16 AM
I think for next year, like someone else suggested I'd be interested in your take on Xenos.

YorkNecromancer
12-08-2015, 08:47 AM
Today?

Mostly teachers.

I hope you did that on a free period...

After a period of suicidal depression, (including a fairly horrible breakdown in front of my partner) all of it brought about purely by the stress of teaching workload, I elected to put my mental health first.

I now work three days a week instead of five and I can cope with that. It's been three years, and the urge to just end it all doesn't come as often as it did. The panic attacks have mostly subsided too. And I can survive on what I make, just about. But, you know, better that than the alternative.

So no, I didn't do it on a free period. I did it on my own unpaid time.


Have you never thought teaching would be easier without the kids Yorkie? I know my job would be easier without customer interference...
I think you're all reading too much into it.

The kids aren't - and never have been - the problem. The issue is delivering personalised learning for between two-hundred and fifty to three hundred individuals on a daily basis, taking account of their personal strengths, weaknesses, disabilities, gifts, social skills and the general alchemy of the classroom. The workload is, and always has been the issue, especially given the extra hours you're normally expected/guilted into working.

No, the pupils are what makes the job doable. They're why I do the planning, marking, data entry, and the rest.

If a person doesn't enjoy spending time with young people, then what's the point of teaching? You'd have to be an absolute idiot.

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 08:56 AM
Well they were bribing people with a tuition fee wiping scheme weren't they? And then there's the holidays... :D

But yeah definitely not for me...

Cutter
12-08-2015, 09:05 AM
So no, I didn't do it on a free period. I did it on my own unpaid time.

Gold Star.

Alaric
12-08-2015, 09:30 AM
Today?

Mostly teachers.

I hope you did that on a free period...

Damn you I laughed so hard I spit out valuable coffee. No need to be mean to the sensitive snowflake, its like kicking a puppy. Funnily enuff all he had to was say "nope did it on my own time" but then he would miss out on trying to make you feel bad.

And in regards to the post with all the pictures...You should follow your own advice and stop "straw manning" yourself. He made a broad statement yes but when you write "Never said the military were mindless; your Strawman arguments become obvious here." Well. Denzark never said all them people with the pics (whos the blond? shes a looker) were useless either, and yet here you are doing the same thing.

Psychosplodge has the truth of it "I think youre all reading too much into it". Dude just wrote an article (on his own time, lol), one off hand comment aboot the military and it spins outta the atmosphere. And all this entertainment is free...ahahahaha...free!!!*

*with a monthly subscription to your ISP. Taxes may apply. High speed cannot be guaranteed in your area.

YorkNecromancer
12-08-2015, 09:44 AM
Well they were bribing people with a tuition fee wiping scheme weren't they? And then there's the holidays... :D

But yeah definitely not for me...

I think you mean 'holidays'.

Although yeah, those six unpaid weeks in summer are undeniably wonderful. Only time you get to stop and be yourself for a bit. :)

Not sure about that many people responded to those bribes. Especially given that since 2010, the average teaching career has fallen from three years in length to two. Nowadays it's a case of sign up, do your ITT year, do your NQT year, go 'this career is horrible and insane; who works this many hours a week for this little money?', then quit. Most seriously long-term teachers I know (7 years+ and yes, I know that's not a long-term career, but here we are) seem to be going part-time to cope with the stress. A friend sat down and worked out that for the hours he was working, on his mid-range salary, he was basically making just barely minimum wage.

*sigh*

I love the job, but I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone any more.

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 09:47 AM
You might be right there. The people I vaguely know who I heard talking about them at things, I don't think one of them finished the five years required.

Cutter
12-08-2015, 09:54 AM
And all this entertainment is free...ahahahaha...free!!!.

I came for the food, I stay for the floor show.

YorkNecromancer
12-08-2015, 10:01 AM
You might be right there. The people I vaguely know who I heard talking about them at things, I don't think one of them finished the five years required.

Yeah. Kind of makes me sad. :(

It was when it turned out that I'd been teaching longer than anyone in my department. That blew my mind, 'cause I've only been teaching 13 years, which is nothing compared to the kind of career lengths that were in the career when I started. But all the old guard are taking early retirement, and everyone else is just getting the f**k out.

Psychosplodge
12-08-2015, 10:08 AM
Be running the place soon then...

completeHook
12-08-2015, 10:11 AM
I know poetry programmes on Radio 4 might not be everyone's thing but this was on recently.

It touches on quite a few of the bigger more serious topics being discussed here and offers a very interesting perspective and some quite moving poetry.

They say about it on their site;


In recent years, the US Air Force has been training more drone operators than aircraft pilots. BBC Radio 4 gets inside the mind of poet Lynn Hill, Air Force veteran and former drone operator whose poetry opens up the alien soul of 21st century warfare.

Lynn Hill was an active participant in both Iraq and Afghanistan. She played a pivotal role in operations, but hasn't set foot in either country. She spent much of her military career flying Predator drones, gathering intelligence and firing missiles remotely some 12,000 miles away - from a central station in Las Vegas.
...

Her brilliant poetry talks of the difficult task of separating her real life from her war life. About hate and insanity, violence and nihilism. About dreams and being involved in war via a screen. About seeing yourself in the third person. About some of the very serious problems faced by her 21st century war colleagues - divorce, alcohol, psychiatric illness, crises of identity.

This is another world - a world drowning in radio chatter and computer noises, a hermetically-sealed dome of virtual warfare. The sound of Hill's spare, personal, razor-sharp poetry illustrates life for her and other young women who've played this uniquely modern combat role.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qgp5p

As for why all the skulls -

I think a lot of it is just a turbo charged, horn flinging version of of the macabre stuff you find in churches across the Catholic bits of Europe. When I was at Primary school we would be taken to the local monastery and the highlight was St Simon Stock's skull, under a cloth viewed through a tiny tinted window in the reliquary, very safe and very English.

By contrast I remember being in the other Cathedral in Sienna and there was the rotten arm of some saint in a glass casket just up on the wall, didn't even have it's own chapel. The dome of the Duomo in Florence features some very anatomically detailed rotting corpses as a sort of framing device. The catacombs under Paris need to be visited to be believed, corridors packed floor to ceiling with neatly stacked bones, occasionally opening onto small chapels with bone alters, devices like hearts and crosses picked out in skulls set into walls of stacked long bones.

In Britain so much of the morbid medieval weirdness was lost to fits of iconoclasm in the 16th and 17th centuries. That was before the Victorians decided that the Gothic architecture they had didn't look the way they thought it should so they made it "better". Before the internet made everything boring and you could fly anywhere in Europe for the price of a night out in a restaurant the contrast between the jumper and sandals safeness of Britain's ancient ecclesiastical buildings the technicolour hellscapes and human remains as decoration found on the continent was thrillingly different and exotic.*

My reading of it is GW's skull fetish owes more to the founders love of Iron Maiden and interest in history and old buildings, the needz moar skullz aesthetic has just been been an evolution of this. As nobody once said, sometimes hundreds of superfluous skulls are just skulls.

*I am aware this is a minority view.

Haighus
12-08-2015, 02:29 PM
Bear in mind that Yorkie, myself, Ben Elton and 40k all were using WWI as a model where that did happen. The generals, who were all upper class toffs, sent thousands to their death everyday for no reason other than a poor grasp of tactics and not caring about casualty rates. This actually happened, it wasn't bollocks.
This is mostly true, but the part I have emphasised is certainly arguable. Casualty rates especially definitely mattered, and the commanders cared about them; it is a grim truth of WWI that the allies won because they didn't run out of things to throw at their enemies before the Central powers did. The issue with the 'poor grasp of tactics' argument is that it is very easy to look back at that now with modern tactics and say that is the case, when in the actual situation, they had to literally create the tactics in the first place. And they did- a total of 4 years to change from a method of warfare used for centuries to the combined arms approach used today, was a very steep learning curve. The bulk of that learning happened from 1916 onwards too, from the beginning of the Somme for the British. It wasn't just men walking into machine gun fire.

Denzark
12-08-2015, 03:07 PM
This is mostly true, but the part I have emphasised is certainly arguable. Casualty rates especially definitely mattered, and the commanders cared about them; it is a grim truth of WWI that the allies won because they didn't run out of things to throw at their enemies before the Central powers did. The issue with the 'poor grasp of tactics' argument is that it is very easy to look back at that now with modern tactics and say that is the case, when in the actual situation, they had to literally create the tactics in the first place. And they did- a total of 4 years to change from a method of warfare used for centuries to the combined arms approach used today, was a very steep learning curve. The bulk of that learning happened from 1916 onwards too, from the beginning of the Somme for the British. It wasn't just men walking into machine gun fire.

A lot of people will disregard the fact that the 1918 campaign once the trench deadlock was broken, represents an excellent example of manouevrist warfare. Planned by a chap called Haig I believe. But clearly talking from a classist leftist dialogue without even knowing what the manouevrist approach is, allows you to disputes this with no facts.

Haighus
12-08-2015, 03:11 PM
There was also significant development in small unit tactics (well, they were developed from not having small unit tactics before hand), suppressive rather than destructive artillery fire, aircraft reconnaissance, and emphasis of tactical initiative of field commanders. There was significant development in this just between the beginning and the end of the Somme, but it was pretty finely honed by the time the trench deadlock was broken.

Denzark
12-08-2015, 04:55 PM
You know, I've got Denzark on block for a reason. But then everyone started quoting him, and I couldn't help but read some of it, and I wasn't going to say a thing and then my eye landed on this crap:



Like firefighters? Nurses? Doctors? Teachers? Police

Regrettably am on mobile for a week so hard to reply. Yorkie has me on ignore for the same reason a load of students recently walked out on Katie Hopkins instead of staying to debate her in open forum-specificLly, that their (hugely left wing) agenda lacks the intellectual rigour to do so, and resorts to cliche and ideological dogma. Like the shadow chancellor quoting chairman Mao in parliament- a paedophile mass murderer who surpressed the most populous country of the world. I don't know how again he conflates 'useless taxpayer' into referring to other public servants, as the are (mostly) not who join the military especially the infantry. Neither do I know what Stephen Hawkins et al have to do with it- to my knowledge none of them have tried to join the military so again, irrelevant waffle.

- - - Updated - - -

And it's worth me going that my wife is a teacher so I know a little something about that- she has also, as a TA officer, served in Iraq. I wonder if path walker would think she isn't qualified to talk about basic training, or only when she's in uniform?

grimmas
12-09-2015, 01:18 AM
Hmm whole thing feels like 40K has been squeezed into a political rant rather than an article about 40K.

I think quite a few need to stop using Blackadder goes Forth as the basis for their "facts" about the Great War. So very briefly

The tactics have been shown to actually be the best available at the time. Real modern military commanders have said this.

The ruling class actually suffered far more casualties proportionally than the working in fact this was the case generally up to this point as fighting wars/ protecting their subjects was pretty much the job of the nobility.

The Great War is considered the death, both literally and figuratively of the traditional ruling classes in both the UK and Germany and certainly the making of the working classes in the UK, as a class they actually came out of it healthier (the army fed them better) richer (the army paid them better) and more relevant (a power vacuum existed due to all the dead toffs)

Modern military training in the UK focuses very little on "doing it for your country " it actually focuses on fostering a bond between individual soldiers in a unit it's all about personal loyalty rather than loyalty to some concept. Also and I'm sure that Denzark will agree a lot more time and effort goes into not getting shot than it does into killing people. They even tell you "it's the other guy's job to die for his country". Far from being brainwashed killing tools the British army is a collection of cynical professionals it's why the US army doesn't like to leave home without them.

On the subject of all the Skulls completehook is absolutely correct.

CSM are in the whole very much NOT about dying for their gods, most of them Horus and Abbadon included don't even worship them. I fact the ones that do only do so really for the chance of immortality and ultimate power, something which the Gods of Chaos do actually provide (all be it sparingly)!and the emperor doesn't.

Also if people are on your ignore list you're supposed to be ignoring them telling people and going on about it makes you look like a passive aggressive prat.!

Fist of Dorn
12-09-2015, 04:39 AM
At the risk of de-railing this thread, I couldn't help but notice how few skulls there are on the BaC sprues, I'd need to check to be sure but I think it's less than a dozen !

CoffeeGrunt
12-09-2015, 05:40 AM
I think the mockery of WWII tactics is born from the same historical ignorance as the everlasting, "haha, French people can't fight," 'joke' born from the Battle of France in WWII. It's historically ignorant because people simply don't realise how much the nature of war had been changed by Germany in that opening round of the war.

Tanks, to the British and French, were lumbering beasts like the Matilda and Char Bis. Tough ol' girls that didn't move much and could take a beating, typically deployed in ones or twos with infantry support because the game after WWI was small numbers of tanks engaging each other, so the Char Bis and Matilda with their big guns and tough armour were the best at that. Warfare was still quite static, so the Maginot Line was built to be an impenetrable shell, were Germany to use the same kinds of tactics they used in WWI.

So when Germany developed the lighter Panzer tanks, deployed them in armoured fists and moved at speed through a gap in the Maginot Line that was forested and impassable to Allied tanks, the French had no bloody idea they were under attack until the Germans were already in their country. A significant portion of their army was sitting on the Maginot Line with their thumbs up their backsides, while Rommel pushed his tanks at speed across France, sweeping across Normandy and shoving the British into the Channel. He moved so fast and at such speed that French command were issuing fallback orders to already overwhelmed units, to locations already under Wehrmacht control.

Heck, the country fell in a month and 15 days. A whole country. It was utterly unthinkable at the time, especially with the long, slow attrition of WWI in such recent memory. So many in this country mock the French for it, but if it weren't for the Channel, Britain would probably have been swept as well in a follow-up campaign. It was only because we managed to make it a game of air-to-air combat that we ever had a chance. If we'd faced the Wehrmacht combined arms approach as France did...well, history would be very different.

Sorry for the rant, just a pet peeve of mine.

Cutter
12-09-2015, 09:34 AM
Sorry for the rant, just a pet peeve of mine.

No worries CG, we all have our peeves, domesticated and wild.

Now, any responses to the questions posed in #24?

- - - Updated - - -


I love the job, but I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone any more.

I think that's why they call it a vocation.

You're not alone though, as Auntie gleefully points out today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35027818

Haighus
12-10-2015, 11:39 AM
I think the mockery of WWII tactics is born from the same historical ignorance as the everlasting, "haha, French people can't fight," 'joke' born from the Battle of France in WWII. It's historically ignorant because people simply don't realise how much the nature of war had been changed by Germany in that opening round of the war.

Tanks, to the British and French, were lumbering beasts like the Matilda and Char Bis. Tough ol' girls that didn't move much and could take a beating, typically deployed in ones or twos with infantry support because the game after WWI was small numbers of tanks engaging each other, so the Char Bis and Matilda with their big guns and tough armour were the best at that. Warfare was still quite static, so the Maginot Line was built to be an impenetrable shell, were Germany to use the same kinds of tactics they used in WWI.

So when Germany developed the lighter Panzer tanks, deployed them in armoured fists and moved at speed through a gap in the Maginot Line that was forested and impassable to Allied tanks, the French had no bloody idea they were under attack until the Germans were already in their country. A significant portion of their army was sitting on the Maginot Line with their thumbs up their backsides, while Rommel pushed his tanks at speed across France, sweeping across Normandy and shoving the British into the Channel. He moved so fast and at such speed that French command were issuing fallback orders to already overwhelmed units, to locations already under Wehrmacht control.

Heck, the country fell in a month and 15 days. A whole country. It was utterly unthinkable at the time, especially with the long, slow attrition of WWI in such recent memory. So many in this country mock the French for it, but if it weren't for the Channel, Britain would probably have been swept as well in a follow-up campaign. It was only because we managed to make it a game of air-to-air combat that we ever had a chance. If we'd faced the Wehrmacht combined arms approach as France did...well, history would be very different.

Sorry for the rant, just a pet peeve of mine.

I think most of the mockery at the time though was from the lack of determination shown by the French government, not by the French people. It was the government that capitulated when more than half of their country was still in their control, and when the majority of their fleet, most of their colonial assets and a significant chunk of their army was also intact. Paris fell, and the government decided to stop all combat with Germany, rather than retreat south into deeper France, and even to it's colonies and become a government in exile as many of the other European countries did. It was the capitulation of the French government that surprised Britain most too- the BEF actually landed in the south of France again after Dunkirk expecting to rendezvous with French forces, and had to evacuate again when it became clear France was surrendering.

Lexington
12-12-2015, 01:17 PM
Hell of an article, York.

One thing that complicates this idea, for 40K, at least, is that the forces of the Imperium, the Craftworlds, the Tau and etc. really do provide a front line of protection for their societies against an endlessly cruel and predatory universe. There's Orks and Tyranids and Commorragites out there that really will fall on an undefended world and murder it in a thousand increasingly horrible ways. There is an element of heroism to the Astartes, the Guard, etc. It's a universe where you can at least argue that the brutal repression of humanity is done for good reasons. It's not for nothing that 40K has a notable following among the scariest corners of proudly-fascist right-wingerdom - it's a proper metaphor for the real world, far as they're concerned.


And his War Boys stay loyal to him because they believe his lies wholeheartedly. They don’t even know they’re lies, because there are no conflicting opinions.
One of the countless little worldbuilding notes that I love in this movie is how well it portrays this idea. At first, Nux doesn't even grasp that there could be other worldviews out there. There's no need to perpetuate his worldview through argument or even violence, because he doesn't even know that it's possible to see thing any other way. Immortan Joe, Valhalla, etc. - it's just how things are, and he expects everyone else just knows this


Looking back at what I've done, I hadn't noticed that I hadn't really touched on the various Xenos species. Huh. Right then, I'll give it some thought and maybe try for a column or two looking at them...
If you don't have it already, I can't recommend the classic White Dwarf 127 enough. It's famous for introducing the Craftworld Eldar as we know them today, and about 90% of it gets re-printed every time there's a new Eldar Codex. There's a series of Bill King vignettes in there that I haven't seen anywhere else, and they're vital. It's a really amazing look at an Aspect Warrior's psychology, and how the purpose of the Path isn't just to make an Eldar into an efficient killing machine, but also how it keeps them from feeling the crushing loss of friends in battle, so long as they're encased in their Aspect armor. Sounds like something you might be interested in. ;)

Also, because somehow, this hasn't been part of the thread yet...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

JamesP
12-12-2015, 03:00 PM
One thing that complicates this idea, for 40K, at least, is that the forces of the Imperium, the Craftworlds, the Tau and etc. really do provide a front line of protection for their societies against an endlessly cruel and predatory universe. There's Orks and Tyranids and Commorragites out there that really will fall on an undefended world and murder it in a thousand increasingly horrible ways. There is an element of heroism to the Astartes, the Guard, etc. It's a universe where you can at least argue that the brutal repression of humanity is done for good reasons. It's not for nothing that 40K has a notable following among the scariest corners of proudly-fascist right-wingerdom - it's a proper metaphor for the real world, far as they're concerned.

Indeed. And it's not just external enemies either, nor just the traditional enemies within and without (i.e. heretics and Chaos) - evolution itself is out to get the human species.

Rogue Trader onwards has made it clear that humanity is evolving into a psychic species and that the incidence of psychically-capable humans will increase with every generation. But, as we also know from the oldest versions of 40k background onwards, most psykers are too weak and/or lacking in control to be anything but a danger to humanity. They will naturally attract warp predators ("My mind has awoken! I can move objects through sheer willpower! I can read the minds of others! A giant transdimensional space wasp has just burst out of my head! Agh!"), be exploited by heretics, be possessed by daemons, be the cause of massive unrest, rioting, purges and literal witch hunts because everyone fears psykers, etc. etc.

Even without alien armies and raiders, internal dissent, even without the ever-present Ruinous powers in the warp, the universe would still be out to get humanity through evolution. Nascent psykers would be born in greater and greater numbers, and the majority of them will be too weak and/or uncontrolled to be anything but a danger. Alternatively, in a less grim dark far future, humanity may fight its way through these evolutionary pressures and successfully develop giant transdimensional space wasp-based economy.

The 40k universe has also evolved endearingly cute killer squirrels (https://sho3box.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/ptera-squirrel/) and man-eating face flannels/ towels (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Catachan_Face-Eater). I rest my case :)

YorkNecromancer
12-13-2015, 12:21 PM
Hmm whole thing feels like 40K has been squeezed into a political rant rather than an article about 40K.

I think almost every work of art ever created is political in some way, but people only tend to notice when their politics are at odds with the creator's. Pointing out that the article is a political argument, is, after all, a political argument of its own.

The aim of my article was to express my personal opinions on the prevalence of skull iconography in the Imperium. Given that - assuming one prefers to look at things more deeply that ''cuz it's kewl', which I do - that prevelance is due to the Imperium's unique brand of hyper-violent theocratic fascism... Well, after a bit, taking one political viewpoint or another becomes both inevitable and unavoidable.

grimmas
12-13-2015, 01:01 PM
I think almost every work of art ever created is political in some way, but people only tend to notice when their politics are at odds with the creator's. Pointing out that the article is a political argument, is, after all, a political argument of its own.

The aim of my article was to express my personal opinions on the prevalence of skull iconography in the Imperium. Given that - assuming one prefers to look at things more deeply that ''cuz it's kewl', which I do - that prevelance is due to the Imperium's unique brand of hyper-violent theocratic fascism... Well, after a bit, taking one political viewpoint or another becomes both inevitable and unavoidable.

Yeah that's fair enough I was being a bit tired and grumpy (trials of having a baby). Let's face I knew what I should be expecting from one of your articles and it was pretty good so I apologise for the grumpiness. I also liked that you drew parallels with Stalinist facisism which I felt has always fitted better with the Imperium than the "Space ****" comparison.

Edit, Well blow me why is that word censored?

YorkNecromancer
12-13-2015, 03:42 PM
Let's face I knew what I should be expecting from one of your articles

What can I tell you? I'm from the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. :)

And, to misquote Wilde, I gotta be me. Everyone else is taken.


and it was pretty good so I apologise for the grumpiness.

Well, thank you. :)

You're very kind to say so. :)


I also liked that you drew parallels with Stalinist facism which I felt has always fitted better with the Imperium than the "Space ****" comparison.

I'll be honest: I don't see (and never have, actually) any difference between Stalinist Russia and Adolf's Germany. There's no discernable difference between the two, because ultimately, they were both despicable Totalitarian states. Ultra-right or ultra-left wing; it makes no difference.

I think the problem you get is that the media paints all left-wingers as wobbly-headed idiots, and Russian Communism remains an easy way to do so. "Look at those crazy Socialists! They're all like Stalin!"

Yes. of course they are. And all right-wingers are like Dylann Roof, all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church, and blah blah blah.

Heaven forfend we actually have some f**king nuance in our conversation.

Psychosplodge
12-14-2015, 03:35 AM
What can I tell you? I'm from the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. :)


Shhh don't use that title anymore it scares off investment :D

grimmas
12-14-2015, 06:09 AM
I'll be honest: I don't see (and never have, actually) any difference between Stalinist Russia and Adolf's Germany. There's no discernable difference between the two, because ultimately, they were both despicable Totalitarian states. Ultra-right or ultra-left wing; it makes no difference.


Well they were certainly very similar, the political spectrum is really a horseshoe shape rather than a line Of course. In the end it could be argued that is what happens when a country is led into a Total War by a lunatic and the Idiological drivers are largely irrevellvant. I'd very much agree that the end result is almost indistinguishable however the path taken to get there although similar did possess significant differences.

Although in the context of 40K it's the difference in practical military approach that the difference is most significant. The Imperium's military approach is much more that of Soviet Russian than German during The War.

I'd also agree about media carry on about left and right wing politics, they also frequently get it wrong labelling left ideas as right ones or liberal points as right and so on. It's a bit of a pain really. It's why the wife has banned me from watching the news before bed 😳.

CoffeeGrunt
12-14-2015, 06:18 AM
Yeah, the tactical doctrine of the Imperial Guard is especially reminiscent of Stalin's Russia. Get your men, get a f*cktonne of them. Give them the simplest, cheapest, but most rugged kit so they're minimally equipped to do their job, and throw them at the enemy. If you're feeling kind, give them the support of tonnes of cheap, relatively reliable tanks and aircraft, along with volley after volley of inaccurate and brutal artillery fire.

I mean, why hasn't the Imperium got a Katyusha-esque artillery piece yet? It's very much their doctrine to pour a volley of missiles inaccurately over a city block to bring it all down. :P

Haighus
12-14-2015, 02:18 PM
A vehicle that fires off it's entire payload in one volley, but with horrible accuracy? Could be called the Banshee, because of the scream of the rocket launch.

CoffeeGrunt
12-15-2015, 04:09 AM
I've seen Katyusha counts-as for Manticores, but I think it'd make a cool Valhallan Wyvern, given that you could say that he crew reload the tubes between volleys.

Mr Mystery
12-15-2015, 04:21 AM
Going back the skulls...Yorkie more or less nailed it.

It's a grim reminder that only in death does duty end. But more, a promise you will be venerated in death. You will be remembered.

Given the crushing bleakness of the 41st Millenium, few can expect anything at all out of life except an invariably unpleasant death. So why not make it count for something? Pick up your Lasgun, and give the dirty Xenos what-five, as best you can. It doesn't matter that you died. It only matters that you fought.

Cutter
12-15-2015, 05:41 AM
Going back the skulls...Yorkie more or less nailed it.

It's a grim reminder that only in death does duty end. But more, a promise you will be venerated in death. You will be remembered.

Given the crushing bleakness of the 41st Millenium, few can expect anything at all out of life except an invariably unpleasant death. So why not make it count for something? Pick up your Lasgun, and give the dirty Xenos what-five, as best you can. It doesn't matter that you died. It only matters that you fought.

So, as entertaining and diverting as Yorkie's article might be, it doesn't strike you as an ex post facto rationalisation of a design aesthetic rooted in a design studio of boys making toys for boys in an environment saturated in heavy metal and motorcycles in the late 80s?

Mr Mystery
12-15-2015, 05:47 AM
In a word?

No.

My post above is what GW has said pretty much since the get-go. Imperial Citizens would be quite used to it. There's for the most part is a world of entropy and decay (you can tell the GW guys grew up in post-Imperial Britain as we entered post-industrial. It's such an obvious influence)

Cutter
12-15-2015, 06:44 AM
In a word?

Or four.


No.

Just checking.


My post above is what GW has said pretty much since the get-go.

The RT get-go? Since you bring it up I'd still be interested in that WD article you touted that introduced 40k before it was a thing.

Got an issue number for me yet?


(you can tell the GW guys grew up in post-Imperial Britain as we entered post-industrial.

Didn't we all ducky.


It's such an obvious influence)

Totes.

Mr Mystery
12-15-2015, 07:06 AM
Rogue Trader apparently first showed up in WD93, pages 33-44.

However, I used to have an older WD, issue number unknown, which introduced sci-fi elements to Warhammer. So pre-WD93.

Cutter
12-15-2015, 07:17 AM
Rogue Trader apparently first showed up in WD93, pages 33-44.

However, I used to have an older WD, issue number unknown, which introduced sci-fi elements to Warhammer. So pre-WD93.

Must be pre 53, that's when I started, but I have access to earlier.

Mr Mystery
12-15-2015, 07:23 AM
Shouldn't think it's that far back?

They also mentioned it in one of the anniversary White Dwarfs - started out as a loose series of articles, then got developed into Rogue Trader.

I'm sure I've seen some of those issues. Sure of it.

Cutter
12-15-2015, 07:40 AM
Shouldn't think it's that far back?

They also mentioned it in one of the anniversary White Dwarfs - started out as a loose series of articles, then got developed into Rogue Trader.

I'm sure I've seen some of those issues. Sure of it.

First 40k article I can recall from memory was the Rynn's World scenario, which may well be 93. In the 40 odd issues I have pre that I don't remember any sci-fi shenanigans for the whamster in the Dwarf. There were amazonians with bolt guns in the Second Citadel Compendium, but that was about it.

16711

- - - Updated - - -


First 40k article I can recall from memory was the Rynn's World scenario, which may well be 93. In the 40 odd issues I have pre that I don't remember any sci-fi shenanigans for the whamster in the Dwarf. There were amazonians with bolt guns in the Second Citadel Compendium, but that was about it.

16711

++

But given I don't have to bother with those issues pre the release of Warhammer, shouldn't take long to nail down.

Thinking of the old compendiums I recall the first ad for RT when it looked like it was going to be their own take on Traveller.

16712

It was a happier time...

++

And finely handcrafted miniatures cost 40p, not £20.

Couldn't resist.

Kirsten
12-19-2015, 04:41 PM
fantastic blog, spot on.

I properly Lol-ed when Denzark said soldiers are not for killing, given that is the exact opposite of an argument we previously had. in which he said women could not be front line troops because the army is for killing and nothing else.

Haighus
12-20-2015, 06:56 AM
It's a grim reminder that only in death does duty end.
In 40k, even this isn't a guarantee as you get turned into a servo-skull. Then you can serve for millennia! Hmm, perhaps that is why it is a reward for faithful servants, as then they will always be remembered and useful, long after their death.

Mr Mystery
12-20-2015, 07:31 AM
Yup.

I'm also reminded of an old short story.

Imperial Guard are holding their position against a Tyranid Swarm. They're holding on, but only just. Given the intrinsic horror of how Tyranids kill you, morale is wavering. Their Colonel (possibly Comissar?) knows what to do. He points to streaks of light in the sky. He explains to his men that more Tyranids are coming. There's no escape. They could run, but the planet is lost. They can either stand and die here, fighting to the last, or run. Find somewhere to hole up. Spend their last hours in the sure and certain knowledge the Tyranids will find them....

His forces redouble their efforts, selling themselves dearly.

And then? They day is won. Those streaks in the sky were Astartes drop pods. The Astartes took out the leader beasts, causing the swarm to break up, the space battle already won.

He knew that when a man, however well trained, has something to live for, he might abandon his post. But take that away, and you're left with vengeance alone. The sure and certain knowledge that this is your time lends a psychotic strength - enough to hold back the swarm until its head is cut off.

Continuous reminders of their duty and mortality reinforce this. Wall of Martyrs? Leave the uniform on the corpses. Let your warriors know the names of those who have previously given their lives to protect the Imperium...

Kirsten
12-20-2015, 08:20 AM
that was the Last Chancers, the commissar character I think, he knows it is marines incoming, but he tells them it is more nids

Mr Mystery
12-20-2015, 08:24 AM
Ahh, I see.

Kirsten
12-20-2015, 08:33 AM
you are completely right about his reasoning, he knows they will give up and run if they think somebody else might do the fighting, but if they think there is no hope, they fight all the harder

Denzark
12-28-2015, 07:08 AM
fantastic blog, spot on.

I properly Lol-ed when Denzark said soldiers are not for killing, given that is the exact opposite of an argument we previously had. in which he said women could not be front line troops because the army is for killing and nothing else.

Kirsten you really are a gift that keeps on giving.

looked back through my posts, I can't spot a single one that says 'soldiers are not for killing' I have stated that BASIC TRAINING is not just about teaching people to kill. Likewise, I very much doubt you can find a quote where I have said women can't be frontline troops - they already are. What I may have expressed misgivings for is female infantry (and/or combat troops ie tanks) - not front line troops. 2 very different things.

The fact you can't differentiate between the nuances of both arguments shows us why it is worthless listening to you on this subject.

Hyperion
02-01-2016, 07:07 PM
Finding your way around an Imperial city must be an absolute *******! "Yeah, mate, turn right at the hab block with all the skulls on it, you can't miss it"