Non-40K Character homages: Harmless fun or cringeworthy?

[Panzer]

I remember when this 40K army was catching attention a few years back - 

http://gmmstudios.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-deadpool-army-themed-imperial-guard.html

 

First time seeing it but yeah the more efford someone put into it the more likely people are to accept it. It also helps to take characters/themes/etc most people generally like lol

[Slave to Darkness]

 

 

My Slaaneshi Cultist 'Munda gang are all based on Hellraiser Cenobites, and a lot of my Space Wolf minis are nods to characters from Vikings.

 

I think its fun when you look at someones army and see a cheeky lil reference to something cool staring back at you.

Talking about that, Grieux has a SW legion topic here in the forum where he has also replicated some of the Vikings cast as the officers of his company, and they look awesome.

His A Skjald's Tale of the Days of Darkness threads? I thought he was just referencing general vikings and stuff. :lol:

The more Vikings the better IMHO. Shame there isnt a company that do heads based on the characters from the show.

[Gederas]

In regards to homages, I just finished this chestnut:

 

 

If you can't tell:

It's Krieg from Borderlands 2

[Kite Senet]

I'm less fond of homages than most of the people here are. Yes, you have the right to do it -- it's your plastic, after all. But homages just don't do it for me in the same way that a fluff-based army with a backstory deeply integrated into extant lore is. Thankfully, my main kitchen-table 40k opponent is also the same way, so we have some very fluffy Thousand Sons vs. Space Wolves battles on the rare occasion that we can actually manage to make time for a game.

 

I get the impression, however, that many homages (in 40k or D&D) seem to be originate in cringeworthy fixations on particular entertainment franchises: attempting to drag your favorite anime waifu, or action movie hardcore gunslinger, or magical pony, or space wizard knight, or 1930's battleship* into every other medium of entertainment is to me a major warning sign that you're not going to be fun to play against. The threat that you intend to turn your homage into a Mary Sue, either through demanding rules changes or throwing a fit in "impossible" situation when your invincible super-soldier gets felled by a punch from a malnourished vagabond, is just too high.

 

*Yes, 1930's battleship. My brother once had one of the players in his slightly steam-punk themed Pathfinder campaign beg that the boat they were traveling on had to be a particular model of early 20th century warship; after he eventually gave in, as this player threatened to leave and derail the entire campaign, this player then insisted that radios had to exist in the setting because that particular model of warship was equipped with a radio.

[Gederas]

I'm less fond of homages than most of the people here are. Yes, you have the right to do it -- it's your plastic, after all. But homages just don't do it for me in the same way that a fluff-based army with a backstory deeply integrated into extant lore is. Thankfully, my main kitchen-table 40k opponent is also the same way, so we have some very fluffy Thousand Sons vs. Space Wolves battles on the rare occasion that we can actually manage to make time for a game.

 

I get the impression, however, that many homages (in 40k or D&D) seem to be originate in cringeworthy fixations on particular entertainment franchises: attempting to drag your favorite anime waifu, or action movie hardcore gunslinger, or magical pony, or space wizard knight, or 1930's battleship* into every other medium of entertainment is to me a major warning sign that you're not going to be fun to play against. The threat that you intend to turn your homage into a Mary Sue, either through demanding rules changes or throwing a fit in "impossible" situation when your invincible super-soldier gets felled by a punch from a malnourished vagabond, is just too high.

 

*Yes, 1930's battleship. My brother once had one of the players in his slightly steam-punk themed Pathfinder campaign beg that the boat they were traveling on had to be a particular model of early 20th century warship; after he eventually gave in, as this player threatened to leave and derail the entire campaign, this player then insisted that radios had to exist in the setting because that particular model of warship was equipped with a radio.

Wait, wait, wait.... So let me get this straight.

 

Because you experienced someone who, from your description, fits the definition of "that guy" to a T, you think all homages are bad? Has anyone told you that 40k in general is basically made up of homages to other franchises, stories and myth? I mean, it's pretty hypocritical of you to claim homages are bad, then mention you and your friend do games with two factions that are utterly BLATANT homages to things, to the point of being easily called rip-offs.

 

Also, side note: Your brother should have called the player on his bluff. And kicked him out of the campaign. That's how you deal with players like that. You either talk with them, or if talking doesn't work (as how you described this player sounds), you kick the nerd out.

[Vykes]

...

I get the impression, however, that many homages (in 40k or D&D) seem to be originate in cringeworthy fixations on particular entertainment franchises: attempting to drag your favorite anime waifu, or action movie hardcore gunslinger, or magical pony, or space wizard knight, or 1930's battleship* into every other medium of entertainment is to me a major warning sign that you're not going to be fun to play against. The threat that you intend to turn your homage into a Mary Sue, either through demanding rules changes or throwing a fit in "impossible" situation when your invincible super-soldier gets felled by a punch from a malnourished vagabond, is just too high.

 

*Yes, 1930's battleship. My brother once had one of the players in his slightly steam-punk themed Pathfinder campaign beg that the boat they were traveling on had to be a particular model of early 20th century warship; after he eventually gave in, as this player threatened to leave and derail the entire campaign, this player then insisted that radios had to exist in the setting because that particular model of warship was equipped with a radio.

 

 

Normally I'd totally out myself with another eyebrow raised .gif, but he got the equine part right in my case so that's close enough

 

I'm gonna agree with Gederas and raise, well, an eyebrow. That middle bit seemed to jump the track at logic-and-central and careened right into tinfoil territory.  Honestly I don't think I've seen someone want to get a reroll or insist on anything untowards because their homage character didn't live up to their expectations. Ever.  I have seen inviolate screeching that a las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a land raider, totes normal 40K stuff, on the other hand.  

 

As to the Pathfinder campaign, yeah, Gederas' got that one covered too.  Toss em, most people don't wanna run so if you harangue your DM it's more or less like trying to argue with a judge: rarely works in ones favour. 

[DeadFingers]

This is a page from the 2004 book "Chaos Space Marines Collector's Guide", an official publication by GW, and this army belonged to one of their employees. Take a good look at the lower Berzerker squad.

 

[Bryan Blaire]

This is a page from the 2004 book "Chaos Space Marines Collector's Guide", an official publication by GW, and this army belonged to one of their employees. Take a good look at the lower Berzerker squad.

Okay, first, thank you for posting that, I don't think that I have seen that book, but now I need to go find it.

 

Second - now THAT is some awesome representation for some Khorne Berserkers!

[Decimus Felix]

This is a page from the 2004 book "Chaos Space Marines Collector's Guide", an official publication by GW, and this army belonged to one of their employees. Take a good look at the lower Berzerker squad.

 

I was reading through this thread, and all I could think about was this! I thought it was in a WD or something, I also remember there being a short paragraph from the guy who made them saying how much he loved making a unit based off classic horror movie villains.

[Lexington]

There's an old interview somewhere with, I think, Jervis Johnson, where he expounds a bit on how historical and entertainment pastiches are integrated into 40K. Sadly, it seems to be lost to the ravages of time and the poor upkeep of early internet publications, but what it's always stayed with me because it seems so valuable. Lots of fans, he said, would write in with ideas about how to pull this or that into 40K. I think the example he used was the Black Templars (this being so long ago that the Templars weren't really properly established beyond a color scheme and a few sentences), how people would tell them all of these historical factoids and other detailed, real-world examples that they thought should be incorporated into the Templars' background, but most of them would miss the point. It wasn't about taking something from the real world and dropping it wholesale into the grim darkness of the far etc., but viewing these things through a 40K lens. Taking the themes and ideas of whatever it is you happen to be looking at, and interlocking them with those established in 40K.

 

So, that's how I've always tried to think about this. Personally, I'm a lot more lenient when it comes to fan works - they can be a little more wild and "out there," as befitting personal expressions of the hobby. Not everyone can do the same sort of magic, and even successive Studio writers often haven't done a great job of it, in my opinion. Still, the best fan-made stuff pulls this off, to my mind.

[DeadFingers]

Okay, first, thank you for posting that, I don't think that I have seen that book, but now I need to go find it.

Second - now THAT is some awesome representation for some Khorne Berserkers!

It's 75% a catalogue of then-new models and classic models, plus their codes because this was when you could still order bits directly from GW (good times), and 25% army/Golden Demon showcases, including a good handful of Victor Hardy's masterpieces. It's a nice little piece of hobby history.

[Kelborn]

Tbh, I draw a lot of inspiration from different franchises or I'm trying to implement certain themes, etc. into 40K.

 

Currently on phone so I can't share some pictures but will do so when I'm back home. The most obvious ones are my Imperial Sons, a First Order-ish successor chapter of the Ultramarines or the Legio Gojira, which I created for the BotL.

 

I think it is fair and decent enough to draw stuff from other universes, etc. as long as it is not a straight on copy. :)

And even if, it doesn't automatically mean that it's bad at all. ;)

[DBadger]

Indefragable cracked it. If it's mistakable for something in universe, it's fine. If it's obviously out of place I wouldn't like it (not that I'd stop you). Think of it like making a Necromunda gang or a Bloodbowl team, apply the same thematic rules. If it sits in the 40kverse it's fine (and probably even good).

[Jackalwolf]

 

 

My Slaaneshi Cultist 'Munda gang are all based on Hellraiser Cenobites, and a lot of my Space Wolf minis are nods to characters from Vikings.

 

I think its fun when you look at someones army and see a cheeky lil reference to something cool staring back at you.

Talking about that, Grieux has a SW legion topic here in the forum where he has also replicated some of the Vikings cast as the officers of his company, and they look awesome.

His A Skjald's Tale of the Days of Darkness threads? I thought he was just referencing general vikings and stuff. :lol:

Thanks guys! I actually attempted to sculpt their heads as close as I could!

 

http://i1379.photobucket.com/albums/ah128/Grieux/Vlka%20Fenryka/26992FEE-A620-4B49-B20C-173F82A63F54_zps2acjvetv.jpg

 

From top left to bottom right: Kauko, Leif, Arne Bale-eye, Knut, Torstein, Erik, Ragnar, Floki, Rollo, Tostig

 

Then added Bjorn Ironside, Kalf and Sigvard:

 

This show and the independent characters is what made me return to the hobby after a 15+ years hiatus.

 

Ragnar and Floki are already finished:

[ElDuderino]

This are great Greiux, very impressive! And for someone who hasn't seen the show, they just look like (very nicely converted) space wolves, immersion unbroken and so on.

[Canadian_F_H]

In a convo earlier it struck me that somebody should do a "Black Adder" in 40k conversion...

 

This is as good a place as any to mention the idea. :)

[Zebulon]

In a convo earlier it struck me that somebody should do a "Black Adder" in 40k conversion...

 

This is as good a place as any to mention the idea. :)

“Wibble.”

[Gederas]

In a convo earlier it struck me that somebody should do a "Black Adder" in 40k conversion...

 

This is as good a place as any to mention the idea.

Could have sworn a Black Library author already did that with a certain Commissar Cain. :lol:

[Soldier of Dorn]

I said in my initial post that "you say it yourself: "they have to be done well." I think that goes for everything someone does in 40k," but that is a wholly unsatisfactory answer, at least to me. What makes such a reference done well? I never answered that and I feel that I need to, partly for the sake of composing it to myself, and partly because ideas are meant to be shared. I've been ruminating quite a lot on what my perception of good storytelling and good narrative is, what good characters are, et cetera, and this topic has given me further cause for thought.

 

I think Lexington has it closest to what my answer would be in his post, further up the page -- that the key is interpreting these characters through a 40k light and by that methodology applying them to 40k, rather than trying to take the characters or influences as they already exist and interpolate them into 40k. This is sound advice, and I think he and I are largely in consensus, but I believe myself to take a subtly different stance (though it may be that the vagaries of language have caused me to misunderstand his view, and we may be closer in opinion than I think.) To the question of "how can I make [pop culture thing] fit into 40k?" I would assert that the question itself is wrong. Perhaps a bold claim, but one I stand by.

 

The question is only wrong because there is a better one to ask. Its flaw is in its starting point: to ask that question is to presuppose that the character you are creating in 40k belongs in a different universe, and no matter how much you alter it, you will at the end of the day be left with something that at its core does not fit. And perhaps this is acceptable, or it has been in the past -- certainly in particular contexts it might. In the early days of 40k, perhaps, alongside Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau, when the tone and identity of 40k was still formative and fluid, or at the establishment of an entirely new faction or aspect of the universe we have not yet explored, or from the mind of someone who is new to the universe and is still crafting and informing their fundamental understanding of it. That last one -- I do not think it applies to the majority of those who regularly haunt this forum: we all have pretty solidly embedded interpretations of how 40k should be, as far as I can see, and, subordinate to that, how things that exist in this universe should appear and act.

 

If this is so, then another question is by far the better one to ask: "How would a thing in 40k be if it was like [pop culture thing]?" It's a very similar question, but contradictory in the fundamental assumption. We assume that the character, the homage we are creating rests solidly within the realm of the universe it resides in. The thing that is alien to our objective is the thing that is alien to our character, as opposed to the criteria of the former, assuming the opposite. But if we start from 40k, and move to the outside, drawing influences, tics, and characterization from the outside and applying them to something that is, at its core, resting quite comfortably where we want it from the outset.

 

I believe that when we speak of good homages, we are speaking of homages that rest firmly fixed into the groundwork 40k lays, and the best methodology to that end is by starting from that groundwork -- one does not lay a foundation after building a house, after all. Outer influences should be, as a general rule of thumb, secondary to the core of the thing. That's not to say it's the only method, of course: it's certainly possible to create a good reference by way of the opposite method -- JackDaw (a name that may no longer be altogether familiar to people on this forum) is a good example of someone who accomplished great things by deciding on an external theme and adapting it into 40k with his Hanged Man's Tarot and several projects that drew heavy inspiration from the Malazan Book of the Fallen, while madscuzzy's BSG Viper-cum-Stormtalon and Orktimus Prime are legendary among the community. But these would be the exception rather than the rule.

 

At the end of the day, you're expanding on whatever little corner of the universe you've claimed for your own as a way to express your own interests, passions, and creativity. You have absolute freedom to do what you like with it -- it's yours. But it's preeminently important to at least consider that your creations are part of a larger whole, the canon (by which I mean the entirety of the body of work, rather than material officially accepted as part of the narrative,) and at least give thought to how yours might fit. It is a social hobby, this 40k of ours, and thus we should something of an unwritten duty to take others into consideration, in numerous ways: to play fairly and with sportsmanly conduct on the field of tabletop; to not scalp our fellow hobbyists as is so common with certain things; and, I add, to craft lore and models that are well received by others. Everyone prefers to fight against a well-painted (or just painted, period) army over sprueborne legions of gray, most rather enjoy seeing elegant and beautiful conversions across the field of battle, and when hearing another's lore or justification for choices, something that is grounded in 40k outweighs by far that which is entirely removed. It's only common courtesy, after all.

 

That's my thoughts on it, anyways.

[Bryan Blaire]

I was with you right there until the last paragraph, Soldier of Dorn. :(

[Soldier of Dorn]

I was with you right there until the last paragraph, Soldier of Dorn.

 

Indeed? Curious to see what your point of contention is -- please do elaborate. Really want to hear what your disagreement is.

 

(I'm glad we agree for the most part, though.)

[Bryan Blaire]

The idea that my or anyone else's creations are part of a "greater whole" and that there is an unwritten duty to craft things to be received by others. None of that is true. Someone else's vision of 40K has little to no bearing on my sandbox, nor should anyone else alter their vision of 40K due to any kind of duty to me or anyone else. If people want to take part in a greater whole, that's fine, but no one must acknowlege anything done by anyone else for their armies or view of 40K (and honestly that goes for GW official art/models) - if you want an army to look a certain way, do so. Even canon armies can have different appearances if someone so wishes - no one else is required to acknowledge this either.

 

Playing fair and all that, sure, but the art - just disagree with the idea wholeheartedly.

[Soldier of Dorn]

Ah, yes -- I was afraid that would be contentious.

 

Please don't misunderstand me: it's not my desire to claim that people are duty-bound to abide to any sort of greater whole in every subtle way. I wholeheartedly want support those who do push their creativity to the limit on a personal level, but there are, I think, stipulations. The mere fact that we are discussing the idea of a "good" and "bad" way to conduct individual creation of referential material in the context of 40k presupposes this.

 

I don't intend to mean that you are (let us suppose) duty-bound to conform to my specific individual view of 40k -- I know I have some rather strong opinions about certain aspects of the setting, and I go further as to emphatically dismiss certain parts of the lore (I would rather prefer to believe that The Beast Arises novels are noncanonical, personally) and to demand that you are in agreement with me upon every detail would be a ridiculous statement. It's the beauty of loose canon, after all. But there are certain, immutable aspects of the setting -- that the larger part of humanity is gathered under the Emperor, that he was betrayed by nine of his sons and sits upon the Golden Throne of Earth, that the Eldar are a race on the brink of extinction and are hunted by Slaanesh, et cetera -- that inform a basic common interpretation and themes that those later and individual interpretations rest upon. And I believe, that if we intend to interact with each other in the hobby, courtesy dictates compromise of our personal desires in favor of finding that common ground. That common ground is what I referred to as a "greater whole."

 

Certainly, no one else is required to acknowledge it. But as someone who is strongly oriented towards the "hobby" side of 40k over the "gaming" side of 40k, I view games themselves in a more narrative light. We're not merely pushing models around on a table, we're telling a story together -- one of great heroes and malevolent villains, mighty armies, and noble and terrible deeds -- and if the tellers of a tale are in major disagreement about the world it's told in, then, well, we've got some issues. If you take this approach to 40k, I think a person must believe in some form of courtesy or "duty" towards genial compatibility so far as lore is concerned, if not necessarily all in the same way or to the same degree.

 

For me, personally, taking the narrative into consideration is a big deal. I'm always going to try to make my army "work" with another person's, so far as I am able. But I also agree with you, in a sense: I do not have the right to tell you how you need to create your army or your army's background, nor would I want to exercise that right even if I did hold it. I'm not that kind of guy -- people are free to do what they will, and oft they do so to stunning effect (though sometimes you do get stinkers, but that is somewhat subjective.) But I'm also the kind of guy who wouldn't arrange a game to begin with if I knew that there would be full conceptual dissonance between my and my opponent's respective views of the game and setting. I suppose: I don't mean that last paragraph (nor the post as a whole) to be fully prescriptive, at least not to the forum or community at large. It's more how I personally view the setting and how I approach it, and sometimes that perspective is hard to put into words. No doubt I could have phrased it all better.

[DuskRaider]

I prefer my grimdark very grim and very dark. That being said, I cannot speak for another player's preference nor would I thumb my nose at an homage if it were to be fielded across from my grimdarkness. This is your hobby just as much as it's mine and I believe you can do whatever you please if it makes you happy (within reason... pipe cleaner or cardboard armies need not apply).

[Trevak Dal]

I think I'm going to call my Grey Knight Brotherhood Champion D'Argan after the Farscape character, because D'artagnan is a little long (I loved the Disney live action three musketeers movie back in the day so much, I read the novel and loved it too), he is Brother-Captain Alaric's sworn defender (my grey knights all have names, taken largely from the grey knight omnibus, Emperor's Gift, and other short stories)

 

I'd forgotten that I called my ethereal Aun'El B'teshi Kosh (Kosh, the Shepard of Victory) as both another homage to Commander Shepard and Kosh from Babylon 5.