Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Recommended Posts

By Sigmar, if I never see or hear anyone say, "SJW" again it will be too soon. What an obvious little dog-whistle.

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

The following is simply an attempt to present an alternative opinion and is not aimed at any individual - I mean every word of it but please read it in the light hearted way it was written - unless you are a crazy political activist/SJW - in which case get triggered and enjoy your self righteous indignation at my expense. 

I agree its great to see some more variety above the scantily clad warrior princess trope but at the same time I would hate to see it disappear.  I mean we have Dwarves wearing thongs - and more buff topless dudes than you can shake a copy "Mens Health" at. I don't hear this being discussed as GW's attempt to attract more players who are  ****** men - or persons of short stature. Why is it important that the female warriors are covered up and not the male ones? If I was a woman I think I would find it utterly patronising to have a bunch of men deciding that all the female models need to be sculpted according to the prevailing left wing political views of the time.

Personally I like scantily clad warrior princesses and I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed to admit it. Is there really anyone out there that thinks a woman that kicks ass wearing  overalls is cooler than a woman that kicks ass wearing a bikini? really? I work in medical procurement and recommend a number of adheshive products for reattaching someones testicles.... 

Its a wargame! Gender politics and social diversity are about as relevant to it as an umbrella catalogue is to a haddock. I say this repeatedly, but its hilarious how we are quite happy to accept themes of murder, genocide, human sacrifice, torture & cannibalism but the minute a game is seen to depict a woman fighting in a short skirt everybody gets all outraged about the injustices of society! 

As for Becca Scott - she is professional both in her presentation and in the delivery of the material - unlike most of the warhammer community team who look like they were pulled in from the local homeless shelter and given a clean t-shirt and who's media experience probably doesn't extend much further than owning a Facebook account. 

I'm glad they gave her a job :) I'd give her one :) 

 

 

 

It all depends on the context, doesn't it? A female Khorne warrior should be light on clothes, while a Stormcast female should show as little as the males do.

Usually the problem with "bikini armor" is that the male counterpart barely shows any skin.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tenshi said:

It all depends on the context, doesn't it? A female Khorne warrior should be light on clothes, while a Stormcast female should show as little as the males do.

Usually the problem with "bikini armor" is that the male counterpart barely shows any skin.

Bildergebnis für bikini armour comic strip

  • Like 3
  • Haha 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

The following is simply an attempt to present an alternative opinion and is not aimed at any individual - I mean every word of it but please read it in the light hearted way it was written - unless you are a crazy political activist/SJW - in which case get triggered and enjoy your self righteous indignation at my expense.

Oh, same here, so do take this in the same light-hearted spirit, but throwing around hostile language and derogatory political terms doesn't become any less toxic however many thin and/or contradictory disclaimers you couch it in. :) :)

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Urauloth said:

Oh, same here, so do take this in the same light-hearted spirit, but throwing around hostile language and derogatory political terms doesn't become any less toxic however many thin and/or contradictory disclaimers you couch it in. :) :)

Being passive - aggresive doesn't help either. This is a good thread, we shouldn't drag it down with personal arguments. Let us stay on point. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it lasted longer than on any other places of the Internet but..... here we are again :

DON'T
BRING
POLITICS
INTO OUR HOBBY

I've seen enough endless debates about Star Wars or Warhammer Adventures in the past few months (with the awfully bad American political climate in the background) to know where this is going (even if it starts with well intentioned / documented posters such as @Enoby or @CaptainNippon) .

Please don't go further down that road :) Also, on topic : 

11 hours ago, MOMUS said:

The reason Becca was hired is because it was a good business move for GW, they didn't just roll a dice for the geek n sundry cast and then hire who came up.

I think it's a good move, new fresh presenter, someone outside the company, someone who is part of another community and somone who is female.

AoS2 is a real polished product in every way compared to AoS1 and it's good to see the design choices extend into all aspects.

That's an excellent summary of Games Workshop's latest marketing decision. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Screwface said:

I think that a diverse community of fundamentally decent people has benefits over a homogenous community of fundamentally decent people. I think it's good for people to learn about the "other". 

I think learning about the "other" is an overall, general good thing that is healthy for the development of an individual. I'll not argue against that.

I also think that an open an accepting hobby environment that doesn't, for lack of a better phrase, "give a darn" about your age, gender, or color of skin is a good thing.

I just don't happen to think that forced diversity in a group of hobbyists is inherently better than not having it, nor do I think we need to make every... single...aspect of our lives a platform for social change.

I'm thrilled as hell that my gf is a keen hobbyist. I love that my good friends's wife supports him painting toys and running events. It's fantastic that another friend's daughter has a dedicated hobby room.

It's just that I don't care, at all, that these people are women, and making our hobby the next battleground for Social Justice Warriors to fight upon is not something I want to encourage.

Yes, please, come one come all, but if we have to artificially warp the experience to make it fit the "all" it's going to be tedious at best and damaging to the nature of the experience at worst.

 

As a super simplified example of what I mean, take the long wished for 40k movie. When I was in GW sales, many years ago, we asked our overlords why we didn't have a big Hollywood movie. The response was perfect and still fits today. They said:

"Imagine a squad of terminators assaulting an Ork fortress. The sergeant leads the squad into the thick of battle, ripping limbs from orks and blasting grots by the dozens. The sergeant reaches the warboss and there is this epic battle between the two. The Marine finally decapitates the warboss. One of the other terminators calls out "well done, sir!" The camera zooms in on the head of the sergeant, who removes his helmet ... to reveal Sharon Stone, who says "well done, ma'am, you mean."

No.

It's not that women cannot lead or fight. They do often in the real world and even in GW fiction (kick butt, Neferata, Tamra, and Blacktallon). It's that Space Marines are male but Hollywood would change that in order to force diversity and sell tickets. It's perfectly ok that there are no female Space Marines or male Sisters of Battle in this fiction, but some folks would see that changed simply to force an agenda or to look "enlightened."

Edited by Sleboda
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just... so baffled by how anyone could even be the slightest bit upset about any of this, any of this "forced diversity" if that's what we insist on calling it. On Bell of Lost Souls, people made posts panting like dogs at Ms. Scott. On Twitter today, some troglodyte thought he knew better than Gav Thorpe about what would "ruin" the hobby. On Reddit, people get uppity about having a girl with pink hair and a black guy in the new comic. Let's not even mention the commotion by a lot of crybabies about Warhammer Adventures.

The politics (and everything is political in one way or another) of Warhammer are interesting to think about and discuss. I see no reason not to discuss them, other than worrying about offending thin-skinned reactionaries.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I think learning about the "other" is an overall, general good thing that is healthy for the development of an individual. I'll not argue against that.

I also think that an open an accepting hobby environment that doesn't, for lack of a better phrase, "give a darn" about your age, gender, or color of skin is a good thing.

I just don't happen to think that forced diversity in a group of hobbyists is inherently better than not having it, nor do I think we need to make every... single...aspect of our lives a platform for social change.

I'm thrilled as hell that my gf is a keen hobbyist. I love that my good friends's wife supports him painting toys and running events. It's fantastic that another friend's daughter has a dedicated hobby room.

It's just that I don't care, at all, that these people are women, and making our hobby the next battleground for Social Justice Warriors to fight upon is not something I want to encourage.

Yes, please, come one come all, but if we have to artificially warp the experience to make it fit the "all" it's going to be tedious at best and damaging to the nature of the experience at worst.

 

As a super simplified example of what I mean, take the long wished for 40k movie. When I was in GW sales, many years ago, we asked our overlords why we didn't have a big Hollywood movie. The response was perfect and still fits today. They said:

"Imagine a squad of terminators assaulting an Ork fortress. The sergeant leads the squad into the thick of battle, ripping limbs from orks and blasting grots by the dozens. The sergeant reaches the warboss and there is this epic battle between the two. The Marine finally decapitates the warboss. One of the other terminators calls out "well done, sir!" The camera zooms in on the head of the sergeant, who removes his helmet ... to reveal Sharon Stone, who says "well done, ma'am, you mean."

No.

It's not that women cannot lead or fight. They do often in the real world and even in GW fiction (kick butt, Neferata, Tamra, and Blacktallon). It's that Space Marines are male but Hollywood would change that in order to force diversity and sell tickets. It's perfectly ok that there are no female Space Marines or male Sisters of Battle in this fiction, but some folks would see that changed simply to force an agenda or to look "enlightened."

This isn't forced diversity though. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. No one is taking your hobby away from you. It's just a case of working to create a hobby that's appealing to as many demographics as possible. 

And space marines can be whatever GW wants them to be as they're not real. They're made up. Fictional. This reminds me of the time a bunch of Harry Potter fans got their nickers in a twist because the stage version had a black actress playing Hermione.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

super simplified example of what I mean, take the long wished for 40k movie. When I was in GW sales, many years ago, we asked our overlords why we didn't have a big Hollywood movie. The response was perfect and still fits today. They said:

"Imagine a squad of terminators assaulting an Ork fortress. The sergeant leads the squad into the thick of battle, ripping limbs from orks and blasting grots by the dozens. The sergeant reaches the warboss and there is this epic battle between the two. The Marine finally decapitates the warboss. One of the other terminators calls out "well done, sir!" The camera zooms in on the head of the sergeant, who removes his helmet ... to reveal Sharon Stone, who says "well done, ma'am, you mean."

No.

Bizarre, And if that's really the case then I'm glad dead wood like that has probably been cleared out by GW 2.0. I'm more inclined to be believe this fortress mentality was just bluster, and the real reason there wasn't a "big Hollywood movie" was because 40k just isn't popular enough to generate that kind of investment. This hobby is still pretty niche comparatively speaking.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive just had a catch up on this thread. The post that sums it up best is probably this one.

55 minutes ago, HorticulusTGA said:

Well it lasted longer than on any other places of the Internet but..... here we are again :

DON'T
BRING
POLITICS
INTO OUR HOBBY

I've seen enough endless debates about Star Wars or Warhammer Adventures in the past few months (with the awfully bad American political climate in the background) to know where this is going (even if it starts with well intentioned / documented posters such as @Enoby or @CaptainNippon) .

Please don't go further down that road :) Also, on topic : 

That's an excellent summary of Games Workshop's latest marketing decision. 

On that note, and to address something mentioned earlier.  the reason G A Y is caught by the censorship is nothing to do with a slight against LGBT.  As soon as people online stop using it as an insult I will take it out of the filter.  

 

My opinion on Becca Scott was that it great that GW hired a pro to do these videos.  

Great looking, super professional, really top quality talent.  Lets be fair, the same would have applied if the person they hired was a guy 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As well this is one of Becca Scott's best performances as a game presenter.  In many of her other videos, she acts goofy when the mood of a game is very serious or gets so enthusiastic it comes off as really fake.  She nailed it here.

Definitely a playlist on youtube I'll be sending to anyone who expresses interest in AoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nin Win said:

As well this is one of Becca Scott's best performances as a game presenter.  In many of her other videos, she acts goofy when the mood of a game is very serious or gets so enthusiastic it comes off as really fake.  She nailed it here.

Definitely a playlist on youtube I'll be sending to anyone who expresses interest in AoS.

Jeah I also shared the video with everyone I want to make interested in Age of Sigmar. I have a good friend who is still mad about the end of the old world. And maybe I can convince him with these videos. I think they are very simple. 

And I think Becca Scott does a great way to present such detailed and dull rules. I think showing these videos to my friends to explain them the game works better than if I try to explain them how the different phases work. 

Also if a good friend who is new to the hobby doesn't know what to do in a special phase I can simply show them the video. They are so short. Most of them are between 2 and 4 mins. 

This is a great tool for me, because I first had the fear that rules might get too complex in the new edition. But the videos show and explain everything very well. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I also think that an open an accepting hobby environment that doesn't, for lack of a better phrase, "give a darn" about your age, gender, or color of skin is a good thing.

I just don't happen to think that forced diversity in a group of hobbyists is inherently better than not having it, nor do I think we need to make every... single...aspect of our lives a platform for social change.

I'm thrilled as hell that my gf is a keen hobbyist. I love that my good friends's wife supports him painting toys and running events. It's fantastic that another friend's daughter has a dedicated hobby room.

It's just that I don't care, at all, that these people are women, and making our hobby the next battleground for Social Justice Warriors to fight upon is not something I want to encourage.

Yes, please, come one come all, but if we have to artificially warp the experience to make it fit the "all" it's going to be tedious at best and damaging to the nature of the experience at worst.

I'm not sure how you're balancing these contradicting beliefs - that it's good for hobby environments to be open and welcoming, but also that some sociopolital force exist that threatens us with the spectre of "forced diversity". Who do you believe might be attempting to artificially warp the experience? I apologize if I sound aggressive or accusatory here, that's not my intent.

It seems for many people the baseline assumption in these discussions is always rooted in this particular suspicion, with little thought given to the fact that there may be people with a vested interest in warping the experience in other ways, to exclude people who might naturally participate otherwise. Likewise, calls to reject "politics" almost always ignore the fact that defending the status quo is just as much a political act as advocating changes or viewing them as beneficial, which leads to conversations that start out on unstable premises and rarely lead anywhere fulfilling.

If you're saying "no politics!" while uncritically letting incendiary political statements like "crazy SJWs are trying to force diversity into our hobby spaces" stand as apolitical, you're... I don't know, maybe you need to take a step back and look at what you consider "politics" to be, is all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ben said:

On that note, and to address something mentioned earlier.  the reason G A Y is caught by the censorship is nothing to do with a slight against LGBT.  As soon as people online stop using it as an insult I will take it out of the filter.  

I think you'd be better off uncensoring it and trusting that people here don't use it poorly, because we'll all wither before people stop using G A Y as an insult in this world we live in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the nature of the topic at hand, specifically diversity and being a welcoming hobby, I think it would be fair to uncensor G A Y and leave it to the users good nature and the report function if necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually didn't like the videos (now ive watched them). Not because of Becca, but because that noise on repeat is SO distracting, i actually found it hard to concentrate on what she was saying. Noise distracts me. Music is ok, but because it was that constant "dun dun dudun dudeen, dudeen" over and over and over and over. Just couldn't listen to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AthlorianStoners said:

Considering the nature of the topic at hand, specifically diversity and being a welcoming hobby, I think it would be fair to uncensor G A Y and leave it to the users good nature and the report function if necessary. 

Yeah I think it's just a product of "upbringing" really. Ben and I are of a similar age and both from the UK, and I can attest that for quite a while G A Y wasn't even used in a homophobic way but as a coverall term for something being bad or undesirable. Fortunately things have moved on since 1995 so its use in that capacity has dropped dramatically.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ben said:

Ive just had a catch up on this thread. The post that sums it up best is probably this one.

On that note, and to address something mentioned earlier.  the reason G A Y is caught by the censorship is nothing to do with a slight against LGBT.  As soon as people online stop using it as an insult I will take it out of the filter.  

 

My opinion on Becca Scott was that it great that GW hired a pro to do these videos.  

Great looking, super professional, really top quality talent.  Lets be fair, the same would have applied if the person they hired was a guy 

 

By censoring a word, you are essentially implicitly agreeing that word is negative and giving credance to the opinions of people who think being G A Y is actually a bad thing. 

I know that isn’t the thought behind it, but as someone lgbt, I would appreciate it being uncensored 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SpiritofHokuto said:

Yeah I think it's just a product of "upbringing" really. Ben and I are of a similar age and both from the UK, and I can attest that for quite a while G A Y wasn't even used in a homophobic way but as a coverall term for something being bad or undesirable. Fortunately things have moved on since 1995 so its use in that capacity has dropped dramatically.  

In the US, it used to mean happy (circa 60s). See The Flintstones end credits song.

This isn’t going anywhere without talking about SJWs. To put it bluntly, GW has done a very good job of NOT being SJW and that’s a good thing. The hallmarks of SJW writing can be seen in today’s Marvel Comics. I’m not going to discuss it, it’s a long list of left wing political tropes that appear in every single comic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite my disagreements with some views that have been expressed...can you imagine this discussion being half as civil or behaved if it were being brought up on Reddit/Tumblr/4chan? It is credit to our community that this kind of talk can be had without mass banning/mod interference/name calling. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Urauloth said:

Likewise, calls to reject "politics" almost always ignore the fact that defending the status quo is just as much a political act as advocating changes or viewing them as beneficial, which leads to conversations that start out on unstable premises and rarely lead anywhere fulfilling.

I think there are a variety of people who call for the rejection of politics in their hobby but only a minority of them are doing so in an active defence of the status quo.  I'm also not sure how useful it is to make it a "with us or against us" situation.  Where anyone not advocating for change must be opposing it by definition.  That sounds like a recipe for a fight.

I suspect the breakdown is as follows:

a) A majority who simply don't care.  They're interested in the miniatures, the lore, the gameplay and anything else that might be categorized as hobby content.  Posting on the internet about it, making or listening to podcasts, painting miniatures, whatever.  When these sorts of people say they don't want politics involved, they mean it.  And it is in no way them taking a stance against change.

b) A large minority who only care when there's an actual instance of someone being unfairly rejected or of someone crossing a line in what they say or do.  They see their local communities working great and lots of people from a variety of walks of life enjoying their hobby.  They totally support anything that helps people be included but don't actively campaign for anything.  And that the best time to talk about the issues is when something actually happens that can be addressed.  If someone at an event says something racist or homophobic, that's when they speak up.  They know that the community as a whole is not toxic and we don't need to be blaming everyone for the actions of a few and blaming the community for its homogeneity is going to just polarize a situation.  When they say not to make it political, it's because they know the time to fight is when there's an actual enemy rather than a theoretical or shadowy one.  The only status quo they are advocating for is a functional one that should be spread around.

c) Those who see what has happened in other fandoms are worry about what might happen here.  Some people are totally okay with people from anywhere on the planet and don't really care about people's gender or skin colour or sexuality or whatever, but actually like the current content.  They like a given character (or entire fictional universe) and would no like a revamp that drastically changes that character/universe.  And since these people are interested in the authenticity of the things they enjoy, if something is changed for anything other than story reasons, it comes across as the worst sort of patronizing pandering.  Would these people be advocating for the status quo?  Yes.  But only in terms of the models and fiction, not in who participates in the hobby.

d) Those who have been bullied their whole life.  In school, on the playground, from their family.  Trashed on for their nerdy interests again and again.  Physically attacked by bullies.  And then they find some people who are into the same geeky things they are and can finally just be themselves.  And now people come and tell them that because the group they are part of is all male and all of European descent, things need to change.  That there's something wrong.  Maybe they're even told that the reason there aren't any women or minorities around is because they are toxic. 

We have a story that being subject to bullying and rejection makes people noble and empathetic, but I don't think that's right.  People who are abused tend to pass it along.  And for many, this final rejection is too much.  I think this is the population that is the most likely to form the most negative of the anonymous internet jerks.  The kind who cross lines none of us would and send threats or say terrible things.  They really have nothing to lose at this point.    They finally found some people they can fit in with only to be rejected one more time by being called racist or sexist.  They're done feeling ashamed and end up allying with the worst of society in their rejection of this judgement.

I'd say I am a blend of A & B.  I get where C is coming from but think the amount of stuff that has been changed across various fandoms hasn't been that artificially forced or too numerous.  Though I understand it only takes it happening to the one character you like the most for it to put someone on a path of defending the status quo.  As for D, I think we need to work on not creating them in the first place.  Despite the massive amount of radicalization in the political sphere, I think the long term positive effect of anti-bullying campaigns and the like will win out.  And ironically, an actual increase in diversity of local gaming communities will cause them to face the unfair final rejection less and less.  Instead of internalizing the idea that because all their gaming buddies share their skin tone and gender that makes them bad, they'll just look around at their fellow gamers and go, "nope, not me."

The internet is full of organizer bad actors who are putting out the call to those who are continually rejected.  They're waiting for them with an identitarian noble victim narrative.  We need to stop pushing people towards these extreme positions.  In the Magic the Gathering community there was a massive increase in such nastiness right after the publisher of the game and major retailers of it started putting out articles about how the lack of diversity is the fault of the player base.   The *second* we see Warhammer Community put out articles blaming the customers for a lack of diversity, the bad actors will swoop in with their identitarian anti-politically correctness message and we'll be in for a nasty time.  The absolute worst way GW could promote diversity would be to blame its customers for being what's wrong with the hobby.  If they can stay positive and concentrate on appealing to more and more people and avoid making a fight out of it, the better it will be for everyone.

Edited by Nin Win
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

The internet is full of organizer bad actors who are putting out the call to those who are continually rejected.  They're waiting for them with an identitarian noble victim narrative.  We need to stop pushing people towards these extreme positions.  In the Magic the Gathering community there was a massive increase in such nastiness right after the publisher of the game and major retailers of it started putting out posts about how the lack of diversity is the fault of the player base.  The *second* we see Warhammer Community put out articles blaming the customers for a lack of diversity, the bad actors will swoop in with their identitarian anti-politically correctness message and we'll be in for a nasty time.  The absolute worst way GW could promote diversity would be to blame its customers for being what's wrong with the hobby.  If they can stay positive and concentrate on appealing to more and more people and avoid making a fight out of it, the better it will be for everyone.

Yeah, mostly agree on this. I used to moderate a Wizards of the Coast forum and yikes, the horror stories from those days. I don't think GW will do anything critical of any of its customers, for a variety of reasons, but it would certainly be dangerous if they did. A positive attitude and broad appeal seem to be central to GW's approach right now though, so I don't think we have any worries there.

For the record, the relative lack of venom and political conflict here is one reason TGA is my forum of choice - I genuinely do like to be able to discuss painting, modelling, lore and gaming in as apolitical an environment as possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

As a super simplified example of what I mean, take the long wished for 40k movie. When I was in GW sales, many years ago, we asked our overlords why we didn't have a big Hollywood movie. The response was perfect and still fits today. They said:

"Imagine a squad of terminators assaulting an Ork fortress. The sergeant leads the squad into the thick of battle, ripping limbs from orks and blasting grots by the dozens. The sergeant reaches the warboss and there is this epic battle between the two. The Marine finally decapitates the warboss. One of the other terminators calls out "well done, sir!" The camera zooms in on the head of the sergeant, who removes his helmet ... to reveal Sharon Stone, who says "well done, ma'am, you mean."

No.

It's not that women cannot lead or fight. They do often in the real world and even in GW fiction (kick butt, Neferata, Tamra, and Blacktallon). It's that Space Marines are male but Hollywood would change that in order to force diversity and sell tickets. It's perfectly ok that there are no female Space Marines or male Sisters of Battle in this fiction, but some folks would see that changed simply to force an agenda or to look "enlightened."

I'm going to suggest that there are many other much more important reasons for not having a 40K movie. 40K is boring, for one...

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sharkbelly said:

I'm going to suggest that there are many other much more important reasons for not having a 40K movie. 40K is boring, for one...

Off topic, but while a 40K movie would be bland, the Horus Heresy is ripe for a film franchise. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×