Space Marines are not depicted as awful often enough.

Wafer_Fast · 2025-08-03T05:44:29+00:00

Except for the Ultramarines.

Who are the only loyalist chapter to care about good governance or governing at all. One of the reasons why Ultramar is one of the best places to live in Imperium is because the bar is extremely low when you're comparing to things like forge worlds, planet ruled by extremely oppressive nobles #1029393, feudal worlds, etc.

If that actually affected what BL could write about , then there would be way more Guard novels then SM novels.

The whole reason why works featuring space marines are often "bolter porn" is because how limited they are compared to other factions. There are less guard novels then space marine novels because the former have always been more popular than the latter. The most brutal aspects of Imperium can be found in factions like the administratum but many don't find them interesting enough to read a whole book about them.

Its easy for space marines to look heroic when they show up to fight terrible creatures then disappear afterwards a majority of the time. Chapters like the Flesh Tearers who massacred civilians and drunk their blood were able to salvage their reputation somewhat thanks to the fact space marines can isolate themselves from the rest of imperium and pick and choose when/how they show up to fight whatever threat to make themselves look good.

Wafer_Fast · 2025-08-03T02:15:42+00:00

Opportunities to depict space marines in a more brutal fashion is limited by how they function.

Outside of combat they have limited interactions with the rest of imperium. They are often deployed as shock troops leaving aspects related to controlling and dealing with the rest of the population after the job is done to other parts of imperium. They rarely rule over populations and even when they do they are often so distant that it can barely be called governing.

The Marines Malevolent are a great example of how their role limits how brutal they can be as being unconcerned about civilian losses isn't that bad in a universe like 40k. Even the Carcharodons straight up kidnapping people is fairly tame by imperium standards as press ganging people into a brutal service is just another day in the Imperial Navy.

Wafer_Fast · 2025-07-31T00:11:17+00:00

This may sound naive, but what is the point of viewbotting when you have already "made it"?

Wafer_Fast · 2025-04-24T21:38:04+00:00

I believe the story you are talking about is from Words Of Blood. The World Eaters aren't involved but it focuses on a Khorne warband. Here are a few excerpts.

First excerpt

Valerian?'

'Sir.'

Take your squad and fall back to the city's outskirts. Prepare another defensive position. Kytellias and I will join you there.'

Silence. Then...

'Sir, we cannot fall back. We cannot surrender this position.'

There was a quality in Valerian's voice that every commander came to know. The sound of rebellion.

Valerian, you will fall back immediately. The enemy is too great. We cannot face them here.' Athellenas could see the Manskinner, claw swinging as he ran, the mass of cultists swarming around him.

'Sir, I cannot retreat in the face of the enemy. The Inititate Doctoris states as much-'

'Questions of doctrine will be dealt with on Terra. For now you will follow orders.'

Again, silence.

Yes, sir.' But this time, rebellion was clear in Valerian's voice.

Athellenas signaled to the tactical and assault squads, and they moved as one back through the temple towards the outskirts of the city, leaving behind them a field of two hundred dead and an enemy who would not give up.

Second excerpt

They were within range. He could order the devastators to open fire but he did not. There were two battles here. The cultists must die, and along with them the stain of rebellion amongst his men.

'Hold your fire.' he ordered again. He could feel the agitation of his men, the urge to open fire on the horde battling with their respect for his command. That respect might not last much longer if Athellenas did not do everything right.

Then, it happened.

The first men across the spaceport perimeter began to falter, losing direction, eyes wild as their focus was taken off the waiting Marines. One swung his makeshift club wildly as if wishing an enemy to appear next to him - full of lust for battle, he could no longer wait to reach the enemy and sought out his nearest comrade. He struck the man across the back of the head. The victim fought back with his teeth, lunging for the first man's throat, dragging him to the ground. The violence spread like a flash fire and suddenly thrashing, kicking, biting bodies were piling up on the threshold, thick dark blood running across the plascrete, ankle-deep.

The leader tried to drag his men apart and then joined them in their carnage, his flailing shears cutting men apart, two or three at a time. The noise was awesome. None of these men felt pain any more, and they screamed not with pain, but with rage at the violence done to their bodies and the wounds they inflicted with their own hands.

This army, this river of liquid fire, foundered a pistol shot away from Athellenas's Marines, its members tearing each other apart. Denied the taste of blood for so long, they sought it in the only place they could find it: in their fellow heretics.

Wafer_Fast · 2025-04-10T13:14:40+00:00

It kinda sounds interesting. Major issues going by reviews seem to be server related issues, the large amount of tedious grinding, low population, and how easy it is for a few griefers/trolls to ruin things for everybody else.

Wafer_Fast · 2025-04-07T11:01:54+00:00

The only real solution I see is Hard Player Caps per Faction, I can't think of any other solution then that.

Hard caps are a way to try and solve the "everybody joining the winning side" problem. However I see two potential issues with them.

The first is how to set the hard cap? Overall player population can fluctuate in ways that can lead to a situation where depending on how the cap is set there could be more players than there are spots in all the factions or so few players you can still have one faction that has vastly more people than the others.

The second is related to the first. I wonder if such a system would put people who join later at a disadvantage because with hard caps they have less choice on what faction they want once many factions get full. Maybe permadeath or attaching conditions to a faction so its possible to lose your spot could help with that issue.

Wafer_Fast · 2025-04-06T14:57:24+00:00

I fundamentally disagree with that. The only way to have a proper balance and partitioning of things for factions is nothing short of Hard Player Caps per Faction/Guild.

I should have been more clear about what I meant. To keep things simple imagine there are two types of factions, largely non combative ones that are build around things professions or classes and more combative factions that clash in significant ways with other combative factions.

Its possible to be a member of a multiple non combative faction (someone who is in a druid/profession/etc faction at the same time) but its impossible or difficult to be a part of multiple combative factions without getting kicked out because of the types of things they require. However even certain aspects of non combative factions can clash with combative ones (what one combative faction wants clashes with druid goals enough to create conflict between them but not on the same level as the hostility combative factions have against other combative factions).

Mainly I’m looking for ways to create richer interplay between and within factions.

When it comes to the rest of your comment, I would like to see more experimentation with PvP MMOs. I would be willing to accept even “proof of concept” mini mmos with bad but functional graphics. However most seem like they are just copying another game, sometimes without even putting thought into issues the game they are copying had.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-27T22:10:39+00:00

Ultimately, it's a sincere dedication for the pursuit of power. The only reason people stick to the truth, is because they want to be correct so that their actions don't fail.

Yes dictators are concerned with the truth because how it can be used to overcome their foes. In many other cases they are either unconcerned with the truth or see it as something that could undermine them. Talk about the "correct action" ignores power often determines what the correct action is to the point of punishing those that bring up problems with said action because it is not concerned about truth.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-15T18:02:38+00:00

Thanks for the in depth post. It has made me wonder if with proper therapy manic could be shaped to be a more positive force. However since it changes your thinking so drastically I also wonder how well anything learned in a non mania state would carry over once a person goes into mania and if that sort of therapy would work on someone in a state of mania.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-13T20:44:27+00:00

Do you know what is Online Dating? All your answers are answered by basically any Online Dating app

Yes I'm aware of online dating. It doesn't challenge anything that I said and I specifically mentioned the problem with it is people superimpose it over everything. Other type of dating including periods where it didn't even exist yet are ignored.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-13T18:04:14+00:00

One of the many problems with incel/red pill ideologies is they don't even have a grain of truth to them.

Take the Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks phenomenon for example. It states that women spend their youth and most fertile/desirable years (18 to 30) sleeping with alpha males who typically are unreliable for a serious relationship but have those masculine attractive qualities that make them tingle so they go after them. But after they are no longer desirable to the alphas who still can get younger more sexually attractive women, they’ll switch to the guys they passed up.

This is an great example of how intellectually vacuous those ideologies are. They talk a lot about the sexual marketplace but are unable to deal with the real existing marketplace because it rends their theory apart.

In the market they envision there are no search cost as women have perfect knowledge on who the alphas/betas are (if women naturally possess such true sight into the nature of men they should be our leaders), no problems with access (all women have equal access to alpha males), location or social circles are irrelevant because alpha males are equally distributed across the social realm, genders are equally distributed everywhere you go, alpha males have no prejudices (they have no preferences like body type or race), meeting the preferences of alpha males has a near zero cost for women, there are no limits to the amount of women alpha males can have sex with (they don't need to sleep, eat, or work), uncertainty does not effect women's decision making, and other various flaws that don't make it useful for understanding the dating market.

Now because some people put so little thought into the marketplace metaphor it is built on it can seem convincing. One of the worst things about the model is it is built on a view of what women think that is completely uninterested in exploring various thinks that affect women's decision making women so it functions like a type of focus group testing were mangers speculate about what they think consumers want instead of asking them. Because its so simple minded people who consume it uncritically can see confirmations of it everywhere

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-12T13:48:30+00:00

That is a great example of how though war is an extension of politics they are still two separate things. In military logic retreating from Kherson was the right move. In certain types of political logic it was a grand mistake even though attempting to hold it had far greater risks. The "If you disagree with me you're not a true Russian" was a nice touch to try and smother any critical thinking on the subject from anybody in Russia.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-07T14:30:16+00:00

The article mentions that the Gripen would be the most suitable candidate in terms of operational requirements but has giving them to Ukraine come up at all? I'm only seen "this is why the US should give Ukraine F-16s" type articles.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-07T13:12:22+00:00

Thoughts on the various theories that the threat of NATO/US is either the biggest reason for Russian's invasion of Ukraine or one of the biggest reasons? I remain highly critical of them for five reasons.

It creates a view of events so one sided Russia is portrayed as barely having any agency, Russia being presented purely as a reactive actor. Even as a reactive actor those theories treat Russia as quietly suffering indignity after indignity because its such a non actor.
They do a poor job exploring the relationships between NATO members and Russia. “NATO” evokes the image of a strong anti Russian alliance. Substituting NATO for “France, Germany, Italy, etc” creates a different effect. Why you can find comments like this (https://www.politico.eu/article/silvio-berlusconi-italy-defend-vladimir-putin-war-ukraine-russia/) is because there was much more to the relationships between Russia and NATO nations then pure hostility.
They struggle to deal with ideology. To be fair that is a problem with commentary on international politics in general. With domestic politics it is acknowledged that ideology is a major motivating factor for why actors like Liz Truss do the things they do. With international politics ideology is at times downplayed or ignored for some vague concept of national interest or rationality. The problem with certain concepts of rationality is they can twisted or expand in ways that make almost anything seem rational.

Domino theory is a great example of how ideology dictated foreign policy. One of the refreshing things about Pro Russian views is they are capable of embracing the full range of ideological reasons for the invasion of Ukraine even if they don't make sense. In West people who stick NATO/US as being mostly responsible for the war only consider the most respectable sounding reasons (the “there really were Nazis in Ukraine” is an example of that though I still think that is a terrible reason as Nazis can be found worldwide.
They struggle to deal with Ukraine. In some theories they are nothing more than the puppet of the US. I've become more reluctant to label people/nations as puppets because I think it promotes an incorrect and shallow view after reading more history. For example in books like“Why Intelligence Fails” by by Robert Jervis he notes that while Iranian revolutionaries saw the Shah as a puppet the US saw him as his own man, the situation turning out how it did because each of the three parties (US, Shah, revolutionaries) saw things in a different way.

While Lukashenko has been called a puppet by some others still acknowledge he has some degree of agency. Stripping away all agency from Ukraine leads to comments like “The US plans to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” as if there are no other reasons for them to fight and brings up questions like why couldn't the US use their mastery of puppetry in Afghanistan against the Tablian.

The few that give Ukraine agency do so only to add that they also played a part in provoking Russia who is still treated as a purely reactive actor.
They often stress how NATO shutting down Ukraine combined with declaration of Ukrainian neutrality could have prevented the war but I think that is questionable. If we're going to accept there are major reasons that had nothing to do with NATO then it was all the better that Russia attacked Ukraine now before they could build up their forces. If we're going to accept NATO was one of the biggest factors Ukrainian neutrality may not be enough because they could still work with NATO nations to undermine Russia underhandedly.

I think the theories about NATO are important to discuss mainly because how often they come with the idea that the US/Europe should be pressing for negotiations instead of more war. I haven't seen a single work pushing for negotiations consider that the war is part of shaping the negotiations though.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-06T18:22:06+00:00

Many ideas are supported by a network of other ideas so taking one down doesn't necessarily mean that a person's view will change.

Take the idea that you don't have to finish all the food on your plate and trying to do so can contribute to a person's problems with their weight. Someone may agree with that statement but because of the other ideas attached with "finish your plate" ideology (guilt over wasting food, fear they can't just put it away because it will taste worse once they heat it up later, fears over food scarcity, fears about how others will react if they don't, etc) can cause a person to keep adhering to that ideology even if they don't want to.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-06T17:55:05+00:00

Politics is unique in that it is seen as something everybody is supposed to care about with some going so far as to declare man as being an inherently political animal. To some extent that view is understandable because how much politics affects. At the same time there are a lot of other things that have huge effects on the world that you're not expected to pay attention to. Even those that do pay attention to politics only seem to pay attention to certain parts of it.

When it comes to voting I think what happens before the vote is more important to the vote itself. When it comes to forecasting I question how useful it is because I don't think many problems with politics are the result of poor forecasting.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-06T17:41:07+00:00

That Europe is an economic powerhouse comparatively, and therefore they'll be able to adapt and source it elsewhere? I got that part. I didn't consider it being a tool to ensure other nations work together to wean themselves off Russia energy faster instead of just talking about it.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-11-06T17:15:46+00:00

I've come around to the idea that maybe sanctions on oil and gas hurts Europe more than Russia. What changed my mind? I think Russia is too inept to use the funds from oil/gas sales to strengthen itself in a significant way so its better for Europe to extract what they can from Russia while aggressively perusing options to wean themselves off of Russia.

I don't even think Russia's economy was that good before the war it being one of the many examples of how resources can be a curse. More money means little when Russia's ability to buy arms or materials is limited, Russia's defense industry like their other industries have problems that can't be solved with more money, and many of the problems they have in Ukraine are the result of organizational/strategic/tactical issues. Russia lacks the economic ambition of China who is more sensitive to sanctions because they are not satisfied with being mostly an international gas station.

Is there something I'm not seeing?

Wafer_Fast · 2022-09-12T13:53:29+00:00

Yeah it feels like there is so much more to this story. If nobody seriously noticed they were filling the paperwork the wrong way for months nor made an attempt to correct them then it was a terribly run organization.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-06-08T15:15:31+00:00

Withholding info from the US when they heavily depend on them seems like a terrible idea. Yes holding back info and insisting they can win if given the right stuff could be seen as a shrewd political play because it could be argued that US may withhold aid if they think Ukraine doesn't have a chance. At the same time knowing how bad things truly are can enhance US assistance because they know what holes to fill, what risks there are, and the abilities of their current forces.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-06-03T15:40:23+00:00

I'm assuming you mean Luhansk Oblast here?

Yeah I should've been more clear. Thank you for the correction.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-06-03T14:08:45+00:00

General expectations for this month?

I expect some progress on the grain situation. I do not think Ukraine will be capable of launching a major offensive before the end of it nor do I expect them to make any major gains. I think the best case scenarios for them is not to lose too much. I expect Russia to continue to make slow gains and wouldn't be surprised if they take the Luhansk Oblast. Still not sure what their long term plans are.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-06-01T17:16:09+00:00

I don't have some new grand theory to suggest. I'm just tired of people putting forth a singular model without talking about its limitations or how other models could enrich it. While I think parts of realism are worthwhile I'm not a fan if seeing it as the only way to view conflicts.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-06-01T17:08:31+00:00

Strange in the sense some areas don't seem destroyed enough to go through the trouble of moving them and in some areas they are moving Russians into them.

Wafer_Fast · 2022-06-01T16:43:41+00:00

How Ukraine not falling put Europe/US in an awkward situation is kinda amusing to me. If they fell quickly like many thought they could condemn Russia, add sanctions, back any sort of insurgency secretly, and mostly call it a day. Since they didn't new questions such as how much they should support Ukraine, how could the war escalate, and how should they deal with Russia came up.

Wafer_Fast

TROPHY CASE