Update on Games Workshop’s Quarrel with Spots the Space Marine

In mid-December, Games Workshop made a complaint to Amazon that I had infringed on their trademark of the words “space marine” with my novel Spots the Space Marine (a near-future military science fiction novel about real marines). Their US trademark covers only gaming materials, not novels; the word “space marine” has been in use in science fiction since it was coined in the 1930s, by authors like Heinlein and E.E. Smith, among others. However, based on that complaint, Amazon blocked sales of my e-book.

After some delay due to the holidays, I’ve had a phone conversation with Games Workshop about their issues with my novel. My takeaway from that conversation, then:

Games Workshop has trademarks in the US, UK and Europe. The US and UK trademarks cover only games and miniatures, as I mentioned previously. The European trademark, however, includes Class 16, which reads:

Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); playing cards; printers’ type; printing blocks

Games Workshop brought their complaint to Amazon Kindle Publishing UK based on this class in the European trademark, which caused Amazon Kindle Publishing (in the US) to block my e-book in all the countries it was being sold. The paperback was not affected at the time of the complaint and has never been blocked from sale.

Salient points (even granting that the many prior usages of “space marine” in science fiction can be ignored):

1. Trademark rights are limited to the territory of the government that grants them. A European trademark cannot be enforced in the US. GW can make claims in the US based on their US trademark, but their US trademark does not include Class 16, the class upon which they told me they were making their claim.

2. My e-book is not “printed matter.” There is a trademark class recommended for covering e-books and other forms of entertainment like radio and television. Games Workshop’s trademarks in the US, UK and Europe do not include this class.

3. The paperback version of Spots isn’t being sold in Europe; I would have to toggle a specific distribution channel to approve Createspace’s distribution to Europe and that toggle is currently off.

At this point, the e-book remains blocked from sale in all countries. Spots was my homage to Heinlein and the greats of science fiction. I contributed some of the profit to charities benefiting wounded soldiers (notably the Wounded Warrior Project). The e-book edition of Spots is where most of the money comes from, and where most of my readers first encounter the story. I don’t appreciate having to defend my use of “space marine” to describe a cookie-baking mom no one could mistake for something out of Warhammer 40K.

I’ve had some positive discussions with lawyers on my next steps, and am now researching lawyers with specialties in international trademark law. If you know of any such people (or are one), I’d like to hear from you! Several of you have asked if you can contribute to a Spots legal defense fund; I hope not to need one, but I’ll keep you updated.

Leave a comment ?


  1. Have you tried taking up the matter with Amazon? Instead of a trial lawyer, you might just get a few hours of time from an IP lawyer and get a letter written up to send to Amazon.

  2. Firstly, GW is an awesome company, it’s one of the few good companies around. Period.
    Having a quick look around I’ve found two problems. One, no direct contact information for yourself, GW will contact you directly if they have a problem – if they can’t then they’ll have to go via the channels – ie Amazon.
    Now like everyone has said, calling something Space Marine isn’t wrong or illegal, Google won’t be taking me to court if I called my dog “Google” would they. Having a quick look around the internet for information I’ve found it descripted as “she was in a powersuit taking down alien bugs” – (http://mcah.wikia.com/wiki/Spots_the_Space_Marine_%28fiction%29), no offense, that’s a GW Space Marine right there – that’s the issue, not the name, but the fact you’ve used the very idea of a Space Marine – the fact you’ve taken the name as well is just like breaking into the house then stealing the car to transport the goods. Ok, so she’s a female so technically in the 40k universe, she would be a sister of battle – but that’s just splitting hairs (I’ll get a load of hate mail now from 40K fans for saying that).
    Personally, if I was in your boat, I would contact them direct, person to person, say, sorry, I didn’t know, will you be ok if I just add a paragraph at the beginning that states this isn’t anything to do with your “world”, failing that can you give me exact details of what you have a problem with and I’ll amend. Be must easier, cheaper, quicker than hiring a lawyer and going to court.
    I think they should be happy with the disclaimer, I mean if you’re a 40k fan and you type in Space Marine into Amazon and it comes up with a book about people in power suits called Space Marines, you are going to think it’s related to GW. Come on!!

    • “she was in a powersuit taking down alien bugs” — Technically, that’s a Starship Trooper, right there.

      • …and I’m sure if it was called “Spots the Starship Trooper” it would be them moaning about IP infringement

        • Matt40K you are a moron.

          • Did you have trouble reading the book, what with your limited vocabulary? What about the letter from GW legal?

            What? Have haven’t read either?!? So you make such a bold statement about someone you have never meet, with not even half the facts? Wow, you must be extremely clever!

    • You must be employed by the GW legal team, trying to muck up her blog.

      First off, she’s correct: “space marine” is now a cultural term. “space marine jumping around killing bugs” came from the ORIGINAL Heinlein work (which I’ve read); and the later movie BASED on the original Heinlien work, published in 1997. Since Heinlien’s work vastly predates GW’s, I do believe that it is GW that is in violation here, and not Hogarth.

      Someone contact the Heinlien estate and tell em to sue the pants off GW. And to take Matt40k (who is in violation of the use of the term “40k) with them.

      • No you fool, I’m asking before for more information before I jump to her defence. Which FYI, she has given – continue reading the comments.

        Just because I want more then its because the book has the word “space marine” in the title doesn’t mean I’m part of GW legal – if I was I wouldn’t waste my time posting in here. Go read the rest of the comments.

    • @matt40k a.k.a. “GW’s canine in estrus”, I find your writing fascinating.

      – “Firstly, GW is an awesome company, it’s one of the few good companies around. Period.”

      ORLY? Have you googled “games workshop lawsuit”? Please do. Games Workshop is a litigious organization known for claiming the rights to such things as the image of a chevron, which has been used since before Christ. This is hardly *their* IP, but they thought they saw profit in making the bogus claim, and took it all the way to court; they’ve done so on several occasions. Surprisingly, you seem oblivious to this highly-publicized aspect of the company’s history, but you do claim to know that “GW will contact you directly if they have a problem”… Hmm, you’re claiming knowledge of company process/policy, but no awareness of their extremely public history? I’m inclined to suspect you’re either GW’s little stooge, or you’re a liar, offering your suppositions as fact… both, perhaps?

      You’ve claimed that you’re on the fence, but there’s all this charming prose, wherein you attack MCAH and/or defend GW:
      – “Having a quick look around the internet for information I’ve found it descripted as “she was in a powersuit taking down alien bugs” – (http://mcah.wikia.com/wiki/Spots_the_Space_Marine_%28fiction%29), no offense, that’s a GW Space Marine right there – that’s the issue, not the name, but the fact you’ve used the very idea of a Space Marine – the fact you’ve taken the name as well is just like breaking into the house then stealing the car to transport the goods.”

      Oh my! She’s practically a thieving criminal now! Why, she might even try to steal the Chevron from all humanity… wait, no… that’s GW. By the way, y’know that bit you mentioned about contact info? It’s complete BS. Try googling “mca hogarth” and limit it to pages published before this mess; heck, let’s go back a whole year, shall we? I know you’re not into research, so I’ll make it easy:


      Oh LOOK!!! Right at the freakin’ top, FIRST result! I’ll help you find it, as you’re not keen on reading: “You can also catch up with her on twitter (@mcahogarth), Livejournal (haikujaguar.livejournal.com) or her website (www.stardancer.org).” Her contact info’s been publicly available for quite some time, from a single search of her name. Indeed, both of your arguments quoted here reek of bovine excrement.

      – “you know what, maybe she is in the wrong. Maybe GW is right in say her book in breach of GW IP, I don’t know. I haven’t read the book,”

      You’re fond of the ol’ Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, aren’t you? You’re right, though: you don’t know. You don’t know enough about GW to comment accurately on them. You don’t know enough about MCAH’s book to comment accurately on it. You don’t know enough to comment. I think it’d be fair to say that “Firstly, matt40k is an awfully ignorant commenter, one of the least informed commenters around. Period.”

      – “I’m sure people will igore me and continue as they have been doing, hopefully a few will understand why i am at the back of the GW riot and come join me. At least until more facts are addressed – I’m sure most of it is oversite which is complelety understandable in this kinda situation.”

      Nice, just a little “oversite [sic]”. MCAH’s hard work and kid’s future just got jacked by a company with a history of dishonesty and abuse, but it’s just a little oversight THIS time, I’m sure. Because they’re an “awesome company”… rriiiight.

      – “I see your point but what I am trying to say is what do we really know?” WE know GW’s dishonest history, you don’t, or claim not to. WE know that “space armour” and “bugs” and “space marines” have been around far longer than your miniature fetish toys, but you don’t, or claim not to. WE know that GW could have contacted her directly after a single google search, but declined the “GW will contact you directly” option, you claim is standard… What do YOU know? Certainly not PR.

      • Dude he asked if anyone read the book to see if it was actual a gw book in a diff cover, no one on here said they had read it. He shut “defending” it when she put the book back up on another side and he actually read it. Lay off the poor guy and direct your fury at someone who deserves it like GW rather then someone who asked a question. Now go fix your scroll wheel.

  3. Space marines have been in fiction since the 1930s, sometimes fighting alien bugs, even. GW may have even used the term since it already conjured images put into place by Smith, Heinlein, and Olsen. Come to think of it, by “alien bugs,” I assume you mean Tyranids, which most agree were “borrowed” from the movie Alien.

  4. Oh totally, everyone borrows ideas from others, I think the issue is “power armour” and “space marine” – I would image some person has contacted GW after ordering the book for a child only to find out it’s not the “real deal” and gone and complained to GW and GW has gone, hang on a min, that’s a bit too close – and with no disclaimer too. Don’t get me a wrong, if you say Space Marine, I don’t think you need to put a GW disclaimer on – could you image NASA sending a US Marine into space and having a GW disclaimer on his space suit? I think it’s when it gets a bit close for comfort – a story, called Space Marine, about a people in power suits, in space, in the future, fighting aliens… got to admit that’s close to GW IP.

    • The terms “Space Marine”. “Power armour” and even concepts like drop pod were used in fiction long before GW even existed or it’s founders were born. Heinlein’s done a number of books featuring Space Marines from 1939 and Starship Troopers in particular features thier mobile infantry units, which are marines in power armour with jump packs, fired into combat from their ships in orbit in drop pods. When was that book published? 1959. “GW’s IP” isn’t GW’s IP, it’s a straight copy and paste of ideas that have gone before and existed for a long time, not only in literature but in gaming that’s gone before GW started, like Traveller. They have no legitimate right to say “hang on a min, that’s a bit too close”, it’d be like them trying to dig Tolkien out his grave to complain that he had a book about Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Goblins and tree folk all fighting battles and that was “a bit too close” to WHFB. It’s generic it’s existed in the realm of SF, and very very closely to what they hold as “unique” as I hope my example illustrates, for literally decades before they existed.

  5. … On the plus side they’ve both have got a lot of press – I would love to see this sites stats.

    Half full kinda guy :p

  6. @matt40k “Someone in powered armor taking down bugs” is automatically a 40k space marine? Only to GW and rabid fans of theirs who are woefully ignorant of SF. The first thing I think of is Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, not WH40K. Who is stealing from whom, here?

    • Hang on a min, before you jump in a personally attack me for say hey, you know what, maybe she is in the wrong. Maybe GW is right in say her book in breach of GW IP, I don’t know. I haven’t read the book, I haven’t heard of this site before today. Far as well all know this is a setup, GW could have “picked” on her as a promo to spread the GW name. On the other hand she could be promoting herself, hey, look at me I’m a small time female author who’s wrote a book, which I donate part (could be a penny or a few thousand far we don’t know) and now some big evil company that makes lots of money (again I don’t know) is saying I’ve breached their IP.

      Based on what I know this has been blown up, a simple addition of a disclaimer to make it clear its nothing to do with GW or anything else for that matter could of solved this rather them claiming she needs thousands to hire some lawyers to take them on. If I could buy the book and read it, then maybe I could find out that it has other references to the 40k universe, maybe it’s completely different and GW is talking out of there rear, I do know that GW legal team won’t be claim IP infringement for no good reason.

      I just think people should step back and look at the big picture rather then following blindly like the rest of the crowd because the crowd is shouting one part of biased picture. At the moment I can’t say anymore until we hear more information then the blut one sided informated we have, other then open your eyes and stop barking the same things. As you could be falling into someone’s trap.

      PS you assume wrong my friend. My domain matt40k is matt40k because my name is matt and matt smith is already taken strangely, the logo I admit is based on the space marine purity seal – I guess I better add a disclaimer lol

      • Firstly, that wasn’t a personal attack, that was an “if the shoe fits” comment, chosen because you are making an assertive defense of GW and their efforts to infringe on a host of authors by claiming TM of the term “space marine”. Or, since you write as though you have a certain knowledge of GW’s policies, are they only going to go after vulnerable indie authors, and leave those who could fight back alone?

        Second, if adding a disclaimer would satisfy GW, then why didn’t they ask her to do so?

        As far as mistakes go, you’ve made one ourself. I didn’t “follow the crowd” here, I got hear via a couple who know the author personally, and having known them for over a decade, I trust their judgement.

        As for your suggestion, whatever you meant to say, what I’m seeing is “Be quiet while GW can work out a damage control strategy”.

        GW has a very good reason to do this, and a book about a 30-something mother in the reserves, who was thrown into a mess might well be a handy way to test the waters in pursuit of that reason: to take ownership of the words “space marine” in all e-books, whether they limit it to characters in Heinlein-style powered armor or not. Probably not, to avoid dilution.

        • I see your point but what I am trying to say is what do we really know? You’ve heard only half the facts told by one side of the argument. We are running blind, I’ve covered everything I think here – http://wp.me/p30XJz-B, hopefully it’ll give you a bit of food for thought, I can’t really say much more because we don’t know anymore! And that my point, when you buy a car you don’t believe everything the car sales person says, you step back and think, what aren’t they saying to me. Just because of the person’s personal situation- like they have cancer. It shouldn’t directly affect your decision. I’m sure people will pick fault with what I’ve post, but I’ve made perfect, I’m human after all, but that’s not the point – my point is I need more I information before i take her side, at the moment I’m on the fence, I’ve found fault with both sides, I’m sure if my points are addressed i could follow the crowd, but they are not, people aren’t, they can’t they just say the same argument, your question is has a hole there for you are wrong. Rather then actual new evidence being brought forward by either party. GW won’t, I’ve not see any public statement yet, they are staying quiet for a reason, it could be taken as an assault, they will wait till they are court, which is where this is heading – all that will achieve is alot of money for the legal teams. You could say GW will step back, but we’re not actually how far back they will need step because we don’t no how far down the path we are.

          I’m sure people will igore me and continue as they have been doing, hopefully a few will understand why i am at the back of the GW riot and come join me. At least until more facts are addressed – I’m sure most of it is oversite which is complelety understandable in this kinda situation.

          • @Matt It’s already been established that CW claims to own common images like skulls, arrows, and chevrons. Yes, they have really claimed this in court. That is THIER side.

            This isn’t about Ms. Hogarth. This is about them being able to censor anything and everything published containing the words “space marines”. That is the substance of their complaint to Ms. Hogarth, and likely to Amazon, as well.

            This is about GW trying to take a generic term, and steal it. They did not invent it, they only partially promoted it, and if they manage to steal it, they will take the “rabid dog” approach to “protect” it. If Games Workshop wins here, /no one/ will be able to use the trope “space marines” in e-fiction /ever/ again.

            You can argue that they won’t aggressively defend (i.e. attack) the use in print media that doesn’t relate to WH40K, but I disagree. GW, if it wins, will indeed go after anyone (or at least anyone who isn’t as rich as they are) who uses the generic term “space marines” in e-fiction, for as long as they exist. That’s trope theft, pure and simple.

            As for waiting for “their side of the story”, what could their side be? The term “space marines” has been used and promoted by many, many people over the years. Filing a TM claim, saying that GW, and GW alone is allowed to use it in fiction is horribly dishonest.

            And if GW doesn’t confront entities that can fight back, such as the Heinlein estate, then they are cowards and bullies, out to censor little indies who use words that they spuriously claim to own.

            No, I will not be silent and wait for GW to spin this to “how this little thief stole what was really ours all along”. The thieves here are GW, and they are stealing a generic term from /everyone./ They are stealing it from established (not “small time”, in your condescending terms) authors, in works they have already published, and even if they concede that prior work is OK, they are saying that NO ONE can EVER AGAIN use the words “space marines” in print without their permission.

            These are the people you are defending. This is not an original word like “Xerox(TN)” or “Kleenex(TM)”, which are original words. These are people who are trying to lay claim to a generic term, and if they can do so, they will deny use to all others (rabid defense).

            These people deserve to be opposed.

          • Stop, step back. Read what I’m saying. Have you read the book? Because as far as I know it could be a GW book in a different cover. Forget the argument that GW is preventing you from writing a book or even game about “space marines”, they are not. A visit to the local sci fi shop shows a number of ideas, books, games that have taken influence from GW, why is it that they are not been told off? Why? They don’t give GW a cut do they? I think its because they haven’t used a GW space marine, they created something new, based on ideas.

            Show me the letter from GW legal saying it’s purely the name of the book, show me the book that isn’t about a GW space marine but of another idea, maybe loosy based on GW idea of a space marine.

            I’m not say either side is right or wrong just we don’t know enough. And we shouldn’t jump to action without all the facts. Otherwise we’ll be like terrorists.

            Give me the book, only then will I really take a side.

            PS read my blog, I said why I think she could be doing this. Again, its most likely totally wrong, but that’s the point, we don’t know until the book is opened up.

  7. Dave Robinson (@dcrwrites)

    I’m another who thinks Starship Troopers and Heinlein’s MI long before Games Workshop when someone mentions a person in powered armor taking down bugs.

    Heinlein’s usage predates GW’s founding by over 15 years and the introduction of 40K by over a quarter of a century.

    Then there’s E.E. “Doc” Smith’s Valerians, also Space Marines, and in powered armor, who first appeared in 1934, which was over a decade before the founders of Games Workshop were even born. Maybe Games Workshop should be paying Smith’s estate?

    Just using the term “Space Marines,” and having the characters fight bugs while wearing powered armor is not and should not be enough for Games Workshop to get an injunction.

    It’s crap.

  8. Really? WTF GW? : Deepstrike Radio - pingback on February 6, 2013 at 6:25 pm
  9. Games Workshop trying to claim Intellectual Property of something as common a name as a “space marine” is hands down ridiculous in all aspects. End of story. It’s like saying that Wizards of the Coast would sue Peter Jackson for saying the “Dungeons” of Moria – hey “dungeons” might refer to “Dungeons and Dragons”, not to mention you’ve got a dragon in the prequel!!!!111oneoneone


    GW, you’re making fucking fools of yourself. You have just turned me from “actively avoiding your products” to “do what I can to actively sabotage your sales”. Who the hell do you think you are, claiming ownage of a century old science fiction concept? Are you out of your frigging minds?

    If you put up a fund for this, I’m in.

    • “If you put up a fund for this, I’m in.”

      Thank you, you’ve added another reason why this could be a scam. I’ll just summarise my points to make it easy for everyone:

      1/ Before today, have you heard of GW? No, well how do you know this isn’t a market plot by GW? You’ve heard of them now haven’t you? I bet you total all your friends? How many teenagers (GW key market) will use GW as a way to rebel against there parents who see GW as evil?

      2/ How do we know it’s about the title of the book? Has GW issued a statement? Has she published the legal notice from GW in it’s all it’s glory?

      3/ Has anyone here read the book? How do I know it’s not a 40k novel with then names changes and a new cover? Would we be heard if it was Harry Potter?

      4/ How many people actual read the word “could” in my first sentence – after the quote? I’m not say she’s in the wrong, I’m not saying anything, she hasn’t given me enough information to say either way.


      It’s important that the book is free to prove this isn’t a marketing scam by her to promote herself – perhaps if GW said they would donate $1 for every copy downloaded to a charity? – Must be cheaper then the legal costs surely? (Shut up there in the back saying they’ll download a million copies!!)

      Anyway, ignore me. I’m just a “moron”. Sorry for trying to talk sheep, I mean well education people, into question why they are following.

      • I know precisely what GW is, and this kind of ridiculous “sue them!” reaction is very much in line with what I’ve seen up until now. If this is a market plot by them or not is irrelevant; it’s ridiculous nonetheless.

        We know it’s about the title of the book, because that’s what the claim has been about. I have not read the book, but it’s also irrelevant. GW doesn’t own rights to words, nor science fiction settings. Also, the probability of Hogarth writing something that’s exactly WH40K is so tiny it’s not even worth the time entertaining the thought; Hogarth has nothing to gain from that.

        The book is already published. If it was a WH40K ripoff, it would already have been out. It’s just not available as an e-book because WH are behaving like steam rollers, which is a duckass way to behave. It’s exactly as silly as Bethesda going legal on Notch for naming his new game “Scrolls”.

        Someone needs to point out that just because you’ve used a word in your creation and your creation happens to become famous, doesn’t mean you can prevent every one else from using that word. Not when it’s a goddamn normal part of terminology. And “Space Marine” is just exactly that.

  10. (Sorry, but) I don’t really have any interest in this article. I came across it in a friends fb stream.

    I do, however, casually collect Warhammer (not space marines, as it happens) knowing full well they are happy to rip off people for tiny bits of plastic (sets the tone for the company tbh). But, I have some money to spare, so I’m not really bothered.

    But seriously matt? You clearly have a bias and are being downright rude and obtuse to others. You wouldn’t talk like this to them face to face.

    1. I think you answered your “how do you know this isn’t a market plot by GW?” question with “How many teenagers (GW key market) will use GW as a way to rebel against there parents who see GW as evil?”. I don’t think this is aimed at teenagers.

    2. You’re right, it’s probably not about the title of the book, rather the concept.

    3. A link to the hard copy book will solve this (by this I mean on the amazon store), as we could see the reviews. If it was a rip off, it would be quite a foolish thing to actively fight it, especially with lawyers. Also, no one would print it if it just had “the names changed and a new cover”. I guess you just have to use your common sense here.

    4. It could be, but I can think of a handful of scams off the top of my head that are better. It seems an unlikely channel to pursue. That being said, I’ve heard of stupider scams. Obviously you shouldn’t give you money away on the internet to unheard of people/organisations without solid evidence of intent and solid reputation. That just goes without saying.

    Publishing the book for free is just idiotic, considering that she’s said many times that it was her source of income. Publishing the legal letter will be better proof, but what’s to stop her making one up?

    Anyway, I agree with you that more evidence is needed about the book by us who haven read it. For all we know, the book could be about a 40k space marine.
    What you can’t deny is the substantial evidence that GW did not invent the term ‘space marine’.

    Either way, i’m going outside :)

    • Well, the book is only out of the Kindle store. The sample chapters are freely available at Nook, iBooks, and Smashwords. I would also assume the fact that Amazon hasn’t taken down the print book it woukd have the Look Inside(tm) for it there.

      It IS about a mother who gets thrown into a bit of a mess when her reserves unit gets called up. It wasn’t my cuppa (sorry MCA), but it’s far from being about anything remotely Warhammery.

      Honestly, I can believe that GW is certainly pulling this. Apoarently they learned nothing from SCO. It’s a time honoured tradition for a bigger company to cry IP infringement and hope to cow the little guy. Not sure how this makes them money as the little guy gets cease and desist order (and usually complies). All I can assume is to establish presedent so that they have some legl weight to go after the likes of Heinlein’s estate who may well pay them a tithe in tribute (known in business speak as license fee). They did try to sue soneone in th UK for perfectly ordinary and completely traditional heraldry.

      As to something like a Kickstarter to raise funds for a lawyer? Well, if she resorts to that then a scan of the letter, copies of the mails, etc. could be presented. How fo we know they aren’t faked? Well … that’d be a question of research and what all is public knowledge, though I would point out that if GW doesn’t protest that they’ve never made any such claim would be pretty telling. This is all over the internet! Bad press for them and libel if they’ve done nothing – a VERY poor scam indeed. Faking a lawsuit by creating grounds for a real one? That’d be stupid enough to reach the realm of “not too bloody likely”

  11. THANK YOU ANDY!! You have restore my faith in human free thinking!! I was getting a bit sick of the same answers, that you are wrong for not thinking like us.

    You are correct, I have been bias, I’ve tried not to be, but in order to produce a balanced argument I’ve had to take GW side – even though they could be wrong. I hope they are.

    Anyway, hopefully people will listen and wait to read the book or see more evidence before they take a side. After all, you shouldn’t just a book by it’s cover ;)

    (Yes, I am aware this could provide GW to be total idiots waving legal action at anyone who comes within 10 yards of there baby… but I’d like to know for sure. Least then we know where they draw the line and if it needs to be moved back.)

  12. Wooo, she’s posted it on another side which lets you read the book – http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/26359/26/spots-the-space-marine-defense-of-the-fiddler

    Take it back, GW are talking out there arses. Elements of reference, but nothing major, they’ll most likely say it’s dirty up the 40K world, but there is a enough differences to make it unique. Bit’s might sound 40k, like “Void Angels” > “Dark Angels” but that’s weak at best, space suit that protects from ” toxic soup for an atmosphere” – it’s space for f** sake.

    If I saw the staff in Waterstone’s putting it among the GW stuff, I’d tell them to move.

  13. Space Marines: bullying goes nuclear then MELTDOWN! - pingback on February 8, 2013 at 5:57 pm
  14. Long live the Space Marines! | I Saw the Angel - pingback on February 10, 2013 at 5:50 am
  15. For the love of space marines... | Rambleicious - pingback on February 13, 2013 at 12:34 pm

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>