Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I also provided a citation, in exactly the same post, from the Oxford English Dictionary, in recognition of the fact that some people are unreasonably hostile towards Wikipedia.

40k met that definition as well. But sure, I guess finishing reading my post would be harder than nitpicking the beginning.

Skaorn wrote:
I provided a link to Merriam-Webster, not Wikipedia, if you prefer that. I can't copy and paste the definition on my tablet but ChargeIIC was kind enough to do it.

You guys do realize that the discussion of what is, and is not, science fiction, falls outside the realm of being easily handled by 5 seconds on Google right? Like we're all aware google exists, but the topic is bigger than that.

 Marmatag wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
I provided a link to Merriam-Webster, not Wikipedia, if you prefer that. I can't copy and paste the definition on my tablet but ChargeIIC was kind enough to do it.

You guys do realize that the discussion of what is, and is not, science fiction, falls outside the realm of being easily handled by 5 seconds on Google right? Like we're all aware google exists, but the topic is bigger than that.

... which is the point.

His argument was "40k is not sci fi". I was trying to illustrate that saying "40k is not sci-fi" is a silly assertion, because that discussion isn't nearly as clear-cut as he made it out to be.

so thanks, I guess, for agreeing

the_scotsman wrote:

Tau, if you ignore the surface level "Ew they look like anime make them go away" also fit for almost exactly the same reason that Eldar fit - they are a classically heroic and graceful race aesthetically pushed to greater and greater levels of atrocity and erosion of the ideals they held dear by an unforgiving and impossibly vast universe opposing them. It amazes me consistently that people complain about the Tau and don't level similar whining about the existence of Eldar - The complaints are inevitably extreme surface-level and at the same surface level you could make the very same complaints about Eldar...and many Imperial factions as well (see Custodes, blood angels, Ultramarines, Grey Knights).

While I don't personally hold anything against the Tau, Eldar do fit really well into the classical interpretations of the Universe. Eldar have never been portrayed as classically heroic or sacrificing their ideals. They are first and foremost self serving and arrogant pricks. While the Tau have been known to offer mercy or allow colonies to join the greater good, the Eldar almost exclusively opt for genocide. Its not like the Eldar have not had any "noble" ideals since at least Warhammer 20K. The Eldar became so depraved they gave birth to a chaos god. The Craftworlds that escaped are arrogant genocidal militants, the Eldar who survived are depraved raiders.

Eldar also have traditionally had an appearance in all stages of the game, including close combat and especially the psychic phase. Tau have traditionally been solely present in the movement phase and the shooting phase and forgoing the psychic and melee phase.

Its more of a taste thing, but when people are saying the setting is "fantasy in space" magic prick space elves are a natural fit. That said, I agree with other posters that armies like Imperial Guard and to some extent Tau bring a feeling of relatability to the universe, relying on fire arms to fend off the great space mutants of the 40th millennia. What people don't like, is these armies typically don't feel like they are "struggling to fend off a strong fast foe" but rather the feeling of "struggling" is placed on the player using the genetically engineered super soldiers or brutish aliens like Orks. This is the opposite feeling that we should expect to find in a game like 40k.

In any case, there are numerous science fiction universes wherein melee > shooting, despite advanced weaponry. Whether or not 40k is science fiction or fantasy, I don't think you can claim that this is a shooting game purely because it falls into a specific genre.

Because the impotent tears of people like you who think they know how the game should be played are like sweet sweet mana.

Besides you take one look at the main rules and scenery rules, then look at 90% of the codexs and it becomes obvious that logically speaking shooting is king. That's not to say that is the only way but at 1st glance it is what jumps out.

Besides I currently play admech and Tau so you know it's kinda expected.

I love it when people try to limit genres. It's why we end up with so many Tolkien clones in fantasy.

Science Fiction can cover a wide range of from seemingly plausible to fantastic. You say 40K is fantasy but Dune isn't because some people get psychics from sand worm poop instead of tapping energy from another dimension. What about Star Trek TOS with all the god-like beings they encounter that could do practically anything. Hienlens 6th column centered around a group of scientists who created a device that could rearrange matter as they saw fit. In B5 Leta Alexander was modified by Vorlons to be the psychic equivalent of a doomsday weapon.

In most of these cases we aren't given a hard scientific glimpse at how these powers work and are often left with "they're advanced". This could easily be replaced with "because magic" for any of them. Why does Battletech focus around impractical giant robot fights? Because the designers thought giant robots were cool. Why does a laser cause the gun and a personal shield both to explode when they interact? Because Frank Herbert needed an excuse to have people in the far future to mostly just stab each other. Why are most units in 40K armed with rifles instead of swords? Because the designers wanted shooting to play a major role.

It's cool not liking something. I hate Chaos Daemons because they were pulled from my army so GW could directly port in a fantasy army. I started with Tau in 3rd because I really liked the sci-fi style and more modern approach to warfare. Just because I like Tau for their style and dislike Daemons, does that mean Daemons should be changed? Not at all.

Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade? A bunch of elite soldiers got wiped out by some new military toys. The cavalry charge tactic died that day with those men, and never happened again.

But that is RL, and we play a game. There are many ways to fix the game you are playing with your opponent so that various factors become more valuable to obtaining a win, don't want to play a gunline? Build a scenario that is house to house and CC will be king.

Unless your in a competition, both players should understand that going too OP is not fun for the opposition, A game that hangs on a knife edge in turn 4 is more fun for all than a 2 turn tabling.

So, the moral of my story is, speak to who you are playing, if they don't understand that what they are doing is crushing your will to play then you need to find people who do.

Then again, there is the other interpretation.. don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I never said they should be. Just because my definition of sci-fi is in keeping with its actual definition.

This guy gets it.

And I'm laughing my ass off at the thought of basing an argument around what science fiction is based off of a wikipedia definition, while totally disregarding pioneering work by the authors that literally created the genre.

Science Fiction is generally rooted in an extension of reality. Magic has absolutely NO place in a true science fiction universe because it is not theoretically possible.

Star Trek IS science fiction. They go out of their way to justify a lot of the rules they bend using science, even if it is hand waving. And a good science fiction universe is consistent within itself. Consider Inertial Dampeners in Star Trek. Without these, when a ship accelerates to Warp X from rest, everyone on board the ship would be killed. Also, Gene Rodenberry created the Federation and Star Trek with the thought of humanity reaching its ideal, not an alternate reality where magic enables FTL.

In short I 100% agree that Warhammer 40k is fantasy in space.

And consider the Dune series by Frank Herbert. This is a very robust science fiction universe which is focused entirely on melee combat, because defensive technology has largely invalidated weaponry (or comes with significant consequences, like firing a lasgun - not your BS 40k definition of a lasgun - into a shield causing feedback which would explode the lasgun in a nuclear blast). Frank Herbert goes through great lengths to discuss how greater-than-human feats are possible, by humans essentially breeding themselves into higher capabilities.

So yeah, just being science fiction - which 40k isn't - wouldn't automatically mean "guns > swords."

You would be so pissed off at early 1900s-late1800s science fiction. They are amongst the oldest pieces of science fiction and often have magic and swords in them.

Skaorn wrote:
I love it when people try to limit genres. It's why we end up with so many Tolkien clones in fantasy.

Science Fiction can cover a wide range of from seemingly plausible to fantastic. You say 40K is fantasy but Dune isn't because some people get psychics from sand worm poop instead of tapping energy from another dimension. What about Star Trek TOS with all the god-like beings they encounter that could do practically anything. Hienlens 6th column centered around a group of scientists who created a device that could rearrange matter as they saw fit. In B5 Leta Alexander was modified by Vorlons to be the psychic equivalent of a doomsday weapon.

In most of these cases we aren't given a hard scientific glimpse at how these powers work and are often left with "they're advanced". This could easily be replaced with "because magic" for any of them. Why does Battletech focus around impractical giant robot fights? Because the designers thought giant robots were cool. Why does a laser cause the gun and a personal shield both to explode when they interact? Because Frank Herbert needed an excuse to have people in the far future to mostly just stab each other. Why are most units in 40K armed with rifles instead of swords? Because the designers wanted shooting to play a major role.

It's cool not liking something. I hate Chaos Daemons because they were pulled from my army so GW could directly port in a fantasy army. I started with Tau in 3rd because I really liked the sci-fi style and more modern approach to warfare. Just because I like Tau for their style and dislike Daemons, does that mean Daemons should be changed? Not at all.

This guy gets it. I'd suggest TVTropes' "Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness " (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness). 40K is listed under the first category "Science in Genre Only".
But that's still scifi. It shares it's ranking with Star Trek, Star Wars, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Futurama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gkos wrote:
Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade? A bunch of elite soldiers got wiped out by some new military toys. The cavalry charge tactic died that day with those men, and never happened again.

Just being pedantic, but there were successful cavalry charges in WWII (The Polish Cavalry is why we never see a German Cavarly, and the Italians were successful with saber charges on the eastern front), and as recent as 2007 (Afghanistan, Northern Alliance horsemen with AT rockets and AK's with US Spec Ops with laser targeters charged entrenched T-55's and won).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChargerIIC wrote:


You would be so pissed off at early 1900s-late1800s science fiction. They are amongst the oldest pieces of science fiction and often have magic and swords in them.

Like the John Carter series?

I think gunlines can be fun and thematic.

Good lord. Anyone who thinks 40k isn't fantasy in space is either being wilfully ignorant or is just thick as two short planks.

Which one is it?

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lord. Anyone who thinks 40k isn't fantasy in space is either being wilfully ignorant or is just thick as two short planks.

Which one is it?

So how does that not make it science fiction

Of course 40k isn't sci-fi

its way more serious than that

Because they have almost no terrain in their collection to block LOS.

Or because they think that a far future tabletop wargame is about shooting people dead from far away, not stabbing them with knives or getting in their face with shotguns.

 John Prins wrote:
Because they have almost no terrain in their collection to block LOS.

Or because they think that a far future tabletop wargame is about shooting people dead from far away, not stabbing them with knives or getting in their face with shotguns.

Or they have a stack of terrain, but its all GW and doesn't block LoS to anything but the occasional single model

This is some purely ignorant gak right here. Some people just like it, I dont understand whats so hard to understand...

Dakka is just more fun than I remembered.

Even the troll poll that started this whole thread is funny in its own way if you have a sense of humor...not useful, just funny.

The answer to the troll question is simple...people should play what they want to play and who am I to interfere with your fun. Just don't expect me to enjoy trying to move my army across an empty field while you use it for target practice with impunity.

Of course 40k is now a shooting game, especially after the last FAQ, and gunlines in all their variety and glory have a distinct edge.

I don't know if 40k is fantasy or sci-fi, but my definition of HORROR might be charging across a broken field at a horde of shooters with weaponry capable of turning me into a crispy critter. Take that for what it's worth.

The last time I played 40k seriously was with SWs with Preds, Dreads and a serious rhino rush of blood claws and grey hunters. So take what I write in stride.

I can understand the attraction for a castling gunline army I suppose, but for the sake of variety and balance some things in 40k probably need to change. And this is mostly because of the fantasy aspect of the game, not just the wishful thinking of an old WHF player.

My answer to the OP's question is...I don't. I may. I have a beautifully painted RG model I haven't even used yet. But I seem to be stuck in those earlier days and want my Ultramarines to be versatile and GOOD, not just meat shields for a gunline.

Based on the choices for the poll it shows me you're just salty and mad that some people like to.play the game differently, maybe grow up and adapt and overcome? Some armies can only effectively play that way and not everyone does it for the ignorant reasons that you posted as poll options

So, it seems this thread has run its course...mods?

The image of a gunline (or something approaching it) vs a more numerous and short-range foe is.. about as iconic as you can get in storytelling.

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

A well armed but heavily outnumbered force hunkering down in a fortified position, murdering a charging foe from ranged before being forced into brutal hand to hand combat, is pretty classical so far as things get.

The gunline aspect of 40k very much appeals to this, and several armies (Guard, Tau, honestly even marines at times) have numerous lore examples of such situations and tactics. Gunlining feeds into a very ingrained, very standardized, very basic concept of heroic defenders vs mindless hordes.. And / or civilizing the savages through firepower.

In 40k, gunling should be as viable as melee. While melee is historically a later-game thing due to having to 'come to grips' with the foe, gunlines are more early game. Their power spike is in the first few turns and they need to cripple their close-range enemies then, or else meet a brutal and bloody end on the edge of a sword.

As someone who's made something of a gunline army in the past (it still advanced and took territory, but didn't like melee and kept most of the 'big guns' in the same spot) and also entirely melee focused armies, I can see why it appeals. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and it makes perfect sense for some 40k armies to revolve around shooting through foes into the dirt rather than chopping them to pieces.

The problem with gunlines is that.. people tend to be lazy with tables. You absolutely need LoS blocking terrain, and cover, to make them fair. Gunlines on wide open tables with miniscule amounts of blocking terrain - especially nothing close which lets enemies 'sneak up on them' are boring as gak.

You forgot one option in the pool:
"* Because it's easy and I'm lazy."

What I don't understand is why the high damage melee things cost so many points. As in, the only things I've seen that put out real damage (lascannon) in melee cost 300+points. Why can't a regular chaos Lord gain access to some artifact weapon that does a significant amount of damage? Is that too much to ask?

 morganfreeman wrote:
The image of a gunline (or something approaching it) vs a more numerous and short-range foe is.. about as iconic as you can get in storytelling.

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

The British army at the Battle of Rorke's Drift.

And the Ultramarines First Company when the Tyranid Hive Fleet attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade Macragge.

I play a gunline because it's fun watching Abaddon stomp Imperium armies. And it's fun watching hordes come apart trying to charge it.

It's fun for me, anyways.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
This sounds much less like a “serious question” and much more like an excuse to let the salt flow. This is why dakka has such a bad rep.

where does Dakka have a bad reputation?

[quote=SHUPPET 756177 9962753 0420dfac640419e1dd48e050ee0e6e96.jpg
where does Dakka have a bad reputation?

 SHUPPET wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
This sounds much less like a “serious question” and much more like an excuse to let the salt flow. This is why dakka has such a bad rep.

where does Dakka have a bad reputation?

The only other place of warhammer discussion I frequent is the two big warhammer subreddits. I've seen once a month a comment or two saying that dakka has a bad rep, occasionally on a subreddit with a known donkey-cave of a moderator.

There's no perfect spot on the internet for any fandom. I've always found Dakka to be perfectly acceptable.

*Edit* The donkey-cave mod on the warhammer sub is no longer a mod. Explains why the subreddit is now more pleasant.

 chimeara wrote:
What I don't understand is why the high damage melee things cost so many points. As in, the only things I've seen that put out real damage (lascannon) in melee cost 300+points. Why can't a regular chaos Lord gain access to some artifact weapon that does a significant amount of damage? Is that too much to ask?

Meele is deadlier than guns(In pure maths, then you need to considrr actually entering meele, etc...) . Specially for HQs and characters. Yeah, a thunder hammer cost nearily as much as a lasscannon and it is inferior. But a lasscannon is 1 shoot. A captain with a thundrr hammer has 4 or more swings.
Thats why tau commanders where so busted. They had the typical HQ damage output, but in range instead of meele.

^This big time. Plus melee has the ability to stop an opposing unit from shooting or recharging. It's high risk, high reward.

Gunlines take fewer risks, so they enjoy poularity among certain players.