Dracain 🐉
12.7K posts












After 9/11 I had European friends confused that we would spend time, money and effort digging up the bodies at Ground Zero. What's the point, they said. But it's what Americans (and, ahem, Israelis) do. We love life, we care about our dead, and we don't leave anyone behind.





I explained some time ago to some folks See the reply here: x.com/shas_kais/stat… GW wrote that Chaos, for thematic reasons, will be the final winner of the Warhammer setting, always and forever (That includes 40K too). Warhams is not the kind of setting where the good guys win. The good guys are flawed, tainted, and in many cases nearly as evil as Slaves to Darkness. What kind of message would it send if the Imperium or Forces of Order won? It would look like GW is giving validation to tyranny and authoritarianism when the writers of Warhams just wanted to experiment with creating dark universes where such repugnant ideologies can find quasi-justification, but if the readers dug deeper, they would discover that all that was accomplished was cultivating immense suffering, and at best, it delayed the horrible end, not averted it. At worst, it hastened the end. This isn't something new in Warhams. It's a foundational core of the setting. If you read the older Warhammer Fantasy sources and OG dev/writer commentary, you will find that the victory of Chaos is foreshadowed and presented as inescapable. Guys who expect happy endings in Warhammer have entered the fandom with the wrong expectations. Warhammer is about the admirable yet futile raging against the dying of the light. There is no dawn coming, bruv!







One of the most glaring ways to know 40k is full of manchild is how they pull the "muh armour" "argument" since the 60s, the US Army has planned WW3 considering which regiments will die in hinterland defence, which will conduct counterattacks, etc only firepower saves lives. See:

















