I also posed the same question in two other places, one the blasted grimdark hellscape that is Twitter and the other in the labyrinthine backwater on the outer rim of the universe that is the Miniatures Gaming group on Google Plus. The results were interesting (?) even tho the sample size is quite small (approximately 100 respondents in total).
Twitter: 60% is satire / 40% is not
G+ : 77% is satire / 23% is not
Here: 100% is satire / 0% is not
We have to allow that different interpretations of the word 'satire' are in play, and that there will be those with a nuanced understanding of the term who might find 40k falling short, so not considering it satire, where others may use the word in a much looser sense. A brief review of fannish commentary on
40K satire shows generally a looser rather than more technical understanding is dominant - and may well cover aspects that we would technically define as parody or farce.
We also have to that “not satire” covers everything from ’attempts to be satire, but fails’ through to ‘this is to be taken seriously’.
We also have to accept that it is unlikely that any responders have a perfect view of the entire body of work - there have been 8 editions of the game over 30+ years and
hundreds of novels and so the responses inevitably reflect personal understanding and experiences, rather than some kind of omniscient detached view, but this is only to be expected, and personal responses are what the question was seeking.
One of the motivators for posting was a brief exchange with Gav Thorpe - who quite rightly I think, highlighted a fallacy of composition as the main reason for divergent views on 40K, just as it’s equally possible for someone to cherry pick details in order to make a case and ignore anything contrary. Just as one example - that Space Marines always win The Battle at the Farm, one would think, based on this evidence that the Imperium naturally should win all their conflicts, and therefore be an optimally engineered military machine, whereas in essence, BatF is a freak occurrence in a massive sea of data of continual failure and decline (after all, a Home Planet of the greatest star-warriors to ever sail the space between stars has just been trashed by a bunch of green monkey men flying through space on a brick).
Numerous commentators across all platforms mention that 40K used to be satire in the past, but now isn't - with various points in time for marking that change, some claiming the change came straight after Rogue Trader , and others at the end of 2nd Ed - but certainly no edition later than that was cited.
There is also the fact that the results of the poll is publicly viewable and we have to consider that individuals may be voting in bad faith for entirely performative and socially cohesive reasons. Some pro-Satire commentators attempted to ridicule the opposing view as stupid, and some anti-Satire commentators attempted to refute the validity of the question, as if it was somehow intended to give a single definitive answer - a lack of understanding that in itself is interesting. As a counterpoint, imagine asking if Star Trek is satire and seeing how the results split.
So what does it all mean. I think there are essentially 3 positions.
1. 40K is intended to be satire and 1/3rd of the audience don’t get it.
2. 40K is intended to be serious and 2/3rd of the audience treat it as a joke.
3. 40k is intentionally ambiguous towards satire / fails to communicate it's satirical intent.
Satire is defined by intent. If satire can be misread as not-satire, then it falls into the trap of glorifying rather than critiqing its subject.
I think the Lyyn Elgonsen / Lionel Johnsen, Dark Angels meme is a case in point. What is this supposed to be satirising?, Nothing wrong with having legions of grizzly gay space men based on historical warrior fraternities - but coding it as
shameful secret in a way that doesn't ridicule the shame or secrecy means it misses its pointedness as satire, and it just becomes a bit of a weak pun.
Rogue Trader also has the Dark Angels holding blood drinking ceremony -
The Feast of Malediction - (RT: p138/139) which seem like a parody of the Eucharist, in a schlocky hammer horror, vampire pseudosatanic kind of way, and maybe echoes of Johnsens poem
Vinum Daemonum. We get this idea of a gothy debased-religiousity, superstitious rather than rational space empire, but it all seems to add up to very little.