Recently, listening to a well known 40K podcast reviewing the new Eldar book, I was struck by how the hosts would oscillate between talk about rules and how these would both affect unit performance and encourage people to buy and field these models, and painting and unit background in terms of new rules representing what these units are supposed to be from this background. What was interesting was that these two aspects of the same discussion could have been separated completely into two distinct conversations… though two of three of the hosts confessed to not being so interested in the modeling aspects, what I would consider more of the hobby part, as their interests were more in playing the game to win, becoming the best dark angels player in the world, yada…
So, that got me thinking, resulting in this….. Simple poll. Is 40K primarily a game, with a system to be mastered and opponents to be bested with more skilful competitive gameplay that uses officially sanctioned models as tokens, or is it primarily a hobby involving painting and modeling and so on that culminates in a game that allows hobbyists to use their handpainted and often to some degree handcrafted and customised models to play out scenarios?
This is a choice between extremes, a hard choice maybe, leaving open how grey middles and “both” type answers are to be borne out in discussion.
I will vote and add my own rationale for one over the other a bit later… looking forward to seeing what you see!
Does it matter?
As an adult I get to build/paint/play with toy soldiers - and call it a hobby. Wich makes it completely different (to others) than if I were just sitting around playing with Transformers or GIJoes or Hotwheels cars or something.
Serious answer:
Miniature wargaming/miniature gaming is the hobby. 40k is just a specific game within that hobby.
Hobbies tend to be a bit (or much) broader. Not just 'this specific project right now' Cars, rather than this car. Radios rather than this ham radio. Games, rather than this particular game.
The alternative is for people who ONLY build/paint miniatures and never game, but the answer to that still isn't 40k, but miniatures in a broader scope is the hobby. Even if they've haven't expanded their horizons yet.
Not a game. It's too shallow for it. Takes the intelligence level of 1st grader to master. Biggest issue for 1st grader is not skill but funding required
tneva82 wrote: Not a game. It's too shallow for it. Takes the intelligence level of 1st grader to master. Biggest issue for 1st grader is not skill but funding required
By that logic, Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, Hasbro, etc are all major board game manufacturers that have never once made a game.
You need a better critique. GW tends to give amply opportunities for good ones, but you're not putting in any effort.
tneva82 wrote: Not a game. It's too shallow for it. Takes the intelligence level of 1st grader to master. Biggest issue for 1st grader is not skill but funding required
40k too often uses "but it's a game!" to excuse its failings at being a hobby and "but it's a hobby!" to excuse its failings at being a game; it's either schizoid and doesn't have a strong identity as either, or trying to identify as either a game or a hobby to the exclusion of the other isn't a particularly valid point.
As my friend said to me 'I used to build model airplanes. Once they were built, that was it. What I like about wargaming is it gives you something to do with the things you build and paint'.
Truth is, it's both and neither. And entirely down to you and your own unique pov. You can play the game without ever painting or converting a model. You can paint/convert/collect models and never play a game. Different strokes, different blokes, neither is wrong. (Yhough personally, I think one without the other is missing the point)
But here's the thing. Its more than a game/hobby as well. You don't need to game or paint/model either. 40k is an ip. You can read the stories/books, get lost in the lore, be a part of a community.
Hobby, which includes gaming. Just assembling/painting and gaming for me, I don't read anything, except the sources of rules. But I can put gaming aside for months or even years and still enjoy 40k a lot, as I've already done it multiple times in the past, so definitely hobby.
ccs wrote: Does it matter?
As an adult I get to build/paint/play with toy soldiers - and call it a hobby. Wich makes it completely different (to others) than if I were just sitting around playing with Transformers or GIJoes or Hotwheels cars or something.
Serious answer:
Miniature wargaming/miniature gaming is the hobby. 40k is just a specific game within that hobby.
It does when you are starting the hobby as a kid or non adult in general. If a game is just a hobby then quality of rules, speed of aquasition of models and potential rules changes don't matter much. If is a game with an under 6 months window for buying, painting and getting everything you can get out of an army, barring extrem examples like DE. Then it is a totaly different thing. You are on a tight schedul and sometimes it is not even valid to start an army, because by the time you have it, it could be nerfed or worse illegal.
The whole hobby within a hobby is also very subjective. There are entire fandom where you either play w40k or you don't play at all. And again this matters for new players a lot. Someone in his 40s can invite his friends and play a game of defunct game from 1994, and have great time. A new player will not even know the game exist, neither will he have opponents to play with. For example my store, 9th killed w40k in it. And at the start of edition it was a w40k only. Now half the people play infinity, and the other half play AoS. Some people have armies for w40k, but most people that joined in 9th quit, and didn't move to other systems.
I'd say it depends on the person and the level of commitment they put into it.
For me personally, things fall much further towards the hobby side than the game side. Playing the game is just one small part of my 40K involvement. I spend wayy more time thinking about my miniatures, and their collection/assembly/kitbashing/painting as well as their backstory than I spend actually playing the game itself. Hell, I think I even spend more time on ebay scouring through 40K items than playing the game
I'm a peculiar breed of a miniac that I'm basically only into the 40K setting and games occurring within that specific universe. Other miniatures and minis games based in other settings are aight but not something I want to be involved with at my ripe old age. So actually, for me specifically, 40K is my hobby, but that includes all the games (KT21, AT/Epic, Space Hulk, Necromunda) and not just the one called "Warhammer 40,000: *th Edition".
For some, it is only about building and displaying nice models.
For others, it is smashing the opponent in the most brutal way possible, using anything they can get on the table.
Do the modellers kitbash, convert and magnetise? GW is not the only supplier of 40k models.
Do the rules laywers ponder loopholes, and min/max to create the most extreme lists?
Streamers and podcasters talk endlessly about the various parts of the hobby, and that often has little to do with playing the game.
Keeping up with the rules changes is a hobby in itself. With annual Chapter Approved updates, regular points updates, codex releases and the FAQs and errata, there is too much for some people to keep up with.
So, you are missing at least one poll option: "Neither, and both".
For some, it is only about building and displaying nice models.
For others, it is smashing the opponent in the most brutal way possible, using anything they can get on the table.
Keeping up with the rules changes is a hobby in itself. With annual Chapter Approved updates, regular points updates, codex releases and the FAQs and errata, there is too much for some people to keep up with.
So, you are missing at least one poll option: "Neither, and both".
The game is part of the hobby though. It's not really a situation of neither/both because one is a subset of the other. You could never pick up a model in your life and still enjoy 40k as a hobby.
I'd say "hobby" over game since "hobby" is a large umbrella term for all the facets of how you interact with Warhammer (painting, enjoying books, community engagement such as discussions online, podcasts, creating femboy Thousand Sons images on Reddit, ect, ect, ect).
Playing the game is such a small sliver of that and doesn't really reflect the overall way people connect to the larger hobby, even if it is the core part of a lot of people's connection to said hobby.
Hecaton wrote: 40k cannot be a hobby; miniatures wargaming is the hobby. 40k is a game.
People who think Warhammer is a hobby need to play some other minis games.
What about the novels? Video games? Kill Team? Necromunda? Streaming service? Plenty of people exclusively engage in 40k as a hobby because there's more to it than just a single game system.
Hecaton wrote: 40k cannot be a hobby; miniatures wargaming is the hobby. 40k is a game.
People who think Warhammer is a hobby need to play some other minis games.
What about the novels? Video games? Kill Team? Necromunda? Streaming service? Plenty of people exclusively engage in 40k as a hobby because there's more to it than just a single game system.
Those people are engaging with the Warhammer 40k universe via different hobbies (apart from the streaming service).
And Kill Team and Necromunda would fall under the miniature wargaming hobby.
infinite_array wrote: Those people are engaging with the Warhammer 40k universe via different hobbies (apart from the streaming service).
And Kill Team and Necromunda would fall under the miniature wargaming hobby.
That only works if you view hobbies in a very strange way.
I like Transformers, have done since I was a young 'un. Until 2020 I hadn't bought a Transformer toy for over a decade if not longer but I watched a channel that discussed the history of the various characters and series before moving on to reading IDW's very long and convoluted comic book run. By your definition I'm not a Transformers hobbyist, I'm a YouTube and comics hobbyist.
If you only read 40k novels your hobby isn't reading, it's 40k. If you only paint 40k models your hobby isn't modeling, it's 40k. If you take part in forum discussions on 40k your hobby isn't forums that discuss 40k, it's 40k.
Any time anyone tries to say someone isn't into 40k because they don't play the game, it just reaks of gatekeeping. Learn to accept that not everyone engages in the same way and be happy that you have loads of people you can talk about your hobby with.
Real-life example. A co-worker is an avid Larper and regularly goes to Larp events. I asked them what it was about and where they did it etc. and it turned out it was specifically a Larp of 40k where each person was a member of an Inquisitor's Warband much like Dark Heresy. From this point, we got to talking about Total Warhammer and how they were using Audible credits to get free Warhammer books, and then late last year they decided to take the plunge into 40k as a TTWG. At no point did I judge this person because they weren't playing the game of 40k because we were still in the same hobby and still had things to talk about and bond over.
Hecaton wrote: 40k cannot be a hobby; miniatures wargaming is the hobby. 40k is a game.
People who think Warhammer is a hobby need to play some other minis games.
What about the novels? Video games? Kill Team? Necromunda? Streaming service? Plenty of people exclusively engage in 40k as a hobby because there's more to it than just a single game system.
Then reading or video games is the hobby. You can be a fan of the IP, but IP is not a hobby.
The "game"(if you can call it that) is something cool to do with my miniatures. Having started 40k before it was called 40k, the only purpose of the game(to me) is to generate a storyline and create spectacular visuals that realte the story.
If I wanted to play a game for the game, I'd rather play poker, billiards, etc...
The 40k universe is what interests me. I like the minis, the fluff(more old than new, Ultras are 3rd founding, Necrons were built by Chaos Squats, etc...fight me), the sheer insanity of it all. But the game is quite possibly the thing I'm LEAST interested in. Don't get me wrong I do like playing the game but my group is very permissive and open/matched hybrid that has no problem w narrative.
Hecaton wrote: 40k cannot be a hobby; miniatures wargaming is the hobby. 40k is a game.
People who think Warhammer is a hobby need to play some other minis games.
What about the novels? Video games? Kill Team? Necromunda? Streaming service? Plenty of people exclusively engage in 40k as a hobby because there's more to it than just a single game system.
Then reading or video games is the hobby. You can be a fan of the IP, but IP is not a hobby.
Rubbish.
Of course it is.
In the same way someone's hobby can be a particular historic era or subject matter. The hobby isn't 'reading' (but as a bookworm myself it must be said that reading absolutely can be a hobby), however to the topic in question, it's 'the napoleonic wars' or 'star wars', or whatever that - reading (or watching etc) is just the gateway to it/medium. The subject matter/ip/topic of interest is still the hobby.
Hobbies aren't just 'physical'. Theyre 'areas of interest'.
Hecaton wrote: 40k cannot be a hobby; miniatures wargaming is the hobby. 40k is a game.
People who think Warhammer is a hobby need to play some other minis games.
What about the novels? Video games? Kill Team? Necromunda? Streaming service? Plenty of people exclusively engage in 40k as a hobby because there's more to it than just a single game system.
Then reading or video games is the hobby. You can be a fan of the IP, but IP is not a hobby.
Rubbish.
Of course it is.
In the same way someone's hobby can be a particular historic era or subject matter. The hobby isn't 'reading' (but as a bookworm myself it must be said that reading absolutely can be a hobby), however to the topic in question, it's 'the napoleonic wars' or 'star wars', or whatever that - reading (or watching etc) is just the gateway to it/medium. The subject matter/ip/topic of interest is still the hobby.
Hobbies aren't just 'physical'. Theyre 'areas of interest'.
Nah, a hobby is a specific activity. You can be a "fan" of an IP, like you can be a "fan" of Marvel comics, but the hobby is collecting/reading comics.
I am in that happy middle ground. i want my models to be painted and look nice on the table, but i am not super excited about building or painting models anymore after 20+ years in the hobby. i also enjoy playing the games i play. with 40K specifically i enjoy the lore/setting and i want the game play to reflect that more than i just want to notch a "victory" .
Games that are one sided victories are not any fun for either player. close games where silly things happen because of the setting are much more enjoyable social excursions for me.
Nah, a hobby is a specific activity. You can be a "fan" of an IP, like you can be a "fan" of Marvel comics, but the hobby is collecting/reading comics.
Hmm,
did some quick google-fu and you're not exactly wrong. My first post was incorrect.
So, apologies.
I do think though what you say doesn't present the full picture. For example, despite the fact that I enjoy the 'life is strange' and 'transmetropolitan' comics, I wouldn't really call myself a 'comic' fan and certainly wouldn't consider 'reading comics' to be a hobby of mine.
In fairness, my mistake was in putting 'hobbies' and 'interests' together in my head, and funnily enough while inter-related they are not exactly the same thing.
Maybe it's fairer to say '40k can be an interest for someone, as well as or instead of a hobby'. The reading/watching etc would definitely fall into the former whilst painting etc would be more the hobby side.
I spend a lot more time building and painting models than I do playing. It's very much a hobby for me. For every hour I play, I probably spend 10 hours painting.
My opinion is it's a hobby. The game itself kind of sucks. Unbalanced. Hours long. Entirely random. I say this, playing the game weekly. To each their own but I think one of the biggest mistakes gamers of 40k have trying to get new people into the hobby is trying to teach the rules.
I've got a lot of new players into 40k (most being female players) over the years. And it was never by explaining the rules.
It was explaining that this poor guardsman is shooting a flashlight at a charging carnifex and only the God Emperor's blessed rolls will save him. People respond a lot better to that.
infinite_array wrote: Those people are engaging with the Warhammer 40k universe via different hobbies (apart from the streaming service).
And Kill Team and Necromunda would fall under the miniature wargaming hobby.
That only works if you view hobbies in a very strange way. I like Transformers, have done since I was a young 'un. Until 2020 I hadn't bought a Transformer toy for over a decade if not longer but I watched a channel that discussed the history of the various characters and series before moving on to reading IDW's very long and convoluted comic book run. By your definition I'm not a Transformers hobbyist, I'm a YouTube and comics hobbyist. If you only read 40k novels your hobby isn't reading, it's 40k. If you only paint 40k models your hobby isn't modeling, it's 40k. If you take part in forum discussions on 40k your hobby isn't forums that discuss 40k, it's 40k. Any time anyone tries to say someone isn't into 40k because they don't play the game, it just reaks of gatekeeping. Learn to accept that not everyone engages in the same way and be happy that you have loads of people you can talk about your hobby with.
Real-life example. A co-worker is an avid Larper and regularly goes to Larp events. I asked them what it was about and where they did it etc. and it turned out it was specifically a Larp of 40k where each person was a member of an Inquisitor's Warband much like Dark Heresy. From this point, we got to talking about Total Warhammer and how they were using Audible credits to get free Warhammer books, and then late last year they decided to take the plunge into 40k as a TTWG. At no point did I judge this person because they weren't playing the game of 40k because we were still in the same hobby and still had things to talk about and bond over.
I don't think it's strange. A hobby is a consistent activity you engage in for pleasure in leisure time.
So I would argue that no, you're not a Transformers hobbyist (I'm not sure that properties themselves can technically be a hobby). You are definitely a fan and have a cross-media interest. If you took the time to deliberately collect Transformers comics, then you have a comic collecting hobby with an interest in Transformers. If you collected the toys, then you'd be a toy collector with an interest in Transformers.
Stuff like videos and forums are murkier territory. I think that watching movies can be a hobby if it's something that you actively engage in, by actively seeking out genres or critically engaging with plots, themes, etc. But I don't think watching a single channel's content counts as a hobby. You're a fan of their content, not a hobbyist. I could see being involved in forums as a hobby, in the same way that talking with people can be a hobby. But if you're only doing it for 40k, then you have an interest that your engaging with via a specific medium.
I don't see how your example works. Your coworker talked about different hobbies. It just works out that those hobbies (LARPing, video games) fall under a specific interest.
I also don't appreciate words being put into my mouth. At no point did I try to gatekeep anyone's interest in 40k or judge their involvement. What I did say is that fans of 40k can engage with the property in a number of different, equally valid hobbies. Some people do it through reading, some through making video content, some through miniature painting and modelling, and other through miniature wargaming.
Well the thing is, it is very hard to retroactivly make you dislike or have no fun with an optimus prime model. With w40k it is very easy. Make a model you like ? GW just made it illegal. Like an army? Bretonia is no longer a thing. That is very different. Only thing similar is something that can happen to comics, where a writer can rewrite the entire lore of Star Wars just to fit his OC characters in. And it doesn't always work well. This makes w40k a very particular kind of hobby.
I wouldn't follow the hobby without the game, but the game is still just a tool to use the models. And I also use my 40K miniatures with other rules than GW's on occasion. Either way the narrative is the most important aspect of any wargame I play, the rules are mostly used as a common basis for both sides.
did some quick google-fu and you're not exactly wrong. My first post was incorrect.
So, apologies.
I do think though what you say doesn't present the full picture. For example, despite the fact that I enjoy the 'life is strange' and 'transmetropolitan' comics, I wouldn't really call myself a 'comic' fan and certainly wouldn't consider 'reading comics' to be a hobby of mine.
In fairness, my mistake was in putting 'hobbies' and 'interests' together in my head, and funnily enough while inter-related they are not exactly the same thing.
Maybe it's fairer to say '40k can be an interest for someone, as well as or instead of a hobby'. The reading/watching etc would definitely fall into the former whilst painting etc would be more the hobby side.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, but I generally find the hobby to be "painting miniatures" or "miniature wargaming" not specifically the IP.
Hecaton wrote: 40k cannot be a hobby; miniatures wargaming is the hobby. 40k is a game.
People who think Warhammer is a hobby need to play some other minis games.
What about the novels? Video games? Kill Team? Necromunda? Streaming service? Plenty of people exclusively engage in 40k as a hobby because there's more to it than just a single game system.
Then reading or video games is the hobby. You can be a fan of the IP, but IP is not a hobby.
Reeks of "true nerd" purity test nonsense. Are you going to start asking people to name all the Space Marine implants and their functions next too?
Hecaton wrote: 40k cannot be a hobby; miniatures wargaming is the hobby. 40k is a game.
People who think Warhammer is a hobby need to play some other minis games.
What about the novels? Video games? Kill Team? Necromunda? Streaming service? Plenty of people exclusively engage in 40k as a hobby because there's more to it than just a single game system.
Then reading or video games is the hobby. You can be a fan of the IP, but IP is not a hobby.
Reeks of "true nerd" purity test nonsense. Are you going to start asking people to name all the Space Marine implants and their functions next too?
Filthy casuals are a cancer upon the hobby, but no, "Warhammer" is not a hobby. If someone's "hobby" is reading science fiction or fantasy literature, including 40k, great! Doesn't necessarily make them a minis gamer, but they can be fans of the setting.
infinite_array wrote: I don't think it's strange. A hobby is a consistent activity you engage in for pleasure in leisure time.
So I would argue that no, you're not a Transformers hobbyist (I'm not sure that properties themselves can technically be a hobby). You are definitely a fan and have a cross-media interest. If you took the time to deliberately collect Transformers comics, then you have a comic collecting hobby with an interest in Transformers. If you collected the toys, then you'd be a toy collector with an interest in Transformers.
Stuff like videos and forums are murkier territory. I think that watching movies can be a hobby if it's something that you actively engage in, by actively seeking out genres or critically engaging with plots, themes, etc. But I don't think watching a single channel's content counts as a hobby. You're a fan of their content, not a hobbyist. I could see being involved in forums as a hobby, in the same way that talking with people can be a hobby. But if you're only doing it for 40k, then you have an interest that your engaging with via a specific medium.
I don't see how your example works. Your coworker talked about different hobbies. It just works out that those hobbies (LARPing, video games) fall under a specific interest.
I also don't appreciate words being put into my mouth. At no point did I try to gatekeep anyone's interest in 40k or judge their involvement. What I did say is that fans of 40k can engage with the property in a number of different, equally valid hobbies. Some people do it through reading, some through making video content, some through miniature painting and modelling, and other through miniature wargaming.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see the point in separating people into different groups when they have something in common and I think that adding labels to it increases the likelihood of people forming factions for ways to attack each other.
@Karol
Spoiler:
Karol wrote: Well the thing is, it is very hard to retroactivly make you dislike or have no fun with an optimus prime model. With w40k it is very easy. Make a model you like ? GW just made it illegal. Like an army? Bretonia is no longer a thing. That is very different. Only thing similar is something that can happen to comics, where a writer can rewrite the entire lore of Star Wars just to fit his OC characters in. And it doesn't always work well. This makes w40k a very particular kind of hobby.
I don't think you understand what retroactively means but just to give a counter to your examples, GW discontinued Renegades and Heretics effectively in 8th and fully in 9th. I had to switch over to playing normal Guard and GSC because my army list was made garbage and then nonexistent. It didn't ruin all of the fun I had with the army throughout 6th and 7th, nor did it ruin the fun I had creating the army in the first place because it was fun then. Do I miss being able to have a bespoke army that has its own cool rules and background? Yes. Does not having that in this specific edition ruin the past? No, because it doesn't make sense to do so.
Also yes, you absolutely can go back to something and think "good God this was utter garbage". That can apply to everything.
Some good thread here, enjoying the exchange of views!
About this:
Skinnereal wrote:
Spoiler:
Yes....
For some, it is only about building and displaying nice models.
For others, it is smashing the opponent in the most brutal way possible, using anything they can get on the table.
Do the modellers kitbash, convert and magnetise? GW is not the only supplier of 40k models.
Do the rules laywers ponder loopholes, and min/max to create the most extreme lists?
Streamers and podcasters talk endlessly about the various parts of the hobby, and that often has little to do with playing the game.
Keeping up with the rules changes is a hobby in itself. With annual Chapter Approved updates, regular points updates, codex releases and the FAQs and errata, there is too much for some people to keep up with.
So, you are missing at least one poll option: "Neither, and both".
I would like to point to this from the original post:
jeff white wrote:
Spoiler:
Recently, listening to a well known 40K podcast reviewing the new Eldar book, I was struck by how the hosts would oscillate between talk about rules and how these would both affect unit performance and encourage people to buy and field these models, and painting and unit background in terms of new rules representing what these units are supposed to be from this background. What was interesting was that these two aspects of the same discussion could have been separated completely into two distinct conversations… though two of three of the hosts confessed to not being so interested in the modeling aspects, what I would consider more of the hobby part, as their interests were more in playing the game to win, becoming the best dark angels player in the world, yada…
So, that got me thinking, resulting in this….. Simple poll. Is 40K primarily a game, with a system to be mastered and opponents to be bested with more skilful competitive gameplay that uses officially sanctioned models as tokens, or is it primarily a hobby involving painting and modeling and so on that culminates in a game that allows hobbyists to use their handpainted and often to some degree handcrafted and customised models to play out scenarios?
This is a choice between extremes, a hard choice maybe, leaving open how grey middles and “both” type answers are to be borne out in discussion.
And add that the discussion is certainly doing this work.
For me, being a fan or having an interest in E.g. everything in the 40K universe including the different games, books, media of other sorts, is a hobby, or counts as hobby. Being a fan of an IP is less than that, more passive, though part of a hobbyist’s motivation, not all. I can be a fan of Star Wars as an idea that belongs to, well… bad example, but I was a fan before Disney wrecked it, and yet do nothing more that selectively attend to some Star Wars relevant things instead of other stuff. Hobby can include being a fan of an idea or IP that someone owns and also painting and modeling and RPGs and so on, and 40K can be that umbrella hobby that allows hobbyists to engage in all of those sub hobbies at one time. At least, that is how I would take that IP fan thing.
For me, 40K is a hobby as others have noted, killer universe and all the rest included drama over GW misdirections and so on, following some of which has become part of the hobby and was not when I set out. 40K ticks a lot of sub hobby boxes all at one time, making it the umbrella hobby. So for me, the game is part of the hobby, a sub sub hobby for me, mostly an excuse to share time with like minded people in a structured interaction instead of sitting at a bar or playing pool. And, following developments of the game is part of the hobby, as is following developments in other games within the 40K universe, E.g. Necromunda yada. So, no surprises but that is my vote, but I must say that I was I bit surprised by what I take to be the votes of some others, though once I considered their reasoning alongside what I have come to know of them from Dakka, yeah, makes sense, each of them…
jaredb wrote: I spend a lot more time building and painting models than I do playing. It's very much a hobby for me. For every hour I play, I probably spend 10 hours painting.
That's actually a good way took at it.
If you don't like building/painting but enjoy playing the game the ratio of "hobby:game" will be skewed towards that end. It can even be 0:100 game with commissions and the like. Which it totally cool, if that's your bag.
Vice-versa if you enjoy the building/painting and only get limited game time it tends to follow the same paradigm. It can also be 100:0 with many people just building & painting.
I built 100ish scale model race cars/aircraft/tanks that I never once played a game with nor did I want to(not that one existed). There are 40k models that I have zero interest in that are for some of my favorite factions. Even tho they are good in the game due to how the model looks/doesn't look.
I guess I reject the premise? I enjoy tabletop wargaming, which includes a "hobby" aspect and a "gaming" aspect. By "hobby" I refer to building, painting and perhaps displaying. I imagine that most combine an enjoyment of both with various weights placed on either aspect but with both present. Perhaps a few only see 40K as a game while others might only "hobby", but I think that most of us enjoy both aspects. The weight we place on both hobby and game might vary as our lives and the game go through phases.
Putting the question another way, would I play 40K if it was with pre-painted miniatures? Probably not. I usually strip and repaint used miniatures that I buy. Would I play 40K if I no longer enjoyed the rules? Probably not - indeed I did leave once.
Well sure thing, if we are being autistically literal about the meaning of the word "Hobby". But
Instead of going all verbose mode in order to accurately describe all the various specific interests related to my "hobby" ( "My hobbies include assembling and painting miniatures, creating dioramas, miniature gaming, cultural and historical study, study of military history, study of UK-based science fiction and its effect on popular culture, study of realistic scale modelling of nature and weathering effects, study of oil and acrylics painting, colour theory, art history, photography, reading and creating digital documents, watching and listening to multimedia content, but most of these hobbies only revolve around my interest in the Warhammer 40,000 universe") ... it's much much easier to just say "40K is my hobby". Especially if a stranger asks about my hobbies
The game is a game. Everything else falls under hobby umbrella.
But I think it's important to note that when you ask something like "Do you 40K?" people will generally stipulate whether or not they actually play the game. Whether or not one plays the actual tabletop game is a key point about involvement.
jeff white wrote: Recently, listening to a well known 40K podcast reviewing the new Eldar book, I was struck by how the hosts would oscillate between talk about rules and how these would both affect unit performance and encourage people to buy and field these models, and painting and unit background in terms of new rules representing what these units are supposed to be from this background. What was interesting was that these two aspects of the same discussion could have been separated completely into two distinct conversations… though two of three of the hosts confessed to not being so interested in the modeling aspects, what I would consider more of the hobby part, as their interests were more in playing the game to win, becoming the best dark angels player in the world, yada…
So, that got me thinking, resulting in this….. Simple poll. Is 40K primarily a game, with a system to be mastered and opponents to be bested with more skilful competitive gameplay that uses officially sanctioned models as tokens, or is it primarily a hobby involving painting and modeling and so on that culminates in a game that allows hobbyists to use their handpainted and often to some degree handcrafted and customised models to play out scenarios?
This is a choice between extremes, a hard choice maybe, leaving open how grey middles and “both” type answers are to be borne out in discussion.
I will vote and add my own rationale for one over the other a bit later… looking forward to seeing what you see!
I get the feeling people or I didn't properly understand the question.
Is it primarily a game? i.e. putting models on the table and rolling dice?
Of is it primarily a hobby i.e. building, painting, reading fluff, etc.
To me, it's different hobbies closely intersecting.
Some people don't like to paint, and prefer the gaming (or vice versa). I don't think they're avoiding or missing out on an aspect of the hobby, because gaming and painting really is totally different.
The idea of "warhammer" as a (or even the) hobby is something that annoys me and I fight against whenever I can.
To consider 'warhammer' as the hobby is to blinker yourself and shut yourself off from the amazing wealth of games and models that exist outside the GW-sphere.
It enables the irongrip that GW has on miniature wargaming that is strangling the competition and allowing them to half-arse everything they do and still pull record profits.
To consider 'warhammer' as the hobby is to blinker yourself and shut yourself off from the amazing wealth of games and models that exist outside the GW-sphere.
It enables the irongrip that GW has on miniature wargaming that is strangling the competition and allowing them to half-arse everything they do and still pull record profits.
I get where you are coming from but to be fair, I'd argue its perfectly reasonable to say 'I'm into warhammer' if that's what you're actually into - ie you're not interested in warmachine, infinity, historicals etc. And that's OK too. At that point, for that individual, 'miniature wargaming' and 'warhammer' are to all intents and purposes, the exact same thing.
Bear in mind as well 'warhammer' is synonymous with miniature wargaming to most people - like 'hoovers' and 'vacuum cleaners'. 'I'm into warhammer' is an easier idea to get across than 'I'm into [obscure IP], but you know warhammer? Well it's like that but different....'
kirotheavenger wrote: To consider 'warhammer' as the hobby is to blinker yourself and shut yourself off from the amazing wealth of games and models that exist outside the GW-sphere.
It enables the irongrip that GW has on miniature wargaming that is strangling the competition and allowing them to half-arse everything they do and still pull record profits.
I have a question for everyone who follows this line of thinking. Do people react positively when you tell them their hobby isn't real? Do they react well when you tell them they aren't "real" 40k hobbyists because they don't play the tabletop game? What do you gain from ostracising and otherising these people who don't conform to your specific view of 40k? Do you care how you make other people feel when you do this? Are you scared because your hobby is going more mainstream and the "normies" are coming to get you?
Seriously I want to know because this is a prevailing narrative in the wider community and I want to know why.
kirotheavenger wrote: To consider 'warhammer' as the hobby is to blinker yourself and shut yourself off from the amazing wealth of games and models that exist outside the GW-sphere.
It enables the irongrip that GW has on miniature wargaming that is strangling the competition and allowing them to half-arse everything they do and still pull record profits.
I have a question for everyone who follows this line of thinking. Do people react positively when you tell them their hobby isn't real? Do they react well when you tell them they aren't "real" 40k hobbyists because they don't play the tabletop game? What do you gain from ostracising and otherising these people who don't conform to your specific view of 40k? Do you care how you make other people feel when you do this? Are you scared because your hobby is going more mainstream and the "normies" are coming to get you?
Seriously I want to know because this is a prevailing narrative in the wider community and I want to know why.
Pardon? I don't understand how you got that from what I said.
I don't tell them their hobby isn't real. I tell them it's awesome and there's every possible miniature and game imaginable available.
If that wasn't your intent then good for you but your post didn't focus on promoting other systems, just bashing GW. So can you see how I would read it and think that you were being derisive and condescending to those who only use GW products?
My point about putting extra labels on things still stands BTW. Why do people "need" to have their hobby be TTWG or painting models? Why can't it be 40k/AoS/Bolt Action/Infinity?
I get about a game of 40k a week, paint my models, read BL novels, play 40k games sometimes and watch 40k stuff on YouTube from BatReps to lore vids. I don't see these as 3/4 individual hobbies because they're all the same thing. Broad categorisation in this specific context is not a bad thing.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Isn't that just being a fan of 40k? Not specific hobbies? Why use the word hobby when you mean fan?
I am a fan of the band Kiss. I am a fan of pizza. 40k is my hobby.
You know what, here's a simple scenario. For people who primarily do Warhammer, how do you answer the question "Do you have a hobby?". Do you answer that you do TTWG, model painting, and read science fiction novels? Or do you just say you are into/do Warhammer 40k?
I argue it's an important distinction to make because model painting is very different from Warhammer and TTWG doesn't necessarily have the same wider media attached to it i.e. novels, tie-in games. Likewise, SciFi is a very very broad genre of books that goes from H.G. Wells' The Time Machine to the Star Wars Legends books. If you're saying 40k is your hobby it's much more defined and easier to discuss than saying "I like SciFi".
When I got into 40K in 96 I feel it was a lot more of a hobby than a game. The game is clearly a big part of the hobby, at least for me back then. The hobby aspect wasn't just about painting models but also crafting terrain from whatever I could find. 40K is far more, just a game you paint or don't paint your models for, now than it used to be. Again, that's how I see it. This edition and the current edition is the lowest point of my engagement with all things Warhammer/Warhammer 40,000. On the other hand due the current direction of 40K it has become more of a hobby for me than it used to be I spend more time painting the models I own and crafting terrain I like and a lot less time and energy is spent playing the game.
I hate not being excited about a hobby and game I have enjoyed for so many years.
I guess I would say over all the "game" 40K doesn't feel like 40K to me anymore. It feels way more like a board game or a PC game that went analogue. I loved dawn of War for PC. wonderfully fun. and if 40K had some way to take the upkeep portion out 9th would be a lot more fun. If I had more likeminded friends to 40K with it would probably feel a lot more like the game I have enjoyed for so many years sadly most of my friends on inactive status with 40K.
I have 1 friend I can usually get 40K games with and he's only into competitive play, we've set up playing open war or what ever but in the end that's scrapped for getting his army ready for the next pointless tournament.
I guess I miss playing in the sandbox that 40K used to be ?
I get about a game of 40k a week, paint my models, read BL novels, play 40k games sometimes and watch 40k stuff on YouTube from BatReps to lore vids. I don't see these as 3/4 individual hobbies because they're all the same thing.
I see them all as completely different; gaming, painting, and reading are all completely different things using entirely different skillsets reasons for being enjoyable.
You consume each one revolving around the same theme/universe, but I don't see them as being in any way comparable.
I think the OP's question is more about "What is 40k to YOU" than it is about "What's the definition of the word hobby" or "Is 40k Objectively more of a hobby or a game."
Personally, for me it's a hobby. I'm a campaign creator/ storyteller/ roleplayer and that's what I tend to do with the raw material 40k gives me. Coordinating story arcs from the bespoke Crusade content of many dexes with the evolving story of the Indomitus Crusade era has given me more tools to work with than I've ever had.
I've always been a slow painter and modeler- I'm trying to improve that this year, so we'll see how that goes.
Since everyone seems to have been making up definitions as they go along, and mostly unique ones at that, I'm going to join the fun:
For me, a hobby is a large, mobile gazebo, while a game is a type of fish.
Since WH40k has few, if any, marriages, clearly the gazebo is inappropriate. Meanwhile, fish is not an uncommon theme for naming for multiple armies (hell, the T'au have the Big Tuna!).
Thus, WH40k is clearly primarily a game, on account of its fishitude.
Warhammer 40,000 started as a game, but has evolved into a genera.
Now Warhammer 40,000 encompasses a game, but also a modeling hobby, fictional novels and much more.
You can no longer classify Warhammer 40,000 as just one thing.
That said... I do believe the most critical aspect of the Warhammer 40,000 genera is the game. Without the game the modeling hobby as well as the fictional novels, etc. would not be as significant.
kirotheavenger wrote: I see them all as completely different; gaming, painting, and reading are all completely different things using entirely different skillsets reasons for being enjoyable.
You consume each one revolving around the same theme/universe, but I don't see them as being in any way comparable.
But if it's all the same theme/universe with these activities associated with them, why isn't the umbrella of 40k the hobby? I'm not painting models, I'm painting 40k models. I'm not just reading books, I'm reading 40k books.
If you play the game of 40k but never use any 40k miniatures, is it still 40k? Are you still a 40k hobbyist when you only play the game?
I don't say that; I say they're not 40k hobbyists because 40k is not a hobby.
Unsurprising coming from you.
Backspacehacker wrote: Im the same way, but at that point i would say that your hobby is miniature painting, and you just like painting the 40k miniatures.
But if this individual is only painting 40k, then why isn't 40k the hobby? If they only have an interest in 40k models then how can it be just model painting as a hobby when 40k would be more descriptive of what that individual is actually doing.
Regardless of this, all of this "you're not a 40k hobbyist if you don't play the game" is elitist gatekeeper nonsense. It's just disappointing to see it when it's not even something GW promotes.
kirotheavenger wrote: I see them all as completely different; gaming, painting, and reading are all completely different things using entirely different skillsets reasons for being enjoyable.
You consume each one revolving around the same theme/universe, but I don't see them as being in any way comparable.
But if it's all the same theme/universe with these activities associated with them, why isn't the umbrella of 40k the hobby? I'm not painting models, I'm painting 40k models. I'm not just reading books, I'm reading 40k books.
If you play the game of 40k but never use any 40k miniatures, is it still 40k? Are you still a 40k hobbyist when you only play the game?
I don't say that; I say they're not 40k hobbyists because 40k is not a hobby.
Unsurprising coming from you.
Backspacehacker wrote: Im the same way, but at that point i would say that your hobby is miniature painting, and you just like painting the 40k miniatures.
But if this individual is only painting 40k, then why isn't 40k the hobby? If they only have an interest in 40k models then how can it be just model painting as a hobby when 40k would be more descriptive of what that individual is actually doing.
Regardless of this, all of this "you're not a 40k hobbyist if you don't play the game" is elitist gatekeeper nonsense. It's just disappointing to see it when it's not even something GW promotes.
If someone loves painting landscapes, and never paints people, can you really call that person a painter? or are they just a landscape painter?
If someone plays the guitar, but only plays rock music, and never plays classica, can you really say they are a guitarist?
You are using the skill of miniture painting to paint things you like, if the only things you like just happen to be 40k, then you jsut paint 40k, but that skill in painting minitures is not limited to JUST 40k models, you can just as easily apply it to AoS, bolt action, scale models, trains, busts to a degree.
Im not saying you are not a 40k fan if all you do is paint them, or you are not part of the 40k scene, but i think saying the 40k hobby implies the whole shabang of it. Building, painting, and playing, its basically 3 hobbies rolled under a singe umbrella. Thats why if the question is asked, is 40k and game, or a hobby? i would say its a game, that has multiple hobbies as a part of it.
My thought is that the "game" portion of 40k is the most visible part, but the bulk of sales of 40k are for the hobby aspects for painting and modeling. The people that get in a few games a year (or none at all) represent the largest market share, but have a lower spending per person compared to whales and tournament folks who buy exceptional amounts themselves.
To answer your question since GW wants to maximize sales they appeal to both crowds, with media and visibility on gameplay and tournaments but also doing an exceptional job pushing out beautiful models that make hobbyist continue to purchase even if they are not going to field them. So a little of both.
But if it's all the same theme/universe with these activities associated with them, why isn't the umbrella of 40k the hobby? I'm not painting models, I'm painting 40k models. I'm not just reading books, I'm reading 40k books.
If you play the game of 40k but never use any 40k miniatures, is it still 40k? Are you still a 40k hobbyist when you only play the game?
What I learned is it's the difference between a 'hobby' and an 'interest'. From what I've read (admittedly, briefly!) Hobbies tend to be more 'active' in scope. Hobbies/interests can be borne of the other, one can include the other but there are fundamental differences. 40k as the 'umbrella term' is the 'interest', it can have hobby components ie how you explore/interact with it (eg painting, reading, buying plastic crack). Or not.
The other thing to be aware of is people often use 'hobby' and 'interest' interchangeably when, as mentioned there are differences. Its worth reading up on.
Like I said earlier - my hobby is, say, the napoleonic wars. I think I was incorrect in putting it that way - its probably
more accurate to say 'the napoleonic wars are a topic of interest to me' (or words to that effect) and hobbies, such as reading etc can
be extensions of that interest or just interlinked. But it gets grey then - as I said earlier though I enjoy the transmetropolitan and life is strange comics, I couldn't consider 'reading comics' to be a hobby - to me that would imply I'm into lots of comics and not just one or two particular 'brands'.
To be fair in the real world, it's all academic really and kind of splitting hairs.
But if this individual is only painting 40k, then why isn't 40k the hobby? If they only have an interest in 40k models then how can it be just model painting as a hobby when 40k would be more descriptive of what that individual is actually doing.
In a practical sense they can be synonymous for sure. 'I'm into warhammer' is perfectly accurate and a fair statement.
Regardless of this, all of this "you're not a 40k hobbyist if you don't play the game" is elitist gatekeeper nonsense. It's just disappointing to see it when it's not even something GW promotes.
Oh I agree here. The great thing qbout 40k is its no one 'thing' and there's no 'proper' or 'correct' way to do it though we will all have our own perceptions. But lets face it, the wargaming community is nothing if not tribal and happy to lash out at the 'different' and the 'other'.
The Red Hobbit wrote: My thought is that the "game" portion of 40k is the most visible part, but the bulk of sales of 40k are for the hobby aspects for painting and modeling. The people that get in a few games a year (or none at all) represent the largest market share, but have a lower spending per person compared to whales and tournament folks who buy exceptional amounts themselves.
To answer your question since GW wants to maximize sales they appeal to both crowds, with media and visibility on gameplay and tournaments but also doing an exceptional job pushing out beautiful models that make hobbyist continue to purchase even if they are not going to field them. So a little of both.
I would disagree with that, any more the primary reason for sales are not for the hobby aspect, paitning and modeling, but are for the game aspect. Its why whenever you see the new hotness come out, that model sells out super quick.
If the hobby aspects of the game were really the driving factor, you would see a lot more models going out of stock based on rule of cool, but you dont, you mostly see out of stock on the new meta hotness anymore.
Look at how popular the tournaments are, look at how big adepticon is. More people are showing up to play, rather then to enter the painting contents there.
You see multiple massive events centered around 40k for gaming, you dont see that level of attendance for the hobby part.
I would disagree with that, any more the primary reason for sales are not for the hobby aspect, paitning and modeling, but are for the game aspect. Its why whenever you see the new hotness come out, that model sells out super quick.
Why wouldn't hobbyists and modellers also buy the new shiny? I mean, I find it hard to believe that someone who has been waiting for new eldar models for 20 years wouldn't go out and buy all the new releases... or in my case - i buy the new primaris in large part because I love the models- theyre what I wished marines were fifteen years ago. its not just about 'they're broken!'
If the hobby aspects of the game were really the driving factor, you would see a lot more models going out of stock based on rule of cool, but you dont, you mostly see out of stock on the new meta hotness anymore.
New stuff isn't always meta breaking nonsense. And As above how do you know it's the painters and modellers that aren't buying the new stuff? I dont think its the gamers buying all the primaris lieutenants out there, eh? Plus consider gw marketing- are things going out of stock brcause they deliberately limited the number of kits they manufactured.
Look at how popular the tournaments are, look at how big adepticon is. More people are showing up to play, rather then to enter the painting contents there.
You see multiple massive events centered around 40k for gaming, you dont see that level of attendance for the hobby part.
To be fair, tournaments and conventions are important - but bear in mind the hobby aspect is more of a 'solo' endeavour than a team sport. I'm 97% painted, probably have painted 2,000+ models in my time and I don't think I've ever seriously considered entering a painting competition, though I love the hobby aspect. Gw said a few years back something like 80% of their buyers didn't play the game.
Undoubtedly tournaments and conventions are huge but they're not just for the 'gaming-first' portion of the player base. 2 of my closest go to conventions to see the 'bring-and-buy' second hands, boutique stalls and for me its to catch up with friends rather than game and to get stuff - its a hobby themed shopping day. Of our close group of 5, I'm the only one who tournamented, and I've not been in one in years.
Gert wrote: But if this individual is only painting 40k, then why isn't 40k the hobby? If they only have an interest in 40k models then how can it be just model painting as a hobby when 40k would be more descriptive of what that individual is actually doing.
Because 40k itself is not an activity. GW also has a lot of bad-faith gak going on with their attempts at defining things as "The Games Workshop hobby" or the "Warhammer hobby" in pretending that other minis games don't exist.
Hobbies are activities, and by nature don't involve passive consumption - but businesses within capitalism have a hardon for passive consumption, hence their pushing of passive consumption as a "hobby." I won't call it that.
Gert wrote: Regardless of this, all of this "you're not a 40k hobbyist if you don't play the game" is elitist gatekeeper nonsense. It's just disappointing to see it when it's not even something GW promotes.
GW promotes something worse, as I mentioned. But nobody's making the claim you're mentioning, so it's a strawman - if someone paints a whole bunch but doesn't play, then their "hobby" is painting minis. Which is fine.
Why wouldn't hobbyists and modellers also buy the new shiny?
I never said they did not buy them, but if they sat there all that time, and only then went outta stock AFTER GW decided to update them and buff the hell outta them. Logically who is the ones pushing that? The hobbiests? or the people playing the game wanting to win?
I would disagree with that, any more the primary reason for sales are not for the hobby aspect, paitning and modeling, but are for the game aspect. Its why whenever you see the new hotness come out, that model sells out super quick.
Why wouldn't hobbyists and modellers also buy the new shiny? I mean, I find it hard to believe that someone who has been waiting for new eldar models for 20 years wouldn't go out and buy all the new releases... or in my case - i buy the new primaris in large part because I love the models- theyre what I wished marines were fifteen years ago. its not just about 'they're broken!'
I own a ton of Primaris as well as the models look great(well except for the ATV and Invictor which I didn't buy) but when I write a 40k list I don't feel it with Primaris. Whereas my FB lists feel much more in line with the setting. It's not due to a lack of options/choice as the models I do have echo FB units I already have.
40K doesn't really appeal to me much anymore with the CCG crap becoming more & more the focus. While1 Seasons singlehandedly killed any enthusiasm I had for it.
I still love 40k as a whole, but the game is less and less of a reason I interact with it. Lore, building minis/terrain & painting them are really what interests me.
As for a game tho, Necromunda has me covered. Basically 2nd ed & I'm 100% cool with that!
Backspacehacker wrote: If someone loves painting landscapes, and never paints people, can you really call that person a painter? or are they just a landscape painter?
If someone plays the guitar, but only plays rock music, and never plays classica, can you really say they are a guitarist?
The answer is both but you've not proved your point instead you've enhanced mine. You are saying that someone who only paints 40k models isn't a 40k hobbyist but rather a model painter hobbyist. Which is vaguer? That you do 40k as a hobby or that you paint models? IMO it's the latter because "models" covers a huge range of things whereas Warhammer 40k is very specific.
You are using the skill of miniture painting to paint things you like, if the only things you like just happen to be 40k, then you jsut paint 40k, but that skill in painting minitures is not limited to JUST 40k models, you can just as easily apply it to AoS, bolt action, scale models, trains, busts to a degree.
Cool but it's not that for many people. It might be for me and it might be for you but that's not what I would have said about myself 7 years ago when I was only playing 40k and that's not what people who are the same will say.
Im not saying you are not a 40k fan if all you do is paint them, or you are not part of the 40k scene, but i think saying the 40k hobby implies the whole shabang of it. Building, painting, and playing, its basically 3 hobbies rolled under a singe umbrella. Thats why if the question is asked, is 40k and game, or a hobby? i would say its a game, that has multiple hobbies as a part of it.
It's a needless and divisive definition though. What purpose does it serve to say to someone who enjoys Warhammer novels and discussions on forums that they aren't a 40k hobbyist because they don't play the game? What if you live somewhere remote where the only way you can interact with Warhammer is through building/painting models and sharing them via social media? What if someone only plays with unpainted models, do they not get to be a 40k hobbyist because they didn't jump through all the hoops?
Backspacehacker wrote: I would disagree with that, any more the primary reason for sales are not for the hobby aspect, paitning and modeling, but are for the game aspect. Its why whenever you see the new hotness come out, that model sells out super quick.
If the hobby aspects of the game were really the driving factor, you would see a lot more models going out of stock based on rule of cool, but you dont, you mostly see out of stock on the new meta hotness anymore.
That is probably the biggest load of bullgak I've read in this thread so far and there have been some doozies.
Look at how popular the tournaments are, look at how big adepticon is.
Both of which are dwarfed by casual hobbyists who don't even play the game. Seriously it's not even a competition.
More people are showing up to play, rather then to enter the painting contents there.
That's because they are primarily gaming events. Why the hell would you show up to a gaming event and expect to sit down and paint models or talk about books?
You see multiple massive events centered around 40k for gaming, you dont see that level of attendance for the hobby part.
Because you don't need an event to sit at a table and paint models you mushroom. You do it at home.
PenitentJake wrote: I think the OP's question is more about "What is 40k to YOU" than it is about "What's the definition of the word hobby" or "Is 40k Objectively more of a hobby or a game."
Spoiler:
Personally, for me it's a hobby. I'm a campaign creator/ storyteller/ roleplayer and that's what I tend to do with the raw material 40k gives me. Coordinating story arcs from the bespoke Crusade content of many dexes with the evolving story of the Indomitus Crusade era has given me more tools to work with than I've ever had.
I've always been a slow painter and modeler- I'm trying to improve that this year, so we'll see how that goes.
Yes, exactly.
Dude, I have been painting the same armies for thirty years. That is I guess another reason it is primarily a hobby for me. If it were primarily about a game, I might have gotten a bunch more done faster! And when I was able to game more often, basically back in Uni sooo… twenty five to thirty years ago, I did paint faster, even in grad school twenty years ago, and then I didn’t pick up a brush much until I about finished my doctorate.
Of course its a needlessly divisive definition, because the question asked in the thread is a needlessly divisive question.
I always refer to 40k as a hobby, even though i would answer the thread as its a game more then a hobby above anything.
Just because someone does not agree with it does not make it any more not right. Fact is, painting miniatures is, in itself, a hobby that can be applied to any miniature Not just 40k. Just because you choose to only apply it to 40k, does not make it any less of a miniature painting hobby, nor does it make 40k strictly painting, just like just playing 40k games makes 40k any more just a game rather then a hobby.
I my self coequally refer to it as the 40k hobby and discuss it as, the hobby.
I have to be divisive in the answer because again, the question, for what its worth, is horribly stupid, so i have to give an equally stupid divisive answer to it.
40k is many things rolled into a single umbrella, its painting, its modeling, its games, its terrain building, its lore, its story, its a whole lot of multiple hobbies rolled into a single one. Thats why if you are looking for a specific answer here, mine is that 40k is a game more then a single hobby because modeling is not exclusively 40k, miniature painting is not exclusively 40k. Wanna know something that is exclusively 40k? Playing the 40k game. IE 40k is more of a game then a hobby.
As for the the reason things sell, thats something that i dont argue or go over, i just put out my opion, and my reasoning on it, and let others take it, leave it, or post about it but thats all i say on the subject becuase 9/10 times it just goes round and round with no one happy with the answer and mods having to tell others to calm down.
Dude, I have been painting the same armies for thirty years. That is I guess another reason it is primarily a hobby for me. If it were primarily about a game, I might have gotten a bunch more done faster! And when I was able to game more often, basically back in Uni sooo… twenty five to thirty years ago, I did paint faster, even in grad school twenty years ago, and then I didn’t pick up a brush much until I about finished my doctorate.
Happy to know I'm in good company.
I've been doing monthly pledges on another forum; I twiddled my thumbs until January 29th, and then decided to get in, so my first pledge was a single GSC Purestrain from Space Hulk... But I finished it, and it completed a Purestrain Fire Team for the new Kill Team Game.
In February, I pledged five more Space Hulk Purestrains- a second Fire Team. Got those finished too.
I just finished making my most ambitious pledge so far- a seven member Fire Team of Threshers (Count as Guardsmen) and a five member Fire Team of Druhkari Wyches.
The former are due by the end of March; while the latter aren't technically due until May, I want to try to take care of them this month too, because I've already planned my April challenges, and they are connected to my gaming schedule.
Sorry for the tangent, but I couldn't help myself.
A part of the 40k universe is the game, a part of it is the miniature hobby assembly and painting, and other parts are novels, games, and TV shows.
So I find it pointless to think of it as a hobby or a game due to how all encompassing the universe has become. I remember a lecture with Dan Abnett where he talked about how the Horus Heresy novels opened up the universe to people who have no desire to ever touch upon the game or miniatures. Same probably goes for a lot of the 40k games and potentially the TV shows.
Which is why I think 40k is a universe of things to enjoy, and not something that can be distilled into something like a game or a hobby, and I do feel like GW is sensing that as they have been expanding more and more into other venues.
I do feel like GW is sensing that as they have been expanding more and more into other venues.
What GW is sensing is that 3d printing is going to kill the business model because nobody will have to pay their prices for miniatures of equal quality as the technology improves.
I am at the point now that i know enough people with both resin and plastic printers i no longer need to really buy anything other than STL files if i really need something. there are plenty of designers out their doing their own unique versions of things i can use for any games including 40K.
They no longer have a stranglehold over the game side of things so all they have left is the IP to expand upon. that is why so much effort has been put into warhammer + along with retail toys.
3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
Backspacehacker wrote:If someone loves painting landscapes, and never paints people, can you really call that person a painter? or are they just a landscape painter?
They're whatever they call themselves. If they call themselves a painter, they're a painter. If they call themselves a landscape painter exclusively, then they're a landscape painter.
If someone plays the guitar, but only plays rock music, and never plays classica, can you really say they are a guitarist?
Actually, this one is already a thing - they'd be very adequately called a rock guitarist, in much the same way as a jazz trumpeter uses very different skills and styles from a military trumpeter, even though they *could* both do the same thing if they wanted. At the end of the day, the instrumentalist can say and define what *they* are.
You are using the skill of miniture painting to paint things you like, if the only things you like just happen to be 40k, then you jsut paint 40k, but that skill in painting minitures is not limited to JUST 40k models, you can just as easily apply it to AoS, bolt action, scale models, trains, busts to a degree.
The same techniques used in miniature painting could also be applied to more than just minis. Would we call all mini painters just "painters"? And by that logic, painting is only a constituent part of creating art, so we could just call them all "artists"?
It's a slippery slope when we start taking people's self-definitions out of their hands. If someone defines themselves as only a 40k hobbyist, why isn't that okay for them to self-define?
Im not saying you are not a 40k fan if all you do is paint them, or you are not part of the 40k scene, but i think saying the 40k hobby implies the whole shabang of it. Building, painting, and playing, its basically 3 hobbies rolled under a singe umbrella. Thats why if the question is asked, is 40k and game, or a hobby? i would say its a game, that has multiple hobbies as a part of it.
But if you don't play, or playing with the minis isn't the main reason you engage with 40k, why is it defined as a game if you engage with everything else more?
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
3D printing isn't exclusively the realm of setting up your own printer at home. I just bought a bunch of printed Bretonnians from Etsy for a fraction of the price that GW would charge if they made them. The (Not) Green Knight would easily be around €60 if GW made it and I paid €15 and the detail isn't far off GW plastics, just a little softer (and a lot less plain untextured surfaces).
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
3D printing isn't exclusively the realm of setting up your own printer at home. I just bought a bunch of printed Bretonnians from Etsy for a fraction of the price that GW would charge if they made them. The (Not) Green Knight would easily be around €60 if GW made it and I paid €15 and the detail isn't far off GW plastics, just a little softer (and a lot less plain untextured surfaces).
Now you're talking about 3rd party minis, which have never really rocked the boat beyond Chapter House who got a little too into GW's wheelhouse.
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
3D printing isn't exclusively the realm of setting up your own printer at home. I just bought a bunch of printed Bretonnians from Etsy for a fraction of the price that GW would charge if they made them. The (Not) Green Knight would easily be around €60 if GW made it and I paid €15 and the detail isn't far off GW plastics, just a little softer (and a lot less plain untextured surfaces).
Now you're talking about 3rd party minis, which have never really rocked the boat beyond Chapter House who got a little too into GW's wheelhouse.
Semantics aside do you not think that might have been because access to the equipment to produce 3rd party minis (not 3D printers) was much less accessible? 3D printing was barely a thing even 5 years ago, let alone when the Chapterhouse stuff went down.
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
3D printing isn't exclusively the realm of setting up your own printer at home. I just bought a bunch of printed Bretonnians from Etsy for a fraction of the price that GW would charge if they made them. The (Not) Green Knight would easily be around €60 if GW made it and I paid €15 and the detail isn't far off GW plastics, just a little softer (and a lot less plain untextured surfaces).
Now you're talking about 3rd party minis, which have never really rocked the boat beyond Chapter House who got a little too into GW's wheelhouse.
Semantics aside do you not think that might have been because access to the equipment to produce 3rd party minis (not 3D printers) was much less accessible? 3D printing was barely a thing even 5 years ago, let alone when the Chapterhouse stuff went down.
Sure there are more of them, but let's not pretend that many prominent 3rd party creators haven't been around for more than a decade and where casting resin or pewter to make their minis for years before this tech was really workable.
Chapterhouse just flew a little too close to the sun, notably I believe they used actual GW names instead of adjacent names.
Even then they won half the case and forced GW to retreat to their own silly names they can more effectively copyright.
kronk wrote: I spend between 100x and 1000x more time painting and modeling than I do playing.
For me, it's a hobby that I get to play once in a while.
I think it all depends, in the end, on the perspective. I spend a lot more time doing different types of training, then actually compeating in real wrestling events. But I wouldn't say that training is the real thing and wrestling itself just an additional aspect of it. What , although this is my opinion here, really matters is what makes people happy and what brings joy to them. I have seen guys play 12 times a year at bigger store events, they never paint, don't read lore , and that is w40k to them. On the other hand there is also one of the clerks at the store who runs a paint studio service. Since the start of 9th, when I met him, I never saw him play or even touch a dice. He always sits in the corner paints. Only moves out of there if someone has to pay for stuff and if his wife or daugher bring him food. There are guys in my town for who w40k is recasting, 3d sculpting etc. So maybe mr Backspacehacker is on the nose with the description what the hobby is.
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
Having printed a couple models now I'll agree that the initial barrier is higher than most say. But the claimed brittle-ness with SLA is overstated, as there are many resins to choose from and I've only seen issues with details that are MUCH smaller than anything GW does.
I don't see 3d printing as fully replacing the market for plastic kits. . . but it's certainly starting to carve into the market in a substantial way.
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
Having printed a couple models now I'll agree that the initial barrier is higher than most say. But the claimed brittle-ness with SLA is overstated, as there are many resins to choose from and I've only seen issues with details that are MUCH smaller than anything GW does.
I don't see 3d printing as fully replacing the market for plastic kits. . . but it's certainly starting to carve into the market in a substantial way.
If it's carving into anything it's carving into the 3rd party market the most.
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
Having printed a couple models now I'll agree that the initial barrier is higher than most say. But the claimed brittle-ness with SLA is overstated, as there are many resins to choose from and I've only seen issues with details that are MUCH smaller than anything GW does.
I don't see 3d printing as fully replacing the market for plastic kits. . . but it's certainly starting to carve into the market in a substantial way.
If it's carving into anything it's carving into the 3rd party market the most.
I wouldn't be surprised if 3Dprinting is 90% of the third party market now. But a healthy 3rd party market and carving into the GW marketshare are basically the same thing.
ClockworkZion wrote: 3d printing isn't the threat people who are into 3d printing claim it is. Largely because it's a whole secoondary hobby with a decent barrier to entry and it has shortcomings (the best material to print minatures with is SLA resin thanks to it's greater detail over filament printing but unless you're recasting that into a more durable resin you now have a very brittle model) and generally people don't always have the space or living conditions to bring that into their life (such as tiny apartments, kids or pets all being barriers).
I just started 3D printing. It's not a threat now. It will be. The line I drew for myself on what I will and won't 3D print isn unlikely to ever be a threat to GW - I'll only print bits or Original Designs - I found a Primaris Breacher Squad with UM details (Calgar/Victrix horseshoe loincloths and crested helmets), as well as UM powersword and Stormshields - Victrix Guard, and Bladeguard here they come. I've found molded detail banners for the 1st company, 2nd company and Calgar. There's also a guy who does RetroMarines with infantry looking like a Lost In Space episode, and a Repulsor heavily inspired by a 65 Caddilac.
But others will draw their own line. Eventually GW will have to decide what to do with it.
It's a hobby built around a game. You can still enjoy 40K without playing the game if you just want to build, paint or read Black Library. For me it's all of those things, and has a regular social aspect, which it what sets it apart from other games.
Recently, listening to a well known 40K podcast reviewing the new Eldar book, I was struck by how the hosts would oscillate between talk about rules and how these would both affect unit performance and encourage people to buy and field these models, and painting and unit background in terms of new rules representing what these units are supposed to be from this background. What was interesting was that these two aspects of the same discussion could have been separated completely into two distinct conversations… though two of three of the hosts confessed to not being so interested in the modeling aspects, what I would consider more of the hobby part, as their interests were more in playing the game to win, becoming the best dark angels player in the world, yada…
So, that got me thinking, resulting in this….. Simple poll. Is 40K primarily a game, with a system to be mastered and opponents to be bested with more skilful competitive gameplay that uses officially sanctioned models as tokens, or is it primarily a hobby involving painting and modeling and so on that culminates in a game that allows hobbyists to use their handpainted and often to some degree handcrafted and customised models to play out scenarios?
This is a choice between extremes, a hard choice maybe, leaving open how grey middles and “both” type answers are to be borne out in discussion.
Togas, again, from the original post, this is understood, and the discussion was supposed to be a place to discuss differing views.
I could go with lifestyle. People buy 40K clothes, bags, stickers for their machines, drink from 40K mugs, check Dakka before work, during lunch, after work, before bed, ask for 40K for birthdays and for Christmas, follow 40K releases even for factions that they do not collect, like to hang out in the games shops to talk 40K, be around 40K, like to read 40K... more than being a fan of an IP, less than an obsession, day in day out... sure, why not. I don't wear the clothes, and drink from borrowed mugs, but i would like to wear 40K and have a mug someday, sure. So, yeah, for me, since I stopped other hobbies, the gyms closed, I got tired of bars, and so on, yeah, lifestyle might be right. I am not Rob Baer, even close, or any of the ITC Frontline people, who I suspect might be more on the mark for the class, but yeah, why not.
Warhammer 40K is a game.
Warhammer 40K is a hobby.
Warhammer 40K is both a hobby and a game.
Some people will select option 1, others will select option 2. Yet others still can select option 3.
The answer to this question depends entirely on who you're talking to.
Pretty much this.
And as for the “nO 4oK R noT, wArGaMiNg R tEh HoBbEh” claims? Well. No. Predominantly no. But also yes.
Let me turn to the yes first. Wargaming absolutely does exist outside of GW’s offerings, let alone 40K itself. There are a great many options out there. You simply cannot argue against that.
But. On the no? GW has taken pains to be able to provide an entirely self contained experience. Rules, models, boards, paints, tools, modelling supplies, fiction etc. All of it. The only thing I can think of which they don’t provide are Air Brushing kits. They also, depending on where you are, have stores which double as hubs of hobby. A place to meet others of the same interest. And so, GW are absolutely a little bubble of Hobby unto themselves. No one else in the market offers the same level of comprehensive coverage as GW. Not even close.
No one gives a Skaven’s nipsy whether you don’t like that fact, for a fact it remains.
Recently, listening to a well known 40K podcast reviewing the new Eldar book, I was struck by how the hosts would oscillate between talk about rules and how these would both affect unit performance and encourage people to buy and field these models, and painting and unit background in terms of new rules representing what these units are supposed to be from this background. What was interesting was that these two aspects of the same discussion could have been separated completely into two distinct conversations… though two of three of the hosts confessed to not being so interested in the modeling aspects, what I would consider more of the hobby part, as their interests were more in playing the game to win, becoming the best dark angels player in the world, yada…
So, that got me thinking, resulting in this….. Simple poll. Is 40K primarily a game, with a system to be mastered and opponents to be bested with more skilful competitive gameplay that uses officially sanctioned models as tokens, or is it primarily a hobby involving painting and modeling and so on that culminates in a game that allows hobbyists to use their handpainted and often to some degree handcrafted and customised models to play out scenarios?
This is a choice between extremes, a hard choice maybe, leaving open how grey middles and “both” type answers are to be borne out in discussion.
Togas, again, from the original post, this is understood, and the discussion was supposed to be a place to discuss differing views.
Thank you for your... contribution.
I guess I don't understand the point then. The poll is set up in such a way as to deliberately exclude one of the possible answers. That appears to me that you're wanting to corral discussion into one of two camps, Hobby or Game. Why?
Not at all. I limit choices to force reflection, hard decisions, and invite discussion on why the decision was difficult, yada. The poll is only intended as a vehicle for discussion… it is not intended to capture every possible permutation of response, and rather ask that these be set out in discussion. Yes?
jeff white wrote: Not at all. I limit choices to force reflection, hard decisions, and invite discussion on why the decision was difficult, yada. The poll is only intended as a vehicle for discussion… it is not intended to capture every possible permutation of response, and rather ask that these be set out in discussion. Yes?
Given the proportion of responses that are "this isn't a useful distinction" I don't think framing the question that way achieved that very well.
jeff white wrote: Not at all. I limit choices to force reflection, hard decisions, and invite discussion on why the decision was difficult, yada. The poll is only intended as a vehicle for discussion… it is not intended to capture every possible permutation of response, and rather ask that these be set out in discussion. Yes?
I don't see the reason for you to exclude the likely very common answer of "both hobby and game aspects are important to me."
What if you reframed your poll/question to be something like:
"With hobby defined as building/painting and gaming defined as actually playing the game on the tabletop, how do you rate each activity's importance to you?"
a. Hobby is the only part that matters to me. If I game at all it is to see my models on the tabletop and I don't care about the game result.
b. Hobby is more important to me as I love modeling/painting, but I do enjoy the gaming experience. I will play with a non-meta model because I like how it looks/take pride in it
c. The hobby and gaming aspects are equally important to me. I make compromises in both directions. I am the Aristotle of 40K.
d. I sort-of enjoy hobbying, but I really prefer gaming and focus my resources on effective models. I generally don't assemble and paint models if they don't perform well on the tabletop
e. The game is all that matters to me. If I hobby it is just to get models on the tabletop. I pay others to do my hobby for me, churning and burning all the way.
I imagine you would have less debates over definitions and with some real choices you allow people to report how they actually feel. You'd still get to see if people privilege hobby over game, but with some nuance.
jeff white wrote: I could go with lifestyle. People buy 40K clothes, bags, stickers for their machines, drink from 40K mugs, check Dakka before work, during lunch, after work, before bed, ask for 40K for birthdays and for Christmas, follow 40K releases even for factions that they do not collect, like to hang out in the games shops to talk 40K, be around 40K, like to read 40K... more than being a fan of an IP, less than an obsession, day in day out... sure, why not. I don't wear the clothes, and drink from borrowed mugs, but i would like to wear 40K and have a mug someday, sure. So, yeah, for me, since I stopped other hobbies, the gyms closed, I got tired of bars, and so on, yeah, lifestyle might be right. I am not Rob Baer, even close, or any of the ITC Frontline people, who I suspect might be more on the mark for the class, but yeah, why not.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No one gives a Skaven’s nipsy whether you don’t like that fact, for a fact it remains.
Despite that, miniatures gaming is the hobby, not 40k.
It's like WWE trying to control the idea of pro wrestling, in the end it doesn't work.
I agree that miniature wargaming is the generic term for the hobby. But a lot of people partake in that hobby solely through 40k. For them 40k is their hobby.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No one gives a Skaven’s nipsy whether you don’t like that fact, for a fact it remains.
Despite that, miniatures gaming is the hobby, not 40k.
It's like WWE trying to control the idea of pro wrestling, in the end it doesn't work.
I agree that miniature wargaming is the generic term for the hobby. But a lot of people partake in that hobby solely through 40k. For them 40k is their hobby.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No one gives a Skaven’s nipsy whether you don’t like that fact, for a fact it remains.
Despite that, miniatures gaming is the hobby, not 40k.
It's like WWE trying to control the idea of pro wrestling, in the end it doesn't work.
I agree that miniature wargaming is the generic term for the hobby. But a lot of people partake in that hobby solely through 40k. For them 40k is their hobby.
Reminds me of a man who told me, 'I'm not a heterosexual, I only love my wife!'
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No one gives a Skaven’s nipsy whether you don’t like that fact, for a fact it remains.
Despite that, miniatures gaming is the hobby, not 40k.
It's like WWE trying to control the idea of pro wrestling, in the end it doesn't work.
I agree that miniature wargaming is the generic term for the hobby. But a lot of people partake in that hobby solely through 40k. For them 40k is their hobby.
Reminds me of a man who told me, 'I'm not a heterosexual, I only love my wife!'
I mean, that's the thing with analogies. Anything can be turned into one.
'I'm into football' for example. Its accurate and perfectly fair to say you're a football fan, moreso than a sports fan, especially if you're not into those other sports...
'Sports fan' implies a broader interest, just like 'miniature wargaming' does.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No one gives a Skaven’s nipsy whether you don’t like that fact, for a fact it remains.
Despite that, miniatures gaming is the hobby, not 40k.
It's like WWE trying to control the idea of pro wrestling, in the end it doesn't work.
I agree that miniature wargaming is the generic term for the hobby. But a lot of people partake in that hobby solely through 40k. For them 40k is their hobby.
Reminds me of a man who told me, 'I'm not a heterosexual, I only love my wife!'
I mean, that's the thing with analogies. Anything can be turned into one.
'I'm into football' for example. Its accurate and perfectly fair to say you're a football fan, moreso than a sports fan, especially if you're not into those other sports...
'Sports fan' implies a broader interest, just like 'miniature wargaming' does.
Exactly. And lots of football fans I know are just into one squad and the national team, not even the whole sport. They couldn't care less about other teams, including top ones, unless they cross path with their own one, let alone other leagues or women football.
Most of the football supporters aren't sports fan, they just like and follow 1-3 sports typically. That can be said for the majority of people I believe, not only football fans.
With this analogy in mind I for example can't define myself a miniature wargaming fan as I'm into GW and only been into GW since over 20 years when I started the hobby, mostly 40k but also Necromunda and WHFB. Couldn't care less about other games and other miniatures.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No one gives a Skaven’s nipsy whether you don’t like that fact, for a fact it remains.
Despite that, miniatures gaming is the hobby, not 40k.
It's like WWE trying to control the idea of pro wrestling, in the end it doesn't work.
Yet. One can solely be a WWE fan, and have no interest in other Promotions. Same with 40K, AoS and GW.
If one solely indulges in the one offering, they’re a fan of that offering, rather than the wider industry.
Again, GW offer an entirely self contained experience, in a way I don’t think any other company in the same industry does. It’s the whole shebang. And even within that, a given person might only partake of specific parts. For instance, one can focus solely on the Heresy series. No models bought. No paints procured. Nary a dice rolled.
Does that mean they’re not a fan of the Heresy, but instead just a fan of reading? No. Not it does not. To use myself as a subject. I like my BL fiction, and I like mg Pratchett. In terms of novels? That’s pretty much all I read. Comics? 2000AD, and Marvel Big Events. So whilst yes both respectively mean I enjoy reading and comic books, my whole very specific tastes mean I am more a fan of those specifics properties.
My movie tastes are much broader, so there I’d be happy to be considered a Movie Fan, rather than a fan specifically of SciFi, Horror etc.
Comedy I’m again more specific. Very broadly I am a comedy fan. But it’s more accurate to say I’m a fan of slapstick, satire and surrealism. Other forms of comedy leave me cold - such as one liner comedians leaving me cold. I specifically only really enjoy and appreciate U.K. sitcoms, as I find the US ones a bit..well…smug and lazy. Other comedy tastes are of course available.
I spend hundreds, if not thousands of pounds a year on GW’s gubbins, and barely any money outside of their offerings. If you want justification, I can really only offer the sheer convenience and a level of personal investment in the games and associated lores. I have tried X-Wing and Warmachine, but didn’t pursue them beyond a few months. I certainly own none of those models or rules anymore.
Am I a Wargamer? Or am I a GW hobbyist? The latter, clearly.
I would 1000% absolutely differentiate a wargamer with a GW hobbyist, which includes people that PLAY GW games as part of that hobby and ONLY play GW games for the most part.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet. One can solely be a WWE fan, and have no interest in other Promotions. Same with 40K, AoS and GW.
Except we would call them a pro wrestling fan, still. What attracts them to WWE, exactly? Just seeing the WWE logo slapped on everything?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If one solely indulges in the one offering, they’re a fan of that offering, rather than the wider industry.
I don't think that works for hobbies; it's different from merely being a "fan."
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again, GW offer an entirely self contained experience, in a way I don’t think any other company in the same industry does. It’s the whole shebang. And even within that, a given person might only partake of specific parts. For instance, one can focus solely on the Heresy series. No models bought. No paints procured. Nary a dice rolled.
That's not really a hobby, then. That's just being a fan. A hobby implies there's an activity/creative aspect, as opposed to soulless passive consumption.
Great Googly Moogly I thought I was splitting hairs.
Let me break this down.
1. Wargaming absolutely is a hobby unto itself.
2. 40K, AoS, Heresy, Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Underworlds etc can be enjoyed entirely on their own. And as such, one can dip their toe solely in that particular puddle without anyone claiming you’ve therefore dipped your toe in the wider ocean?
2. 40K, AoS, Heresy, Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Underworlds etc can be enjoyed entirely on their own. And as such, one can dip their toe solely in that particular puddle without anyone claiming you’ve therefore dipped your toe in the wider ocean?
No. Favoring a specific brand doesn't put up a magical wall between you and the rest of reality.
No one is being inaccurate by calling you a wargamer (or miniatures painter, if you avoid the games, or reader if you avoid everything but the books), even if you've decided its GW or nothing.
Sports > football > Leeds fball club
Someone can hate sports as a whole, or most sports, but love Leeds club for other reasons, E.g. hometown, beers with buddies only on Leeds club game days, yada.
No magical wall. No conscious decision. One doesn’t tick a sports box, then a football box, then a Leeds club box, and declare a specialisation as if life were a drop down menu.
jeff white wrote: Sports > football > Leeds fball club
Someone can hate sports as a whole, or most sports, but love Leeds club for other reasons, E.g. hometown, beers with buddies only on Leeds club game days, yada.
No magical wall. No conscious decision. One doesn’t tick a sports box, then a football box, then a Leeds club box, and declare a specialisation as if life were a drop down menu.
But "Leeds" is not a hobby. It's not the same as being a fan about something.
It is a hobby because GW is a hobby company not a game company. I hope people realize by now that all GW books are comics to fluff out the models on a theoretical level and not meant for actual in-game use.
jeff white wrote: Sports > football > Leeds fball club
Someone can hate sports as a whole, or most sports, but love Leeds club for other reasons, E.g. hometown, beers with buddies only on Leeds club game days, yada.
No magical wall. No conscious decision. One doesn’t tick a sports box, then a football box, then a Leeds club box, and declare a specialisation as if life were a drop down menu.
Yeah, you're looking at that statement backwards. Its not about 'drop down menus.' Its a recognition of reality: just because you only care about Leeds or dicking around with your buds, it doesn't mean you aren't watching football.
Same for 40k. Not caring about anything outside the GW bubble doesn't alter what you're doing. No, you don't have to make a conscious decision (for whatever relevance that has). But you're still doing a more general activity in the world, and people uninitiated in the cult will still recognize the general practice. 'Oh you're painting little figures/ reading books/ playing a game.' The details of the specific game probably mean about as much as describing the dream you had last night. Their eyes glaze over, 'That's nice dear,' they pat you on the head and go on their way.
'I'm into sports' is usually followed by 'football? Rugby?' Or words to that extent.
Sports are an activity as well, not just passively watching it on the TV. Theres a lot more to the old 'fitba' than folks are giving credit to, and other sports besides. Sports share an awful lot of space with hobbies in terms of them being something done during leisure time for pleasure.
Me saying 'I'm into running' is distinct from my wife saying 'I'm into football'. Yes, techncally speaking, we both like a small specific subset of 'sports' but saying I'm wrong for saying I'm into running and should be saying I'm into sports instead is missing the point; its just needlessly pedantic and verging on the dishonest and needlessly snobby and elitist wordplay.
Same goes for 'wargames'. 40k is absolutely a subset of 'wargaming' buy if you're not interested in the 'other', it's perfectly fair to identify your likes with the specific part you are into. Especially when gw games and wargames are more or less synonymous to a lot of people.
jeff white wrote: Sports > football > Leeds fball club
Someone can hate sports as a whole, or most sports, but love Leeds club for other reasons, E.g. hometown, beers with buddies only on Leeds club game days, yada.
No magical wall. No conscious decision. One doesn’t tick a sports box, then a football box, then a Leeds club box, and declare a specialisation as if life were a drop down menu.
My condolences to the head shaped dent in your desk.
I've noticed a distinct shift in language going on here. I wonder if it's symptomatic of people coming into this from fundementally different perspectives/assumptions of what the language means.
When I say "Warhammer isn't a hobby" - that doesn't mean you'd be wrong for saying "I'm into Warhammer".
"I'm into Warhammer" is expressing an interest in the universe and that specific game. In the same way as saying "I support Leeds" is an expression of interest in a particular subset of football.
kirotheavenger wrote: I've noticed a distinct shift in language going on here. I wonder if it's symptomatic of people coming into this from fundementally different perspectives/assumptions of what the language means.
When I say "Warhammer isn't a hobby" - that doesn't mean you'd be wrong for saying "I'm into Warhammer".
"I'm into Warhammer" is expressing an interest in the universe and that specific game. In the same way as saying "I support Leeds" is an expression of interest in a particular subset of football.
Same. I've never seen so much twisting logic to suggest that a specific instance is completely independent and separate from the general category its inherently part of. As if the game or identity is its own thing that birthed itself independently and owes nobody nothing. Its an interesting insight into modern social behavior that I generally find puzzling. 'I'm this, but never that,' when that is this.
Seems to me that this is what happened:
Group A - 40k is my hobby.
Group B - No you can't have 40k as a hobby that's not allowed.
A - But it's the thing I do, it's my hobby.
B - No you can't say that. You're just wrong/propping up GW's dominance in the industry/aren't fitting the dictionary definition according to my interpretation/other gatekeepy nonsense.
It's an entirely pedantic argument that is based around usage of the word "hobby." I don't know why people are treating it like a personal attack. I love Dark Souls. There's a Dark Souls board game. I read and listen to lore regarding Dark Souls. I play Dark Souls games quite a bit. I'm not a Dark Souls hobbyist. I'm a person that plays video games, listens to youtube videos, and plays miniature games. Even if I only did things based around Dark Souls, Dark Souls wouldn't be my hobby. People wouldn't be gatekeeping if they said that "Dark Souls is not a hobby, you're a fan of Dark Souls."
TheBestBucketHead wrote: It's an entirely pedantic argument that is based around usage of the word "hobby." I don't know why people are treating it like a personal attack.
Maybe because people don't like being told "Your hobby isn't real" with things like "Webster's Dictionary defines" and "You are the reason this company I hate dominates the TTWG market" used to justify that. Might just be me.
Gert wrote: Seems to me that this is what happened:
Group A - 40k is my hobby.
Group B - No you can't have 40k as a hobby that's not allowed.
A - But it's the thing I do, it's my hobby.
B - No you can't say that. You're just wrong/propping up GW's dominance in the industry/aren't fitting the dictionary definition according to my interpretation/other gatekeepy nonsense.
Inaccurate, because the "think you do" is miniature wargaming, modeling, etc, not "40k" (whatever that would mean).
Maybe because people don't like being told "Your hobby isn't real" with things like "Webster's Dictionary defines" and "You are the reason this company I hate dominates the TTWG market" used to justify that. Might just be me.
People don't like being told a lot of things that are true.
But you're being told "Devotion to a specific corporation isn't a hobby." You should think about that.
Voss wrote: You're certainly reading a lot into what people aren't saying.
'B is a subset of A, and B doesn't stand alone' isn't anyone telling you B doesn't exist.
I don't think I am. I just don't appreciate it when people tell me my hobby isn't my hobby its this other thing instead because they say so, even though there's no actual reason for those people to do so. Removed - rule #1
What do you actually get out of this? What purpose does telling people how to define their hobbies serve? Are you trying to "stick it to the man"? Because you know GW doesn't care right? At best you make people feel bad because they don't have the money/community/location to play more than just GW systems and at worst you make people hate you for acting like an elitist who looks down on those who view 40k as their hobby. You'd rather create random divisions and definitions within the wider community to satisfy a dictionary definition than just accept that people don't think the way you think.
Good discussion!
Imho, Gert has something constructive to say, here. We need to respect that these differing opinions can and do live together pretty well for the most part… I mean we have more in common than differ… we are all here, interested in this thread after all.
For me, well, I have spent time “watching” E.g. baseball or basketball with friends, only certain local teams, and was not ever really interested in the sport. Point here is that there is no real subset of activities, E.g. sports>baseball>Indians >Sunday afternoon with buddies on my patio facing the stadium. Yeah, of the six of us, we may all have been “watching” the game, but we weren’t really engaged in the same activity. I was mostly there to grill out and pound cold beers, following the game enough to know when to roll out the next tray of smoked cheese and toasted bread. Just as others were there to win, or lose, I was gonna win regardless…
I guess I feel that this captures a difference between considering 40k a game or hobby, or even lifestyle. I mean, hobbyists do not lose games. We just don’t. I used to lose. It felt that way. Now, if I lose, I still win… because winning has nothing to do with how the game turns out.
Sure, I want a sensible, serious, game. But this is beside the point. The goal is the engage,ent, sharing the time…
Gert wrote: Seems to me that this is what happened:
Group A - 40k is my hobby.
Group B - No you can't have 40k as a hobby that's not allowed.
A - But it's the thing I do, it's my hobby.
B - No you can't say that. You're just wrong/propping up GW's dominance in the industry/aren't fitting the dictionary definition according to my interpretation/other gatekeepy nonsense.
Inaccurate, because the "think you do" is miniature wargaming, modeling, etc, not "40k" (whatever that would mean).
No, it is inaccurate for me to say I play wargames or I am a wargamer. I don't, and I'm not.
I play 40k. That's it. And every time someone on here tells me about Dust, or Chain of Command, it convinces me even more I am not a wargamer. Those games, no matter how objectively "good" or "balanced" those rule sets are, would bore me to tears.
I get what you are all saying about the semantics of the word "Hobby" and you aren't technically wrong.
But lets play an annoying little game to get the other side's point across. How 'bout we agree that I'm a wargamer. Then you can spend HOURS asking me if I play game A or game B. To which I will consistently reply "no." And it can go on for hours. Or days.
And eventually, by the time you're ready to chew your own leg off to escape the bear trap that the conversation has become, you might start to feel like "Gee, I should have just let that guy tell me his hobby was 40k. It could have saved us hours (or days) of useless conversation."
Sometimes language is about grammar, syntax and communication... and when you want to make it about those things, it can get stale and boring really quickly.
Most of the time, language is about communication, and if you understood what I meant, it really doesn't matter whether I ended a sentence with a preposition or referred to the sky as a world-ceiling.
If I played other wargames, I'd be the first to tell you about my wargaming hobby. But I don't. So rather than speak in vague terms which tell you nothing about what I actually do just because they happen to be semantically correct, I'll give you information that is specific enough for you to actually use, and that way you don't have to catalogue all of the things I don't do.
Gert wrote: y hobby its this other thing instead because they say so, even though there's no actual reason for those people to do so. Removed - rule #1
What do you actually get out of this? What purpose does telling people how to define their hobbies serve?
The question was asked "is 40k [disambiguation] a hobby?" and we answered it. What's the point in getting salty because people answered with an opinion you don't like?
No, it is inaccurate for me to say I play wargames or I am a wargamer. I don't, and I'm not.
No one's saying you can't label call yourself a 40k player. We're saying 40k isn't a hobby - it's an interest spanning multiple hobbies.
It's absolutely A-OK to only like one wargame, but that still makes you a wargamer. You're a videogamer even if you only play LoL, or a sportsplayer even if you only play Football.
Gert wrote: Seems to me that this is what happened:
Group A - 40k is my hobby.
Group B - No you can't have 40k as a hobby that's not allowed.
A - But it's the thing I do, it's my hobby.
B - No you can't say that. You're just wrong/propping up GW's dominance in the industry/aren't fitting the dictionary definition according to my interpretation/other gatekeepy nonsense.
Where did that last but come from? Did anyone actually say that calling 40k your hobby was wrong?
I'm so confused because people are mixing a bunch of different opinions on this. Sonlet me get this straight, we have:
40k is a hobby unto itself and that's okay. (my camp, incidentally).
40k is a hobby unto itself but that's not okay because GW is poo poo (possibly a strawman, I can't be bothered to check)
40k is not a hobby, you're a wargamer and you're wrong to think otherwise.
40k is not a hobby, its part of a larger hobby, even if you don't partake in any other part of the hobby but its okay to only like the 40k part. (what's the opposite of a gatekeeper?)
What about the people that like 40k but don't really play the game?
Are they 40k hobbyists to? Obviously they're still 40k enthusiasts, they just focus that enthusiasm into the painting, modelling, reading, or whatever else hobbies instead.
It's also not entirely a strawman for Gert to make reference to "it's not okay because GW is poopoo".
I've said I dislike the idea of 40k as "The Hobby" because it's very exclusionary to GW's competition and is why they love to promote that idea themselves.
Seems clear that being into 40k E.g. painting modeling watching batreps scoping painting competitions yada, and not playing (the current iteration of) the game would be pure strain hobbyists, whereas people who only play (current iteration of) the game would be pure strain gamers, no?
Gert wrote: Seems to me that this is what happened:
Group A - 40k is my hobby.
Group B - No you can't have 40k as a hobby that's not allowed.
A - But it's the thing I do, it's my hobby.
B - No you can't say that. You're just wrong/propping up GW's dominance in the industry/aren't fitting the dictionary definition according to my interpretation/other gatekeepy nonsense.
Where did that last but come from? Did anyone actually say that calling 40k your hobby was wrong?
I'm so confused because people are mixing a bunch of different opinions on this. Sonlet me get this straight, we have:
40k is a hobby unto itself and that's okay. (my camp, incidentally).
40k is a hobby unto itself but that's not okay because GW is poo poo (possibly a strawman, I can't be bothered to check)
40k is not a hobby, you're a wargamer and you're wrong to think otherwise.
40k is not a hobby, its part of a larger hobby, even if you don't partake in any other part of the hobby but its okay to only like the 40k part. (what's the opposite of a gatekeeper?)
I probably missed some.
This might make an interesting follow up poll… btw my camp, also.
PenitentJake wrote: No, it is inaccurate for me to say I play wargames or I am a wargamer. I don't, and I'm not.
40k is a wargame; you play 40k, that makes you a wargamer. Sorry, you're wrong.
Didn't read the rest of it because the beginning of it was so damn wrong.
The point is that calling myself a 40k player actually communicates information to you that you can use.
Telling you I'm a wargamer is misleading (though technically true), because it will lead you to make a lot of assumptions about me that are not true. It is not useful for me to tell you I'm a wargamer, because I can't intelligently discuss games that AREN'T 40k. And if I told you I was a wargamer, you might assume otherwise.
Again, from a semantics level, you're correct: 40 k is a wargame, I play it. Therefore I am a wargame player. True.
But from a communication standpoint, and giving people information they can actually act on, it means far more for me to say I'm a 40k player.
Describing me as a wargamer is a bad idea. People will want to have conversations with me that I can't possibly participate in, based upon the term used to describe me. It's semantically correct, but it's practically inaccurate. I do not deny the semantic correctness of your argument; I'm merely stating this particular instance of semantic compliance is impractical in communicating actual information.
Voss wrote: You're certainly reading a lot into what people aren't saying.
'B is a subset of A, and B doesn't stand alone' isn't anyone telling you B doesn't exist.
I don't think I am. I just don't appreciate it when people tell me my hobby isn't my hobby its this other thing instead because they say so, even though there's no actual reason for those people to do so. Removed - rule #1
What do you actually get out of this? What purpose does telling people how to define their hobbies serve? Are you trying to "stick it to the man"? Because you know GW doesn't care right? At best you make people feel bad because they don't have the money/community/location to play more than just GW systems and at worst you make people hate you for acting like an elitist who looks down on those who view 40k as their hobby. You'd rather create random divisions and definitions within the wider community to satisfy a dictionary definition than just accept that people don't think the way you think.
Er... what? This isn't about GW in any way at all.
Acknowledging you're part of a wider community actually creates _fewer_ divisions and definitions than treating every flavor of ice cream as its own unique thing that (somehow) stands alone. That, honestly, should be really self evident. One group with a lot of interests is less divisive than a ton of fan-specific subgroups. Gods, I don't miss the days of Star Wars vs Star Trek (vs Dr Who for the few stateside that were aware of it). Fandom wars are stupid, and breaking each fandom out in its own little box does very little but contribute to said wars.
PenitentJake wrote: No, it is inaccurate for me to say I play wargames or I am a wargamer. I don't, and I'm not.
40k is a wargame; you play 40k, that makes you a wargamer. Sorry, you're wrong.
Didn't read the rest of it because the beginning of it was so damn wrong.
The point is that calling myself a 40k player actually communicates information to you that you can use.
Telling you I'm a wargamer is misleading (though technically true), because it will lead you to make a lot of assumptions about me that are not true. It is not useful for me to tell you I'm a wargamer, because I can't intelligently discuss games that AREN'T 40k. And if I told you I was a wargamer, you might assume otherwise.
Again, from a semantics level, you're correct: 40 k is a wargame, I play it. Therefore I am a wargame player. True.
But from a communication standpoint, and giving people information they can actually act on, it means far more for me to say I'm a 40k player.
Describing me as a wargamer is a bad idea. People will want to have conversations with me that I can't possibly participate in, based upon the term used to describe me. It's semantically correct, but it's practically inaccurate. I do not deny the semantic correctness of your argument; I'm merely stating this particular instance of semantic compliance is impractical in communicating actual information.
See, to me, I don't think that's useful information at all. Its technically useful for other 40k players, I guess, but I don't really interact with other 40k players except on 40k game nights, so... that doesn't feel like information anyone ever needs. I'm either obviously there for 40k or it doesn't come up.
Because for the bulk of people, it doesn't matter at all. Non-wargamers aren't going to give a dead rat about the details of your hobby, any more than they care about what you had for breakfast.
Voss wrote: You're certainly reading a lot into what people aren't saying.
'B is a subset of A, and B doesn't stand alone' isn't anyone telling you B doesn't exist.
I don't think I am. I just don't appreciate it when people tell me my hobby isn't my hobby its this other thing instead because they say so, even though there's no actual reason for those people to do so. Removed - rule #1
What do you actually get out of this? What purpose does telling people how to define their hobbies serve? Are you trying to "stick it to the man"? Because you know GW doesn't care right? At best you make people feel bad because they don't have the money/community/location to play more than just GW systems and at worst you make people hate you for acting like an elitist who looks down on those who view 40k as their hobby. You'd rather create random divisions and definitions within the wider community to satisfy a dictionary definition than just accept that people don't think the way you think.
Er... what? This isn't about GW in any way at all.
Acknowledging you're part of a wider community actually creates _fewer_ divisions and definitions than treating every flavor of ice cream as its own unique thing that (somehow) stands alone. That, honestly, should be really self evident. One group with a lot of interests is less divisive than a ton of fan-specific subgroups. Gods, I don't miss the days of Star Wars vs Star Trek (vs Dr Who for the few stateside that were aware of it).
But 40k and wargaming can be two separate things, as PenitantJake addressed. People whose interest in the hobby begin and end at 40k are well within their rights to call their hobby 40k. Claiming to be part of a wider hobby has nothing to do with it and if they don't engage with the hobby it's simply a false statement. You don't call a baker a chef just because both of their professions involve making food, they're two distinct spheres that are big enough to be considered their own separate things. 40k, as has been mentioned is a big enough thing and encompasses enough media/mediums to be its own sphere of hobby.
Voss wrote: You're certainly reading a lot into what people aren't saying.
'B is a subset of A, and B doesn't stand alone' isn't anyone telling you B doesn't exist.
I don't think I am. I just don't appreciate it when people tell me my hobby isn't my hobby its this other thing instead because they say so, even though there's no actual reason for those people to do so. Removed - rule #1
What do you actually get out of this? What purpose does telling people how to define their hobbies serve? Are you trying to "stick it to the man"? Because you know GW doesn't care right? At best you make people feel bad because they don't have the money/community/location to play more than just GW systems and at worst you make people hate you for acting like an elitist who looks down on those who view 40k as their hobby. You'd rather create random divisions and definitions within the wider community to satisfy a dictionary definition than just accept that people don't think the way you think.
Er... what? This isn't about GW in any way at all.
Acknowledging you're part of a wider community actually creates _fewer_ divisions and definitions than treating every flavor of ice cream as its own unique thing that (somehow) stands alone. That, honestly, should be really self evident. One group with a lot of interests is less divisive than a ton of fan-specific subgroups. Gods, I don't miss the days of Star Wars vs Star Trek (vs Dr Who for the few stateside that were aware of it).
But 40k and wargaming can be two separate things, as PenitantJake addressed. People whose interest in the hobby begin and end at 40k are well within their rights to call their hobby 40k. Claiming to be part of a wider hobby has nothing to do with it and if they don't engage with the hobby it's simply a false statement. You don't call a baker a chef just because both of their professions involve making food, they're two distinct spheres that are big enough to be considered their own separate things.
I don't call a baker a chef because the process and end products are completely different. They're related, but... yeah. Please don't cook for other people if you think those are the same.
40k players do the same things any other wargamer does, there are no differences.
Voss wrote: Er... what? This isn't about GW in any way at all.
Some people have said it is, in this thread.
Acknowledging you're part of a wider community actually creates _fewer_ divisions and definitions than treating every flavor of ice cream as its own unique thing that (somehow) stands alone. That, honestly, should be really self evident. One group with a lot of interests is less divisive than a ton of fan-specific subgroups. Gods, I don't miss the days of Star Wars vs Star Trek (vs Dr Who for the few stateside that were aware of it). Fandom wars are stupid, and breaking each fandom out in its own little box does very little but contribute to said wars.
Too bad that doesn't happen and grouping loads of different people together and telling them "you're all the same" never ends well.
See, to me, I don't think that's useful information at all. Its technically useful for other 40k players, I guess, but I don't really interact with other 40k players except on 40k game nights, so... that doesn't feel like information anyone ever needs. I'm either obviously there for 40k or it doesn't come up. Because for the bulk of people, it doesn't matter at all. Non-wargamers aren't going to give a dead rat about the details of your hobby, any more than they care about what you had for breakfast.
Weird because talking about 40k is how I got a bunch of friends into the hobby. Not TTWG, 40k.
Also weird how my family all made an effort to learn that it was my hobby so when they got me gifts it wouldn't be stuff that I would just ignore. Or how my family takes an interest in my hobbies so they don't just sit there and ignore me at family gatherings. Or how during 2020 lockdown my family actually played Warhammer with me because they wanted to bond and cheer me up during a bout of the Big Sad. Or how I made friends with someone based on our mutal love of 40k at my work.
Voss wrote: I don't call a baker a chef because the process and end products are completely different. They're related, but... yeah. Please don't cook for other people if you think those are the same.
40k players do the same things any other wargamer does, there are no differences.
Please show me all of the Infinity video games, novels, and comics please.
Modiphius makes the Infinity RPG. They've made two manga-style comics ("Outrage" and "Betrayal") with more on the way. There's a novel coming, dunno about what stage of production it's in yet. There are also multiple games which don't count as wargames which are set in the universe - Aristeia, and the two kickstarter ones (Defiance and TAG Raid).
I've played all of those games and read the comics. But I don't say "Infinity" is my hobby, I say "tabletop gaming" or "wargaming," because I'm not desperate to signal my allegiance to Corvus Belli.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: The point is that calling myself a 40k player actually communicates information to you that you can use.
Except not really, because there's a lot of people who are in to 40k who don't play the game - they just read the BL novels or play the vidya or whatever. So if your hobby is actually the wargame of 40k, say you're a wargamer. Because then I can actually talk to you about painting or the game.
PenitentJake wrote: Telling you I'm a wargamer is misleading (though technically true), because it will lead you to make a lot of assumptions about me that are not true. It is not useful for me to tell you I'm a wargamer, because I can't intelligently discuss games that AREN'T 40k. And if I told you I was a wargamer, you might assume otherwise.
If you say you're a fan of 40k, it's not necessarily true that you can intelligently discuss 40k, or even that you play it.
PenitentJake wrote: But from a communication standpoint, and giving people information they can actually act on, it means far more for me to say I'm a 40k player.
Sure. But that's not the same thing as saying "my hobby is 40k."
"Your hobby isn't 40k it's wargaming/painting/reading because it just is okay" is a weird hill to die on btw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: The classic dismissal of Infinity because its not as big as 40k is really getting old.
No one is dismissing it, just holding it up as a point of comparison in terms of the range of media available to consume as part of a hobby. The point being that you would burn through extrenuous media of the game/setting fairly quickly and you would be forced to seek other places to get new stuff to consoom resulting in searching out other game systems, whereas with 40k it seems unlikely that anyone could exhaust the amount of product there is. There is always going to be more 40k, so people like Jake don't even need to look outside of 40k even if they wanted to (which many don't).
Sim-Life wrote: "Your hobby isn't 40k it's wargaming/painting/reading because it just is okay" is a weird hill to die on btw.
Good thing giving reasons then, and not doing what you're saying.
Sim-Life wrote: No one is dismissing it, just holding it up as a point of comparison in terms of the range of media available to consume as part of a hobby. The point being that you would burn through extrenuous media of the game/setting fairly quickly and you would be forced to seek other places to get new stuff to consoom resulting in searching out other game systems, whereas with 40k it seems unlikely that anyone could exhaust the amount of product there is. Especially these days.
VladimirHerzog wrote: The classic dismissal of Infinity because its not as big as 40k is really getting old.
I just picked a name out of the hat my dude. The only TTWG that have a similar media presence to Warhammer, and 40k in particular, are ones that are adapted from existing properties such as Star Wars or The Walking Dead.
A point was made earlier, maybe it was Doc, reminding us that GW has made 40k into its own ecosystem… I think that sim is saying the same thing in a different way in regard to lees stand alone universes.
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
No answers are necessary. Point being here that there is one faction who seems intolerant of the way that others understand the world and their places in it… why is this so important to them?
jeff white wrote: I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.
jeff white wrote: A point was made earlier, maybe it was Doc, reminding us that GW has made 40k into its own ecosystem… I think that sim is saying the same thing in a different way in regard to lees stand alone universes.
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
No answers are necessary. Point being here that there is one faction who seems intolerant of the way that others understand the world and their places in it… why is this so important to them?
Not sure about other countries in the world, but there are large parts of Poland where you either play w40k or you don't play anything at all. It would be like being a fan of sports, but euro sport only shows dirt bike racing 24/7.
jeff white wrote: I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
jeff white wrote: A point was made earlier, maybe it was Doc, reminding us that GW has made 40k into its own ecosystem… I think that sim is saying the same thing in a different way in regard to lees stand alone universes.
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
No answers are necessary. Point being here that there is one faction who seems intolerant of the way that others understand the world and their places in it… why is this so important to them?
Seems to me there are specific individuals being intolerant, not 'factions.'
Gert wrote:Too bad that doesn't happen and grouping loads of different people together and telling them "you're all the same" never ends well.
Yes, yes. Tolerance and acceptance are bad. Very grimdark.
It's really not helpful for this discussion that "40k" means at least two distinct things to people here, that people slip between interchangeably.
"40k" is a tabletop wargame
"40k" is also a universe, within which is set the aforementioned wargame, the largest sci-fi novel library, a huge range of beautiful models, and much more.
That's quite a significant difference if we're talking about what's a hobby and what isn't.
I interpreted the "40k" that this thread title pertains to to be the latter.
In that sense, I say that the 40k universe is not a hobby. It is a universe/interest which spans multiple hobbies.
I would also say the same about the 40k game, it is not a hobby in and of itself, it is one particular offering/subset of the wargaming hobby.
In the same way "scale modelling" is a hobby, with subsets of Gundam/tanks/planes/cars/whatever.
But I get a strong sense people are slipping between the definitions, misunderstanding what definitions others are using, and ultimately talking past each over.
I also really don't see the relevance of Game's Workshop's "all-inclusive experience" to suggesting 40k is it's own standalone hobby.
You might like films, but that doesn't make Netflix a hobby in and of itself, even if they offer some of their own originals you might enjoy.
They're just the retailer you commonly buy from.
When I '40k', I often use a non-GW airbrush to paint, non-GW magnets to build and non-GW dice to play. Even if the rules, models and paints are from GW, am I doing 40K right?
Am I '40K'ing, or Wargaming?
Not sure about other countries in the world, but there are large parts of Poland where you either play w40k or you don't play anything at all. It would be like being a fan of sports, but euro sport only shows dirt bike racing 24/7.
That used to be true for every game, and then someone starts a playgroup that gets people into it. If you're too much of a normie to start your own playgroup, idk what to say, man...
Nah. Playing the game "Warhammer 40,000" is. But that's wargaming. Reading the books is.. but that's reading. "40k" as used in the context I meant it is just an IP.
The game has always been a bit meh, and imho with the recent moves to make it more workable for competative play even more so now, just completely bland. For me the game is just a chance for spectacle and to show off your models to each other and make them look cool together. As a stand alone thing it's whatever.
jeff white wrote: I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.
40k and wargaming are both activities, and be very different things. A lot of people just collect and paint the models, then maybe read the lore. Others just read the books. Or play the videogames. Or watch stuff from the channel. Or do a combinations of those things. Those people do 40k, even investing a lot of time and money in 40k, but they're not wargaming. The game is just a fraction of what 40k is, and although I like the game and I do play, I think it's not even the biggest/most important/most popular part of it.
jeff white wrote: I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.
40k and wargaming are both activities, and be very different things. A lot of people just collect and paint the models, then maybe read the lore. Others just read the books. Or play the videogames. Or watch stuff from the channel. Or do a combinations of those things. Those people do 40k, even investing a lot of time and money in 40k, but they're not wargaming. The game is just a fraction of what 40k is, and although I like the game and I do play, I think it's not even the biggest/most important/most popular part of it.
In those examples 40k isn't an activity; it's the IP/universe that activity is focused on.
It's like saying "I'm doing Star Wars!" - no, you're watching a film and that film is called Star Wars.
Nah. Playing the game "Warhammer 40,000" is. But that's wargaming. Reading the books is.. but that's reading. "40k" as used in the context I meant it is just an IP.
By your logic playing the game is simply playing. Not wargaming, which is more specific. Like reading comics, newspapers or books instead of just reading.
40k is a combination of multiple activities, it's not just "reading" or "playing" ("wargaming").
jeff white wrote: I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?
The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.
40k and wargaming are both activities, and be very different things. A lot of people just collect and paint the models, then maybe read the lore. Others just read the books. Or play the videogames. Or watch stuff from the channel. Or do a combinations of those things. Those people do 40k, even investing a lot of time and money in 40k, but they're not wargaming. The game is just a fraction of what 40k is, and although I like the game and I do play, I think it's not even the biggest/most important/most popular part of it.
In those examples 40k isn't an activity; it's the IP/universe that activity is focused on.
It's like saying "I'm doing Star Wars!" - no, you're watching a film and that film is called Star Wars.
If you're also playing videogames, reading stuff, cosplaying, playing board/miniature games about SW etc... then yeah, also SW can be an activity.
kirotheavenger wrote: Performing multiple independent activities does not form one super-activity, even if the subject of each is the same IP.
If you read a 40k book and then paint a 40k miniature you read a book then you painted a miniature. You didn't "40k".
But by this logic playing is still playing. And boardgames aren't really much different than miniature wargames. So I don't get why miniature wargaming is entitled to be a whole independent category.
In fact people who are heavily into gaming in 40k are typically heavily into multiple sorts of other gaming experiences: boardgames, videogames, cards, etc... they should be considered "gamers" or simply "players", definitely not "wargamers". Which sounds cool but really isn't a category as wargaming is not an hobby, it's just a specific way to do an hobby. Just like reading comics isn't the same thing and the same than reading magazines, except it kinda is since both cases fall under the same hobby's category, which is "reading".
I think that if an IP drives the interest, that IP might be identified as the hobby. I for example couldn't care less about wargaming in general, or boardgames, or even painting anything that isn't GW. I'm only interested in GW stuff. I might wargame sometimes, but I'm definitely not a wargamer. Or a painter, even if I paint miniatures. It's not a super-activity but there wouldn't be any of those activities without the interest in that IP, which is why I think something like 40k might be considered the hobby. In my case (GW, not specifically 40k) it definitely is. How people define their hobby is entirely subjective.
Sim-Life wrote: Why do you care so much about how people define their hobby?
How much do you think I care? Enough to argue the point on the internet in my spare time is a very low bar for me.
Why even do you care how much I care?
If your point is this is so trivial, you don't want to discuss it; just leave the thread.
I only care enough to be pedantic. If someone told me they were a 40k hobbyist out in the wild, I wouldn't care at all. I only care here because it became a weird definition argument, and I like those.
VladimirHerzog wrote: The classic dismissal of Infinity because its not as big as 40k is really getting old.
I just picked a name out of the hat my dude. The only TTWG that have a similar media presence to Warhammer, and 40k in particular, are ones that are adapted from existing properties such as Star Wars or The Walking Dead.
*Arguably* Warmahordes (though I'm not certain on the comic front, but there is a video game...) in terms of forms of media interacted with. Breadth, rather than depth?
40k is a franchise, like star wars or lord of the rings. There are movies, videogames, boardgames, rpg, table top games, fan art, etc. It's not really correct to call it a hobby
Blackie wrote: By your logic playing the game is simply playing. Not wargaming, which is more specific. Like reading comics, newspapers or books instead of just reading.
40k is a combination of multiple activities, it's not just "reading" or "playing" ("wargaming").
No, the reason your analogy doesn't work is because "40k" as an IP is not an activity at all.
Gitdakka wrote: 40k is a franchise, like star wars or lord of the rings. There are movies, videogames, boardgames, rpg, table top games, fan art, etc. It's not really correct to call it a hobby
Probably. But it's definitely wrong to call it a game or primarily a game since the game is just a fraction of it.
Blackie wrote: By your logic playing the game is simply playing. Not wargaming, which is more specific. Like reading comics, newspapers or books instead of just reading.
40k is a combination of multiple activities, it's not just "reading" or "playing" ("wargaming").
No, the reason your analogy doesn't work is because "40k" as an IP is not an activity at all.
You can't do 40k or be into 40k without doing activities. When those activities wouldn't take place at all without the interest in that IP then the IP becomes the hobby.
I had to vote hobby because the last two years have proven that GW cannot survive on game alone. If these minis were preassembled and painted virtually no one would have bought in during lockdown.
Hairesy wrote: I had to vote hobby because the last two years have proven that GW cannot survive on game alone. If these minis were preassembled and painted virtually no one would have bought in during lockdown.
If 40k is a distinct hobby, is AoS it's own separate hobby? Necromunda? Aeronautica?
How much 40k does one need to do to be a 40k hobbyist?
What if I just build and paint, is that still 40k hobby? What if I do so using Vallejo paints and Army Painter brushes?
Yeah, it can be or not, that's the point. What a hobby is can be defined by personal experience.
People who only do 40k have 40k as their hobby. If someone only builds, paints, reads and even play maybe but only once in a while then his/her hobby can't be "miniature wargaming", even if that person invested tons of money and time into 40k, just not in playing 40k. I'd even argue that if someone just builds and paints 40k stuff then 40k is much more a hobby for that guy than for someone that spends much more time playing rather than bulding and painting models.
Others may have that "miniature wargaming" as their hobby instead, totally.
People who read magazines about a specific matter (kitchen, hunting/fishing, cars, weapons, music, etc...) don't have "reading" as their favorite hobby but reading that specific thing. People who only read mangas or comics are manga/comics readers, saying reading is their hobby is too vague and in most cases flat out wrong. I know people who don't read books but only comics and I refuse to accept that people who never read books consider "reading" as their hobby, even if they do spend a lot of time reading.
Someone will say "fishing is my hobby" as they read fishing magazines and stuff. They won't say "Nebula is my hobby because that's my favourite rod" (I don't fish, I just googled and picked the first manufacturer I found).
That's the rub, just because 40k is your favourite franchise, or even the only one you're so interested in, it doesn't somehow make the jump to being a hobby in and of itself.
Your comic book analogy is also confusing.
Saying "comic books" is a separate hobby to "novels" isn't something I would disagree with. Comics are a distinctly different beast to novels.
The comic book equivalent of this would be to say "Marvel is my hobby" "I really like watching the films, I really like reading the comics, I'm not a comic book reader I'm a Marvel reader".
That is not something I can get behind - Marvel is a franchise, not a hobby in and of itself.
kirotheavenger wrote:If 40k is a distinct hobby, is AoS it's own separate hobby? Necromunda? Aeronautica?
How much 40k does one need to do to be a 40k hobbyist?
What if I just build and paint, is that still 40k hobby? What if I do so using Vallejo paints and Army Painter brushes?
The mistake I made was thinking 'hobby' and 'interest' were the same thing. A lot of people use the terms interchangeably and truth be told, while they share q lot of ground, there are differences. 40k can absolutely be an 'interest', to someone and bear in mind, can refer to the 'verse itself or the game of the same name. Same goes for the other 'names'.
The thing with 'interests' is they often have hobby components/aspects. It's worth reading up on.
If you just build and paint, you're as much of a 40k hobbyist as someone who plays. I'd personally define it by the subject matter/activity (ie its 40k since you're painting 40k figs) rather than the tools used.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with defining yourself and your hobbies/interests by their more specific subset rather than the 'higher level/generic definition', especially if its only stuff within that specific subset you're into. I mean at that point 'hobbies' are just a subset of 'hobbies and pastimes' which is a subset of 'leisure activities' - you can nitpick the whole thing to absurdity and it does no one any good.
kirotheavenger wrote:Someone will say "fishing is my hobby" as they read fishing magazines and stuff. They won't say "Nebula is my hobby because that's my favourite rod" (I don't fish, I just googled and picked the first manufacturer I found).
That's the rub, just because 40k is your favourite franchise, or even the only one you're so interested in, it doesn't somehow make the jump to being a hobby in and of itself.
.
Going back to sports, is it OK to say 'I'm into running', or 'I'm into football' as opposed to 'I'm into sports'?
I nean, I'm no expert but I've no doubt that fisherfolks can also define their fishing by where/how they do it - I presume there's distinct differences between angling by a riverside and deep sea fishing in a boat or salt water/fresh water differences that one can define themselves by without issue (not an expert). Is underwater fishing a thing? It should be... I mean, I'm sure there's fishing nerds who will wax on endlessly about the differences between the two and why they're not the same thing...
I Still don't see any issues with defining your hobby/interest by a more specific area rather than a less specific/more general names topic.
There is also the thing where for a great number of people, 'warhammer' and 'wargaming' and 'painting doods' are synonymous and interchangeable terms.
kirotheavenger wrote: If 40k is a distinct hobby, is AoS it's own separate hobby? Necromunda? Aeronautica?
How much 40k does one need to do to be a 40k hobbyist?
What if I just build and paint, is that still 40k hobby? What if I do so using Vallejo paints and Army Painter brushes?
Why not? If that is your jam, jam on!
All that is necessary is to identify 40k as one’s hobby - who are you to demand more?
Why not? Modeling 40k can be a hobby, if that is what you do and if this is how you feel about it. Someone earlier mentioned that with the lockdowns, games were out, modeling was in for most people. Why not, if this is how they choose to identify as a hobbyist, and how they spend their time, why not allow that this is their hobby?
About fishing, ABSOLUTELY fly fishing is special and unique activity unto itself, involving making flies for lures and even the art of casting and waiting, identifying the best places and times… totally different from say bait casting into the ocean or deep sea fishing for grouper or yellow jack or whatever… one can certainly say that she or he is a fly fisher person rather than yeah, I play sports, fishing…yada.
40K is to you*, whatever you wish to call it. But don't presume that it is to other people the same, nor that you can define it for them.
Each persons 40K experience is different, and up to them what they wish to define it as.
* that's a general 'you', meaning any reader, not specifically directed at any one poster; just so that's clear.
Kcalehc wrote: 40K is to you*, whatever you wish to call it. But don't presume that it is to other people the same, nor that you can define it for them.
Each persons 40K experience is different, and up to them what they wish to define it as.
* that's a general 'you', meaning any reader, not specifically directed at any one poster; just so that's clear.
If a person says that baking is his hobby, or baking cookies or cakes, would anyone demand that no, in fact the hobby is cooking, or that baking cakes cannot be a hobby?
All these analogies you're coming up with are huge false equivalencies.
40k is a brand, a franchise, a universe.
Or you're all bringing up examples of distinct activies, baking, fishing, running.
The equivalent of what's claimed here isn't "I'm not a chef I'm a baker" it's "I'm not a baker, my hobby is Sainsburys".
Many people do ONLY that.
"My hobby is Gundam" seems not an unreasonable thing to say...
Exactly.
I only watch, read about and played (now retired) football. I'm not into sports, in fact I couldn't care less about pretty much all the other sports in the world. My hobby is football, not sports. It doesn't matter if football is also a sport. Saying like my hobby is sports is extremely vague, and doesn't really define what my interest is. Techincally even flat out wrong, as I'm only into one single sport.
Same for GW. I only care about GW, anything else (games, miniatures, etc...) to me doesn't exist. Now my hobbies might be painting miniatures, reading and miniature wargaming but if I say my hobby is GW that's much more accurate and sums it up much better. I'm not building and painting miniatures, I'm building and painting GW miniatures. I'm not playing miniature wargames, I'm playing a few GW games.
I've got an aunt that doens't really cook for hobby, she just bakes cakes. Her hobby is baking cakes, which techincally is also cooking. But cooking in general is not her hobby. Same for me, I couldn't care less about anything that isn't GW in the field of miniatures. So saying that my hobby is GW is much more true than saying that my hobbies are building/painting miniatures and miniature wargaming even if both of those are also technically true.
Blackie wrote: I've got an aunt that doens't really cook for hobby, she just bakes cakes. Her hobby is baking cakes, which techincally is also cooking. But cooking in general is not her hobby. Same for me, I couldn't care less about anything that isn't GW in the field of miniatures. So saying that my hobby is GW is much more true than saying that my hobbies are building/painting miniatures and miniature wargaming even if both of those are also technically true.
The difference is that "cakes" are not an IP or corporate identity.
But would you seriously find anyone saying "I'm not a baker, I'm a Duncan Hines" or "I don't bake, I Duncan Hines".
That's how this sounds.
Baking and cooking is a poor comparison because baking is an activity distinct from savoury cooking. Other than the name/brand of the minis, 40k is in no way distinct from other miniature painting.
Blackie wrote: I've got an aunt that doens't really cook for hobby, she just bakes cakes. Her hobby is baking cakes, which techincally is also cooking. But cooking in general is not her hobby. Same for me, I couldn't care less about anything that isn't GW in the field of miniatures. So saying that my hobby is GW is much more true than saying that my hobbies are building/painting miniatures and miniature wargaming even if both of those are also technically true.
The difference is that "cakes" are not an IP or corporate identity.
Maybe, I can accept that. I would definitely consider "model building", wikipedia article, as my hobby (definitely not miniature wargaming) since it still sums it up pretty good what I do, although it really is quite generic and vague and doesn't provide an honest and appropriate idea about what my hobby is if I tell it to a stranger.
I've played 40k, among other games by other companies for almost 30 years now. The scope of whats available from GW has certainly expanded significantly in that time to such an extent that you could only play warhammer 40k (the game) only paint GW miniatures, only read Black library books and only play licensed GW computer games. and that encompasses at least 4 distinct hobbies, Miniature Wargames, miniature painting, reading, and computer gaming. GW has also and still does, published CCG's, board games and other things, like badges, bags, clothing etc.
Now inside the miniature wargames niche, there are lots of different games and lots of different miniature manufacturers of varying qualities which those of us who wargame know about, but for the external layman who may not be initiated, the differences can be confusing, if not completely irrelevant.
I've been asked many times over the years what i do for fun, what are my hobbies. I like reading sci fi books, i like to keep up to date with current affairs and i have a love of military history and ancient history, and i also play warhammer 40k. I play other games, but 90% of my table time is 40k mostly due to the community and the fact i have quite an extensive collection at this point, so when answering the question 'what is your hobby' the conversation will generally go as follows
RP (Random Person): What are your hobbies?
Me: I play miniature Wargames
RP: like monopoly?
me: I do play some board games there are lots of different ones, but miniature wargames are generally played on a Tabletop rather than a board
RP; Oh, so you play with little toy soldiers?
me: Yes, I collect miniatures, build convert and paint them, and then play games against my friends. there is quite a lot involved.
My answers would change little if the person in question switched monopoly for Infinity, mech warrior, bolt action or used a more generic term like 'historical games' or trivial pursuit or the like.
When looking into the miniature wargames/tabletop games/ miniature painting hobby as an outsider the differences between games and manufacturers is likely not known, but once you have broken the ice, you can get into the specifics. what games you play, which miniatures you collect, and so forth, and a lot of people will be interested, and want to see how you have painted your toy soldiers.
The hobby has grown and is more mainstream than it used to be, so while I personally may know exactly what someone means when they say 'my hobby is 40k' and be able to follow up with a question like 'playing, collecting, painting or fluff?' most normies will probably look at you and ask 'whats 40k?' at which point you would probably just say 'its a miniatures wargame'
Also, bear in mind, GW has had a massive amount of exposure in the UK so roughly half of people who ask what i do will respond with 'like warhammer?' when i tell them i play miniature wargames. so if i were to respond 'no, infinity' and they ask 'whats that? is that the disney game?' my response would likely have to be, 'its a miniature wargame, like warhammer' make of that what you will.
I would say, in conclusion to my rambling. When addressing a fellow gamer, its fine to say 40k is your hobby, but a layman will likely not know what it is, so miniature wargamer (or whatever aspect you like in general terms) is probably a more appropriate response when asked what your hobby is.
But the differences I described make a meaningful distinction.
Anyway, I know there are people who take specific pride in being GW stans, and not fans of other games, and this thread seems to be full of them.
Sorry, but I don't get that distinction.
I don't see anything bad in being GW stans and not fans of other games. I fit this description for example, except I'm definitely not a fan of the company, but in my case I simply tried a few other games over the years (Warmarchine, Infinity, SW Legion, Kings of War, X Wing, This is not a Test are those that I remember) and never liked them. At all. Just like the vast majority of plastic non GW miniatures that I've ever seen, I simply don't like them at all or enough to justify my money. I don't consider myself a fan of other games, or having "miniature wargaming" as my hobby, simply because outside a few GW games I've never found any interest in playing with miniatures, and very rarely in painting and collecting non GW stuff, outside scratch built terrain. When those few GW games I enjoy don't give me fun anymore I simply switch to other hobbies, I wouldn't play something different because my need is not playing a miniature game that I like, it's being into 40k (and Necromunda and WHFB). I love the 40k, WHFB and Necromunda universes and I'll play as long as I consider thoses game good enough and find opponents with the same mentality. But I don't have any pride (or shame) in that, it's just how things are.
To me people who play only (or mostly) 40k and have "miniature wargaming" as their hobby are people who love playing with miniatures in general and stick with 40k because they like it or consider it the most accessible game due to its wide popularity, but wouldn't mind playing something else assuming they find opponents.
But the differences I described make a meaningful distinction.
Anyway, I know there are people who take specific pride in being GW stans, and not fans of other games, and this thread seems to be full of them.
Sorry, but I don't get that distinction.
I don't see anything bad in being GW stans and not fans of other games. I fit this description for example, except I'm definitely not a fan of the company, but in my case I simply tried a few other games over the years (Warmarchine, Infinity, SW Legion, Kings of War, X Wing, This is not a Test are those that I remember) and never liked them. At all. Just like the vast majority of plastic non GW miniatures that I've ever seen, I simply don't like them at all or enough to justify my money. I don't consider myself a fan of other games, or having "miniature wargaming" as my hobby, simply because outside a few GW games I've never found any interest in playing with miniatures, and very rarely in painting and collecting non GW stuff, outside scratch built terrain. When those few GW games I enjoy don't give me fun anymore I simply switch to other hobbies, I wouldn't play something different because my need is not playing a miniature game that I like, it's being into 40k (and Necromunda and WHFB). I love the 40k, WHFB and Necromunda universes and I'll play as long as I consider thoses game good enough and find opponents with the same mentality. But I don't have any pride (or shame) in that, it's just how things are.
To me people who play only (or mostly) 40k and have "miniature wargaming" as their hobby are people who love playing with miniatures in general and stick with 40k because they like it or consider it the most accessible game due to its wide popularity, but wouldn't mind playing something else assuming they find opponents.
kirotheavenger wrote:Why do we bother with a common language if everyone is free to just make it up as they go along?
That's kinda how language works - all words are made up, and people choose which ones they want to use. Or are you suggesting that words don't get wholesale invented?
Hecaton wrote:I know there are people who take specific pride in being GW stans, and not fans of other games, and this thread seems to be full of them.
Is that a problem, that some people prefer GW products over those from other companies?
BlackoCatto wrote:
To me people who play only (or mostly) 40k and have "miniature wargaming" as their hobby are people who love playing with miniatures in general and stick with 40k because they like it or consider it the most accessible game due to its wide popularity, but wouldn't mind playing something else assuming they find opponents.
kirotheavenger wrote: Why do we bother with a common language if everyone is free to just make it up as they go along?
What we're dealing with hear is a degree of nuance that goes beyond basic communication.
Common language is about communication, and when I say "40k is my hobby" you know what I mean, even if you think I should have said it differently. Since you know what I mean, the purpose of the common language has been fulfilled.
What we've been doing here- nitpicking about the finer points of semantics and syntax via the medium of analogy- has almost nothing to do with basic communication (the purpose of common language) and more to do with the egos, identities and emotions of those involved in the debate.
Some are going to pronounce it to-MAY-to and some are going to pronounce it to-MAH-to, but we all understand the idea being communicated.
If someone told me 40k was their hobby, I'd have to ask what they meant. I'd ask if they play the video games, board games, tabletop games, paint the minis, collect the action figures, read the comics, watch the shows, read the books, or what? I'd be curious. If someone told me they paint minis, I'd understand immediately. I might ask for more information, but not out of not understanding, but wanting to talk about it.
kirotheavenger wrote:Why do we bother with a common language if everyone is free to just make it up as they go along?
That's kinda how language works - all words are made up, and people choose which ones they want to use. Or are you suggesting that words don't get wholesale invented?
Hecaton wrote:I know there are people who take specific pride in being GW stans, and not fans of other games, and this thread seems to be full of them.
Is that a problem, that some people prefer GW products over those from other companies?
BlackoCatto wrote:
To me people who play only (or mostly) 40k and have "miniature wargaming" as their hobby are people who love playing with miniatures in general and stick with 40k because they like it or consider it the most accessible game due to its wide popularity, but wouldn't mind playing something else assuming they find opponents.
O' so you are boring.
Why?
I personally don't trust your opinion on linguistics.
If someone tells me their hobby is golf, my immediate question is miniature, putput, or full size?
Not these:
What clubs do you use?
What tees do you hit from?
What's your handicap?
Do you find PGA rule 17.5-3 useful?
Would you rather be driving a Titleist?
It's really dumb for anyone other than yourself to define what YOUR hobby is, if they insist...feth 'em
Racerguy180 wrote: If someone tells me their hobby is golf, my immediate question is miniature, putput, or full size?
Not these:
What clubs do you use?
What tees do you hit from?
What's your handicap?
Do you find PGA rule 17.5-3 useful?
Would you rather be driving a Titleist?
It's really dumb for anyone other than yourself to define what YOUR hobby is, if they insist...feth 'em
How many people have ever said, oh yeah I meant miniature golf, though? When someone says their hobby is golf, it's pretty likely he or she means golf, as in regular 18 hole golf. Now if someone were to say their hobby was "hitting small balls with a specialized stick in order to get it into a hole", then you'd have some questions!
40k is so all encompassing that I need answers on what someone means. I know people who never touch the miniature side of 40k. I know people who never touch the video game side. Since we're on a miniature hobby site, we take the distinction for granted.
40k isn't a hobby. It's what some of their hobbies center around.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: 40k is so all encompassing that I need answers on what someone means. I know people who never touch the miniature side of 40k. I know people who never touch the video game side. Since we're on a miniature hobby site, we take the distinction for granted.
40k isn't a hobby. It's what some of their hobbies center around.
So if you ask someone their hobbies and they say "40K", is that somehow preventing you from asking them further questions? Like, I don't get what the problem is here. I engage in the hobby of playing games. Does having a preference mean that I am no longer engaged in the hobby of playing games? No, it does not.
Blackie wrote: I've got an aunt that doens't really cook for hobby, she just bakes cakes. Her hobby is baking cakes, which techincally is also cooking. But cooking in general is not her hobby. Same for me, I couldn't care less about anything that isn't GW in the field of miniatures. So saying that my hobby is GW is much more true than saying that my hobbies are building/painting miniatures and miniature wargaming even if both of those are also technically true.
The difference is that "cakes" are not an IP or corporate identity.
And? They're both nouns.
Her hobby is baking, as you said. Baking is a verb.
The hobby is playing games. If you told me your hobby was Star Wars, it would be just as unintuitive. I only say this because of the earlier argument about clarity for 40k being a hobby. I'm arguing that it's less clear. I still see it as a collection of hobbies without this argument.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: The hobby is playing games. If you told me your hobby was Star Wars, it would be just as unintuitive. I only say this because of the earlier argument about clarity for 40k being a hobby. I'm arguing that it's less clear. I still see it as a collection of hobbies without this argument.
If someone said their hobby was "Star Wars", wouldn't that make you wonder what they meant? Are we asking people these questions while stopped at traffic lights or something that we can't ask a follow-up?
From Oxford.
hob·by
/ˈhäbē/
noun
1.
an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure:
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"
Clearly hobbies can be anything that people do for pleasure in their leisure time. Thus 40K can be a hobby, and if that isn't a sufficient answer for people then, oh gee I dunno... ask them more about it?
You would say "I played a game of 40k", or "I painted my 40k miniatures", or "I assembled my 40K miniatures", not "I 40ked"
Wait. English can't make a gerund from every word. Because in polish I can very much Warhammerować or Przewarhammerować someone or something.
That is very interesting thing to know. Thank you for that knowladge mr Town.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: The hobby is playing games. If you told me your hobby was Star Wars, it would be just as unintuitive. I only say this because of the earlier argument about clarity for 40k being a hobby. I'm arguing that it's less clear. I still see it as a collection of hobbies without this argument.
If someone said their hobby was "Star Wars", wouldn't that make you wonder what they meant? Are we asking people these questions while stopped at traffic lights or something that we can't ask a follow-up?
From Oxford.
hob·by
/ˈhäbē/
noun
1.
an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure:
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"
Clearly hobbies can be anything that people do for pleasure in their leisure time. Thus 40K can be a hobby, and if that isn't a sufficient answer for people then, oh gee I dunno... ask them more about it?
Yes, if someone said their hobby was Star Wars, it would make me wonder what they meant. That's what I said. Please understand what I said before you respond, it's common courtesy. And please stop being rude when I'm just clarifying my point. I'm not saying people are wrong, or dumb, or anything bad. 40k isn't a hobby, because it's not an activity. The activity and hobby would be the activity you do. Like playing the miniature game. Or reading the books. Note that when someone says "I'm playing 40k," playing implies the game, meaning the game is the hobby in this scenario, not 40k.
Yes, if someone said their hobby was Star Wars, it would make me wonder what they meant. That's what I said. Please understand what I said before you respond, it's common courtesy. And please stop being rude when I'm just clarifying my point. I'm not saying people are wrong, or dumb, or anything bad. 40k isn't a hobby, because it's not an activity. The activity and hobby would be the activity you do. Like playing the miniature game. Or reading the books. Note that when someone says "I'm playing 40k," playing implies the game, meaning the game is the hobby in this scenario, not 40k.
All true. The point is some activities might be too generic to describe someone's hobby properly. Someone that read magazines about a specific matter is techincally a reader but when I say reading is my hobby I would never think about someone reading (say) cars magazines. Someone that is a strong supporter of a team would never say: "my hobby is watching sports", rather "my hobby is that team". Not even watching one specific sport, but watching games of a specific team.
When people say "my hobby is miniature wargaming" I never think of someone playing 40k, rather someone being interested in multiple games. And typically 40k is not one of them since it's not considered a good enough one for those who enjoy trying multiple games.
So while saying "my hobby is 40k" might not be techincally correct, also saying "my hobby is miniature wargaming" is not correct to describe the hobby of someone playing just (or mostly) 40k. That guy's hobby is playing 40k, specifically 40k, not playing miniature wargames.
Blackie wrote: I've got an aunt that doens't really cook for hobby, she just bakes cakes. Her hobby is baking cakes, which techincally is also cooking. But cooking in general is not her hobby. Same for me, I couldn't care less about anything that isn't GW in the field of miniatures. So saying that my hobby is GW is much more true than saying that my hobbies are building/painting miniatures and miniature wargaming even if both of those are also technically true.
The difference is that "cakes" are not an IP or corporate identity.
And? They're both nouns.
Her hobby is baking, as you said. Baking is a verb.
I totally agree that it can be vague either way. I don't really mind how the word hobby is used, though. I really only wanted to share my input. If someone, out of the blue, told me that they thought of their hobby as 40k, I'd ask what they meant, but I'd never enter this argument.
Sim-Life wrote: A lot of people in this thread seem to have a side hobby in pedantry.
Pedantry is a verb?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regardless, almost three quarters of respondents claim 40k as more hobby than game.
I would have also claimed that WHFB was one of my hobbies, but that died, or was rather murdered.
Now, keeping up with 40k even without a place or people for games is about the extent of my free time, that and listening to some chess tournaments when I can… not sure how saying that mini war games are my hobby when I only pay attention to one setting. Just seems to me that saying that 40k is my hobby is a better answer than mini war games should someone ask. I mean, I know almost nothing about mini war games in general… it is difficult enough to keep up with what I can about this one system. I suppose with HH 2.0 I might shift a bit, but even then I would feel it more accurate to answer that my hobby is 40k though I recently got into HH for the models and better rules. But, anyways, no matter.
But it's not. Baking and baking cakes are two different activities, which might have (not even guaranteed) something in common.
Do you think watching football and watching baseball are the same activities? They both fall under the "watching sports" category. But at that point, why not considering watching a movie the same hobby? It's still "watching tv" after all, and that might be the activity that defines the hobby.
And what about playing 40k or playing a boardgame, a card game, a sport or a videogame? They all fall under under "playing", which is definitely an activity. Who decides how generic or how specific an activity has to be to define someone's hobby?
My point is that for someone a hobby might be defined by the generic verb, for someone else is something more specific. And there's nothing wrong about that.
kirotheavenger wrote:Why do we bother with a common language if everyone is free to just make it up as they go along?
That's kinda how language works - all words are made up, and people choose which ones they want to use. Or are you suggesting that words don't get wholesale invented?
I personally don't trust your opinion on linguistics.
I mean, that *is* how language works. Language works via semiotic meanings, but those meanings are ultimately arbitrary.
Sim-Life wrote: A lot of people in this thread seem to have a side hobby in pedantry.
A lot of people here come from different countries and use a second or third langauge to communicate with other. Clarity is very important, it took me over 2 years I think to get the fact that when people say marines, they don't count GK as marines, but DW they do. And csm sometimes too, and sometimes they do not. And it can get hell of a confusing when you read it.
With the hobby thing one is sure though. What ever the people think the hobby is, GW claims that their hobby is their brand. To a point where it seems as if they were of the opinion that Warhammer is a separate thing from other table top games etc.
Karol, yes, this is a sensitive point. I suppose that the dispute reduces to how we identify ourselves, which for some is purely personal, so the individual can decide. For others, there is some linguistic rule which demands a certain classification according to linguistic rules, or at least conventional meanings.
I’m philosophy, there is Wittgenstein saying that there is no such thing as private language. I think that he was wrong about that.
I’m philosophy, there is Wittgenstein saying that there is no such thing as private language. I think that he was wrong about that.
That's definitely wrong. My wife and I switch back and forth between English and Spanish while mixing in inside jokes, meme references, etc. Someone listening to our average conversation would have no clue what we're talking about. When I say our connection is chimbo or she says her phone is at a certain percent of inflation, or I refer to a bath sponge as a loopa, what is that if not a private language that we have developed over the years?
Yes, exactly. My take is even more private, neurologically, input results in absolutely unique dynamics, unique to the individual, though behavior including speech acts may appear publically interpretable. So I agree with you, and even more so… in your enviable case, your brain body dynamics and your loved one’s have developed a lasting resonance in uniquely embodied dynamics. Indeed, you two have become of one mind, so to speak, so true, a private language, indeed.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: The hobby is playing games. If you told me your hobby was Star Wars, it would be just as unintuitive. I only say this because of the earlier argument about clarity for 40k being a hobby. I'm arguing that it's less clear. I still see it as a collection of hobbies without this argument.
If someone said their hobby was "Star Wars", wouldn't that make you wonder what they meant? Are we asking people these questions while stopped at traffic lights or something that we can't ask a follow-up?
From Oxford.
hob·by
/ˈhäbē/
noun
1.
an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure:
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"
Clearly hobbies can be anything that people do for pleasure in their leisure time. Thus 40K can be a hobby, and if that isn't a sufficient answer for people then, oh gee I dunno... ask them more about it?
Yes, if someone said their hobby was Star Wars, it would make me wonder what they meant. That's what I said. Please understand what I said before you respond, it's common courtesy. And please stop being rude when I'm just clarifying my point. I'm not saying people are wrong, or dumb, or anything bad. 40k isn't a hobby, because it's not an activity. The activity and hobby would be the activity you do. Like playing the miniature game. Or reading the books. Note that when someone says "I'm playing 40k," playing implies the game, meaning the game is the hobby in this scenario, not 40k.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: The hobby is playing games. If you told me your hobby was Star Wars, it would be just as unintuitive. I only say this because of the earlier argument about clarity for 40k being a hobby. I'm arguing that it's less clear. I still see it as a collection of hobbies without this argument.
If someone said their hobby was "Star Wars", wouldn't that make you wonder what they meant? Are we asking people these questions while stopped at traffic lights or something that we can't ask a follow-up?
From Oxford.
hob·by
/ˈhäbē/
noun
1.
an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure:
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"
Clearly hobbies can be anything that people do for pleasure in their leisure time. Thus 40K can be a hobby, and if that isn't a sufficient answer for people then, oh gee I dunno... ask them more about it?
Yes, if someone said their hobby was Star Wars, it would make me wonder what they meant. That's what I said. Please understand what I said before you respond, it's common courtesy. And please stop being rude when I'm just clarifying my point. I'm not saying people are wrong, or dumb, or anything bad. 40k isn't a hobby, because it's not an activity. The activity and hobby would be the activity you do. Like playing the miniature game. Or reading the books. Note that when someone says "I'm playing 40k," playing implies the game, meaning the game is the hobby in this scenario, not 40k.
except star wars is, primarily, a movie. it'd be a bit weird, that said if you said your Hobby was "Star wars Legion" I'd understand it. or "star wars X-wing" etc
If someone said to me that their hobby was Star Wars, I would have no trouble understanding, and perhaps if interested asking how so, or what exactly re Star Wars was her or his hobby interest… maybe collecting memorabilia, writing fan fiction, painting models, playing the video games, or a mix of those, but surely I would have no trouble understanding, or at least coming to an understanding through discourse…
Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that should we be in a room together and I said that my hobby was 40k, that anyone here would say “ no it is not” or “ wrong, impossible, check the Oxford dictionary.”
Further, if one were to say such to me, I would ask why she or he felt it their prerogative to tell me what I do with my time and how I identify as a hobbyist.
I expect that either personal affiliations would be respected, or conversation would stop.
But, maybe this is what people want, conflict rather than understanding, over the Internet at least… wild.
jeff white wrote: Karol, yes, this is a sensitive point. I suppose that the dispute reduces to how we identify ourselves, which for some is purely personal, so the individual can decide. For others, there is some linguistic rule which demands a certain classification according to linguistic rules, or at least conventional meanings.
I’m philosophy, there is Wittgenstein saying that there is no such thing as private language. I think that he was wrong about that.
Well 100% uniformity is hard to achive unless you are twins or something similar. But more common language is always better then less. When things start to mean different things, or even the opposit things it gets hell of confusing, not even just to ousiders. It is like two soldiers from Bayern region who got shot in my town, because their officers, a Prussian, thought that they insulted the emperor, by calling him a pig. when in reality they just used an idiom which equaled "having a pig" with "being lucky".
But in the end, the only things that matter is what one can do in the walls of their home, and what the producer thinks the brand hobby should be. If one day, for what ever reasons GW decided that snap fit models and pre painted minis are the only things they are going to sell to the general market. The fans can go on telling how the hobby is about painting and converting, but it will just not mirror reality.
Just a note on "private language" - this topic is not a philosophical debate, but a field of hard science, crucial for simultaneous interpreters.
And in internet discussions a lot (I would even hazard a guess, that majority) of heated arguments stems from failing to negotiate private thesauruses in the first place, because people do not realise that they should. Especially between people from different countries/backgrounds/education paths.
