Rate what you Read, or the fight against Necromancy

[The Scorpion]

10 hours ago, Valkia the Bloody said:

Right now, I am listening to the audiobook of "Deathworlder". I am 3/4 through with it.

It is a great book full of action. 

I like how dark and gritty it is.

I also like how the Catachans and the Cadians are compared and presented here, including their way of thinking and their motivations.

The characters are also interesting and well written, this is not simple bolter porn, but a great character study. 

A great way to help me with painting my new Tyranid army (since the book describes a desperate battle of the last Guard survivors against a Tyranid invasion). 

I keep hearing good things about it, I might have to give it a read. I did the same for Longshot and I was not dissapointed

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I recently finished Voidscarred. It was okay. I didn't really get into it. It wasn't badly written by any means, I just didn't gel with it. Then again I've always preferred Astartes stories. 

 

I do wish Brooks would keep his politics out of his work though. In any case, given what Brooks does irl I won't buy any of his work again. 

 

I also read Spear of Faith. The battle scenes were quite good. I enjoyed the Night Lord parts a lot. I liked that the Death of Saints basically has a pet Heldrake. It would have been nice if the author hadn't written every human male as a coward or incompetent. Still sexism in BL works is quite routine these days amongst certain authors. 

Edited October 16 by The Praetorian of Inwit

[wecanhaveallthree]

Quote

I do wish Brooks would keep his politics out of his work though. In any case, given what Brooks does irl I won't buy any of his work again. 

 

For those of us who are chronically uninformed and live under actual rocks, please elaborate.

[The Scorpion]

14 hours ago, wecanhaveallthree said:

 

For those of us who are chronically uninformed and live under actual rocks, please elaborate.

Check the drama in the dedicated Voidscarred novel thread

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Well, you can't now. Tyler has made sure Free Speech isn't happening under his watch. 

 

I don't quite understand how people are supposed to communicate, or answer questions, but maybe that's what Tyler doesn't want. Always easier to censor /silence then debate. 

[cheywood]

 

1 hour ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Well, you can't now. Tyler has made sure Free Speech isn't happening under his watch. 

 

I don't quite understand how people are supposed to communicate, or answer questions, but maybe that's what Tyler doesn't want. Always easier to censor /silence then debate. 

I think it’s pretty easy to keep things 40k centered. There’s a million places to talk politics, and it’s not like anyone here has much of meaning to say on the subject. It’s the same discussion every time. A warhammer author expresses liberal views (because they pretty much all have them) and a few conservative fans get upset. It’s kinda played out.

Edited Saturday at 06:30 PM by cheywood

[darkhorse0607]

2 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Well, you can't now. Tyler has made sure Free Speech isn't happening under his watch. 

 

I don't quite understand how people are supposed to communicate, or answer questions, but maybe that's what Tyler doesn't want. Always easier to censor /silence then debate. 

 

A book review thread isn't the place for a political debate when it has nothing to do with the book in question (Im waiting for my poltical intrigue novel Wriaght) and only has to do with the authors personal tweets. As @cheywood said there's a ton of places to do that, go to one of those 

 

Political talk has always been against the rules for B&C and it should stay that way because its never a full discussion, its always the same group of people typing at each other derailing the thread that was supposed to be about something different 

[NTaW]

37 minutes ago, darkhorse0607 said:

Political talk has always been against the rules for B&C

 

You're quite correct. From the forum rules:

 

No off-topic discussions

We're here to discuss the hobby, not politics, nationalism, religion, social/sociopolitical issues, sexuality or moral/ethical debates (or cars, or sports, or the latest movie, etc.).

Edited Saturday at 08:31 PM by NTaW

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

This is like saying if someone asks you what 2+2 is you can't say 4. Absolute stupidity. 

 

There is a difference between going in on politics and answering someone's question or stating facts or expressing personal opinion. 

 

This has nothing to do with forum rules because there was no political discussion. 

[wecanhaveallthree]

Quote

A warhammer author expresses liberal views (because they pretty much all have them) and a few conservative fans get upset.

 

This wasn't the case. I 100% agree with Inwit: if an author calls for political violence, that's a pretty big deal and deserves mention alongside their work. It's not like B&C has had trouble discussing, say, Thomas Parrott being fired for his political commentary (and one speculates that if Parrott had been more established or moved as much product as Brooks, his job security would have been better). There was no 'political discussion', no debate on the merits, just 'here is what Brooks called for (if that matters to you)'. 

 

This isn't the place to discuss it, but it should be a place where the simple fact can be mentioned. People purchase and read books based on recommendations and discussion here (and elsewhere), and this fact may inform that decision.

 

...I miss Parrott, fraters. 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

4 hours ago, darkhorse0607 said:

Political talk has always been against the rules for B&C

 

"Always" is a lot shorter time than you believe. Politics in general were only explicitly outlawed here a couple of years ago. Up until then, it was very much tolerated as long as the people involved had the "correct" opinions. Certain posters could call people Nazis and accuse them of dogwhistling and "letting the mask slip" as often as they wanted. Fortunately*, they eventually wound up being so overconfident and obnoxious about it that a blanket policy against ALL politics was inevitable.

 

(I say "fortunately" as it was at least an improvement upon the then-existing state of affairs.)

 

Edited Sunday at 12:26 AM by Lord Nord in Gravis Armour

[Grotsmasha]

20 minutes ago, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

Always" is a lot shorter time than you believe.

 Since at least 2009. That's when I started visiting the site (joined 2011).

16yrs is a bit longer than a couple of years.

[Lord_Ikka]

As a private organization, the B&C has every right to limit freedom of speech on it's forums. It is done here specifically to keep the focus of the forums on Warhammer 40,000 and it's universe/derivatives. Every member of this board must acknowledge that they have read the rules of the forum, including those rules that limit certain speech. Those rules are there to limit the amount of off-topic content that can be spawned by the discussions- topics that bring in real world socio-political discussions have a very frequent habit of turning into nothing more than a flame-warring echo chamber that has no purpose on this site. Whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial, they will be enforced by the mod team to limit the spiraling of threads into conversations that are beyond the scope of 40k.

 

This is something the mod team takes very seriously- quite a lot of our time is spent dealing with, discussing, and deciding on where the line is in regards to a post that is referencing RL issues. The mod team has a variety of viewpoints along the socio-political/religious spectrum, no one view is prevalent nor are there any ideologies that are being pushed/suppressed by the team. Our job is to make sure that discussions/references to RL issues are directly impactful to the 40k universe and the topic therein; if not we will deal with it accordingly. It is not to censor or suppress the opinion of any member, regardless of what some may think, it is simply to keep the site focused on being constructive and creative within the 40k world.

[wecanhaveallthree]

Respectfully, I don't think anyone's disputing that. We're all fine with moderation, we all want things to stay on-topic and we all agree this isn't a place for political discussion.

 

The root question is: are an author's extremist comments/views a relevant and noteworthy consideration when discussing/purchasing their material and supporting their employment? I think the answer must be yes. This isn't 'does Abnett prefer coke or pepsi' or 'what is ADB's weird thirst for Serena Williams' or 'Fehervari ry'leh oosh an ftagahn'. It is a serious issue, and I think we are all, more than ever, conscious of what and who we support with our dollars. Discussions should include informing potential readers/buyers/supporters of serious issues. It need not, and should not, go further than that.

[cheywood]

9 hours ago, wecanhaveallthree said:

 

This wasn't the case. I 100% agree with Inwit: if an author calls for political violence, that's a pretty big deal and deserves mention alongside their work. It's not like B&C has had trouble discussing, say, Thomas Parrott being fired for his political commentary (and one speculates that if Parrott had been more established or moved as much product as Brooks, his job security would have been better). There was no 'political discussion', no debate on the merits, just 'here is what Brooks called for (if that matters to you)'. 

 

This isn't the place to discuss it, but it should be a place where the simple fact can be mentioned. People purchase and read books based on recommendations and discussion here (and elsewhere), and this fact may inform that decision.

 

...I miss Parrott, fraters. 

In a functional civic system I think you’re right. But at this point we’re often debating what political violence even is. Who decides when an author has made ‘a clear statement of political violence’? When is political violence justified in defense of a democratic system against authoritarianism? Is it ever or is nonviolent resistance the only path? I just don’t think this forum is the place for discussions like that. We’re here to talk space war not resolve complex political questions. People on both sides love to label their own actions righteous and the actions of the other side as violent. Sometimes they’re correct, sometimes they’re not. Sure if an author explicitly calls for murdering political opponents we can call a spade a spade, but it’s rarely that simple. Better to stay away in almost all circumstances unless it becomes an official issue affecting the product on the page, like when Parrott got fired.

[darkhorse0607]

5 hours ago, wecanhaveallthree said:

It need not, and should not, go further than that.

 

Isn't the biggest part (speaking as someone without a single percentage of moderation power or input) of the problem where the line is though?

 

Within the space of a a few comments you had the original statement of why the Frater would not be purchasing any more of the authors books (which, I thought made a decent effort to stay non-political, but again, not a mod), to someone stating the author should not have a job anymore, to statements about which side of the political spectrum they (the author) fall on, and the normal shouting back and forth was beginning when a Mod said it was on pause, not stopped completely, but paused. Which started the whole "free speech" segment both here and on the other thread, derailing both.

 

So I guess my question is then where on that line/time frame of a few hours should a Mod step in? What happens when they remove one comment, but leave another leading to people saying that they are being individually "attacked" by Mods and derailing things further? 

 

Again, I dont necessarily disagree with the original message of 

"Im not supporting this author"

"Why?"

"Heres an article as to why"

Is bad, but then again we moved on from that within an hour or two to arguing the morality of what the author said, if the author should be employed, etc, like I already said. 

 

I mean Tyler (in this instance) outright stated that some of the comments would be brought back after they were sorted, but we never got there because it instantly turned into "but my free speech" on multiple threads without waiting to see what was actually kept/not

[wecanhaveallthree]

You and cheywood both make the same excellent point, and what Ikka is trying to get at, I imagine: it's up to Bolter and Chainsword where the line is. 

 

It's also up to community members to swallow their rising choler, mute their wet leopard growls and stay on-topic. If you don't agree with the assessment someone made about how XYZ comment/view from the author made them unable to read/support that author, shoot the frater a DM or something, have that respectful discussion. But there's no need to get into 'arguing morality' or 'employment' or whatever on a book topic. It's up to the individual whether they feel similarly about that comment/view and whether that comment/view impacts their choice to purchase a work or support an author. We are, I think, mature enough to let people judge matters on their merits and come to their own informed conclusions. 

 

Not everything needs to be a confrontation.

Edited Sunday at 12:20 PM by wecanhaveallthree
it's an... albany expression

[byrd9999]

There are plenty of places in which people can exercise their "free speech" and discuss what they want about BL authors.

 

But B&C isn't that place.

 

B&C is a place to keep the discussion on the world of Warhammer 30k/40k.

 

If someone wants to discuss anything beyond that, and especially if the intent is to inflame or hector, then don't be surprised if it gets modded. It's in the rules.

 

Thanks to the mods who do have to take time out of their days to deal with this stuff.

[NTaW]

1 hour ago, darkhorse0607 said:

Again, I dont necessarily disagree with the original message of 

"Im not supporting this author"

"Why?"

"Heres an article as to why"

Is bad, but then again we moved on from that within an hour or two to arguing the morality of what the author said, if the author should be employed, etc, like I already said.

 

I truly doubt that the question and answer is why the comments are currently under review, but rather as you say well here it's where the conversation quickly started centering around.

 

1 hour ago, darkhorse0607 said:

So I guess my question is then where on that line/time frame of a few hours should a Mod step in? What happens when they remove one comment, but leave another leading to people saying that they are being individually "attacked" by Mods and derailing things further?

 

As a former Mod I can perhaps shed some light on this. If the report function is used by members actively viewing the topic the reaction time can be swift. Otherwise, it's up to someone happening across the topic and comments in question. Timezones and life get in the way of efficiency there. There is also always conversation on the reports between members of the Mod team and action is rarely taken without consensus. This can also add some time to it, though since reports are shown as their own notifications I'd say it's nominal. As for leftover comments, there were times in the past where I would be pruning a topic and while I am doing my work further comments are made. Like how right now I'm typing away and when I hit post there may be unread messages around mine depending on the timing of everyone's involvement. Sometimes these can slip under the radar for a while, or even indefinitely in some cases I'm sure, but more often a member of the team will come in and continue to edit comments. In any instance, there's always direct messages for specific inquiries if someone feels spurned by the actions of the Mods.

 

 

On the topic of book reviews, I just finished the Vaults of Terra trilogy. Truly a fun series of books! I enjoyed the character arcs and overall "whodunnit" vibe, though I'll have to take a moment to correspond with my notes on what the overall implications are as I've read much of the Indomitus era out of order. The ending was a little...confusing is what I'll go with. I'm not sure if the revelations are just for the reader or for the wider universe just yet. Still good though! 

 

 

I'm also re-reading Devastation of Baal as a break from new information and am reminded of how uniquely written the Tyranid perspective was. I don't think I've ever read another interpretation like this, though I haven't read many novels featuring Nids. The person reading the audiobook and the quality of the audio edits has me looking at my bookshelf, but I can listen to far more than I can read in a day.

[Scribe]

Discussion is one thing, I dont think discussion is on this is on topic for the forums stated mission.

 

Raising awareness however? I think thats fair.

[Rain]

The issue is that it’s a slippery slope. Politics are the religion of the modern Western world, and people get very militant about the belief systems that underpin how they view the world, fundamental right and wrong, and their place in all of that.

 

So, what starts as a discussion that is tangential or even directly relevant to a BL novel can quickly spiral into sectarian mud slinging. Anyway, I can generally tell which authors are likely to directly inject their real world sociopolitical ideas into their work, and just avoid those authors. Simple as, no discussion needed. Not like anyone has been convinced to change such fundamental belief systems by an online flame war.

[wecanhaveallthree]

Again, respectfully, nobody is arguing with that. Nobody wants to talk about 'politics'. Nobody wants 'sectarian mud slinging'. It is, as you identify, about informing readers/buyers about authors they may wish to avoid. It need go no further than 'X said/did Y' with an article/link for people to be informed by (or not, as they prefer) if it matters to them (or not, as they prefer). It requires no debate, no discussion, no comment from anyone else, while ensuring potential readers/buyers are aware.

[Brother Tyler]

It seems we need a time out.

[Brother Tyler]

On 10/18/2025 at 12:00 PM, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Well, you can't now. Tyler has made sure Free Speech isn't happening under his watch. 

 

I don't quite understand how people are supposed to communicate, or answer questions, but maybe that's what Tyler doesn't want. Always easier to censor /silence then debate. 

 

Ah, the old "free speech" argument. Too often, people use that argument when they don't understand what the protections for free speech actually are and how they are applied. Occasionally, the people who use that argument do understand those protections and applications, but they still make the argument because either (a) they just want to talk about what they want to talk about whether or not it is allowed/appropriate and without consideration for the consequences, or (b) they specifically desire to create disruption, whether out of simple nihilistic enjoyment or for more nefarious purposes. Regardless, those who understand the limitations on free speech and who still throw the argument out are using it to deceive those who are ignorant that their activity is righteousness and/or they are attempting to cow others into submission through a deceptive, but false, appeal to principle. I'm going to give those who wish to invoke the free speech argument the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance. A simple Internet search on the meaning of free speech will yield a wealth of information from people and organizations with far more credibility than me; and a brief review of the information they provide will be enlightening, clearly demonstrating how the free speech argument is patently incorrect in this setting.

 

It's important to note, of course, that I'm referring to free speech protection under the Constitution of the United States of America, where I and a significant percentage of B&C community members live. Other nations have their own laws about free speech. Some of those nations are comparable to the U.S.A. in their protection of free speech, some might even offer more protection (I'm not an expert in this, so I don't know for certain), and many are more restrictive.

 

The Bolter and Chainsword is a private community that exists for the purposes stated in our mission statement, which appears in the community rules and also as one of our rotating site banners. Just in case it isn't the banner that is currently appearing at the top of the site for you, here it is:

 

 

That statement provides the basic scope of content that is shared here. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and the exclusions identified in the community rules are similarly descriptive. In general, we try to allow as much as possible, especially when subjects can be plausibly argued as relating to the hobby (i.e., supported by our mission statement). Some issues, while potentially problematic, also have the potential to be discussed constructively, and we usually try to let these go as long as possible. Diverse viewpoints are allowed and encouraged (and inevitable). All too often, however, while some members might be able to remain within the realm of constructive discussion on such issues, too many other members pull the discussion into the realm of disruption. Once things become too disruptive, we (the staff) intervene to steer the community back into the realm of constructive discussion as much as possible. Often, this involves removing disruptive content and notifying members that further disruptive content will similarly be removed and/or result in topic closure/disciplinary action. Off-topic content isn't allowed here, plain and simple. This is neither censorship nor an attack on free speech. It is moderating the community and adhering to our mission statement.

 

On 10/18/2025 at 7:20 PM, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

 

"Always" is a lot shorter time than you believe. Politics in general were only explicitly outlawed here a couple of years ago. Up until then, it was very much tolerated as long as the people involved had the "correct" opinions. Certain posters could call people Nazis and accuse them of dogwhistling and "letting the mask slip" as often as they wanted. Fortunately*, they eventually wound up being so overconfident and obnoxious about it that a blanket policy against ALL politics was inevitable.

 

(I say "fortunately" as it was at least an improvement upon the then-existing state of affairs.)

 

 

Politics have been explicitly prohibited here since at least as early as early 2000 when I became a moderator, and I'm fairly sure (though not absolutely certain) that politics were explicitly prohibited when I joined the site in late 1999. Since the site was founded in April 1999, there may have been a period of time when politics weren't explicitly prohibited, but the people who might remember that time are few and far between (the most likely are @BLOODSAINT, the site's founder, and @Kurgan the Lurker). Politics has been one example of prohibited off-topic subject matter in our community rules for over two decades. What happened a little over a year ago was that we clarified what we meant by "politics" by rephrasing it as "social/sociopolitical issues." I could say a lot more on the issue, but I already provided a pretty lengthy explanation here.

 

Yes, our enforcement of this rule has evolved over the years. It might be more accurate to say that we've had to make adjustments based on the evolution of the Bolter and Chainsword community as well as broader society. The culture of the hobby community and this subset, the Bolter and Chainsword community, has evolved over the years (and this is a good thing). Or perhaps "matured" is a better word. There were things that were tolerated a couple of decades ago because they weren't [perceived] as disruptive, but as society has changed and as the community has grown, there is less tolerance for some of those things. There is also the human factor of the staff - different staff members have different viewpoints on things and one might be more tolerant of some issues than others. We endeavor to get as much consensus as possible, but it is inevitable that aspects of personality will creep in. This is especially true in cases where an issue doesn't appear to create disruption, in which case it may be allowed to continue (until it crosses the line). And we make errors, too, so there may have been things that were allowed in the past but which we should have dealt with (and things which we dealt with but which we may have allowed to continue).

 

Having cleared up those two inaccuracies, it's time to discuss this topic.

 

This topic will not be reopened, nor will there be a similar replacement.

 

This isn't to say that we don't want to see reviews of GW fiction. We most emphatically do want to see that kind of content as they are extremely helpful to the members of the community. Having all reviews for all fiction in a single topic, however, is a terrible use of the site's capabilities, turning a discussion topic into something resembling a Reddit channel or a Discord channel, severely hampering findability of information. The only real benefit of a single all-encompassing topic is that members don't have to go to the effort of creating new topics when they want to post reviews (i.e., supporting laziness). A book might be reviewed on one page with a short discussion about the review/book, and then another review on the same book (with resulting discussion) might take place many pages later, with various other pieces of fiction and mini-discussions taking place in between. In order to find any review, members have to either perform a search or manually read through the entire discussion, and they won't even know if there are any reviews for a specific piece of fiction beforehand, potentially wasting considerable time in the effort. This whole forum is intended for the purpose of providing a place for members to review the fiction. We just need to create some structure that takes advantage of the software's capabilities.

 

What I see replacing this discussion is an index of all WH40K fiction and videos. That index might have a variety of listings, allowing all works by the same author to be found in one post, all works on the same Chapter in another post, all works about an event (e.g., the Horus Heresy) in another post, etc. The index would probably start with an alphabetized listing (e.g., all books/stories/videos starting with "A" in one post, all books/stories/videos starting with "B" in another, etc.). The same information would then be presented in different forms in subsequent posts, allowing for listings of works by authors, events, organizations, etc.

 

For example, the story Headhunted by Steve Parker is about a Deathwatch kill team. The story was published in multiple anthologies, including:

• Heroes of the Space Marines
• Deathwatch: Xenos Hunters
• Deathwatch: The Omnibus
• Nexus + Other Stories

The Deathwatch kill team in the story, Kill Team Talon, includes Space Marines from the Death Spectres, Exorcists, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, and Raven Guard Chapters. Orks are also featured in the story (because the Deathwatch have to kill someone).

 

So Headhunted would be included in the alphabetical list, along with each of the anthologies. Headhunted would also be listed in the listing of works by Steve Parker, as well as in the listings for the Deathwatch and the Orks. We might even consider including Headhunted in the listings for each of the Chapters from which the kill team's members hail. Each instance of a Headhunted entry would have a link to any topic(s) in which the work is reviewed.

 

When Black Library publishes a new work or when Warhammer+ publishes a new video, the work will be added to the index. It is likely that updates would be necessary as more information becomes available, especially in cases where a work is teased but full details aren't given on the front end.

 

When a member creates a review of a work, they can either create a new topic (the topic title should be the title of the work, with "Review" appended) or they can add the review to an existing topic in which the work is reviewed (this may be a matter that we discuss/decide upon as a community - I imagine there will be varying preferences). Regardless, the creation of any review topic will also require that the member post a reply in the index so that the link to the review can be added.

 

The Tabula Astartes provides an example of this type of index, though this index would have to be structured somewhat differently. This type of index takes a lot of work, but it's far more useful than having a single all-encompassing topic for reviews. The index would provide a comprehensive listing of works and authors, and we might even link them to the Black Library site to facilitate purchase. The presence or absence of links would be immediately recognized rather than having to search through a single all-encompassing topic. It really takes administrator/moderator permissions to build and maintain this kind of thing, but it depends upon member participation.

 

I'll begin building the index in my workroom. I'll create a topic in which the members can help me by providing suggestions for the organization of the index. The online wikis provide considerable information on the various works, so I'll lean on those for the build; and we'll probably include links to them, too, so that members can see information on each work (especially useful for those cases where the Black Library website no longer includes information).

 

What we may do in the future is go through this topic and split all of the reviews into separate topics, possibly merging all reviews about the same work into the same topic if that's the community's preferred structure. That won't occur until after we get this index built, however, if at all. After all, there are 72 pages of reviews and discussion in this topic, and this forum has 56 pages of topics. So if we end up doing that, I'll probably create a temporary forum that each of these new review topics will be moved into so we don't have to search through 56 pages of topics to find them, then we'll move them back into this forum after we add the links to the index.