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.

This might sound like an odd question but I've always wondered if there was a reason behind GW choosing 40,000 instead of some other number.

40 is a recurrent biblical number used to represent a long time/amount (think 40 days and 40 nights), and 1000 just makes it into the far future..

nareik wrote:
40 is a recurrent biblical number

has GW confirmed that?

No, but plenty of biblical scholars have.

Alternately we could be overanalyzing this one. They could have thrown darts at a number line. They could have picked it because it sounded catchy. Does it really matter?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Does it really matter?

Does anything really matter?

this might help you along

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

Maximus Bitch wrote:

nareik wrote:
40 is a recurrent biblical number

has GW confirmed that?

No, but GW seems big on using biblical concepts as inspiration for the 40k universe. Another numerically based one is the 12 High Lords of Terra (12 being another recurring biblical number, e.g. the number of apostles held by Jesus).


Going back to OP,I looked a little deeper into 'Biblical Numerology'.

40 is the number for a period of testing. 1000 represents an eternity.

If GW drew from these concepts 40,000 could be roughly understood to mean everlasting struggle, i.e. Eternal War.

I always figured it was just chosen as an absurdly large number so they could do anything with the setting. It's far enough into the future that anything we experience in our lifetimes that contradicts the setting can be handwaved away as being "lost in the past".

Never considered the biblical connection, though - that's interesting.

 oldzoggy wrote:
this might help you along

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

Original fluff has a lot of reference to good, or at least iconic Sci-fi

How bad things are gone now...

I heard it was intended to be Warhammer: 4000 but someone said that 'was not far away enough' [or something along those lines] so an extra zero was added

 insaniak wrote:
No, but plenty of biblical scholars have.

Sorry, I wasn't asking about 40 in the bible, I was asking about GW getting inspiration from the bible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Alternately we could be overanalyzing this one. They could have thrown darts at a number line. They could have picked it because it sounded catchy. Does it really matter?

It doesn't. But can't I ask? I'm curious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skymate wrote:
I heard it was intended to be Warhammer: 4000 but someone said that 'was not far away enough' [or something along those lines] so an extra zero was added

where did you hear that from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
this might help you along

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

Original fluff has a lot of reference to good, or at least iconic Sci-fi

How bad things are gone now...

Indeed. Now the fluff is getting generic and bland. Especially in the codices.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, but plenty of biblical scholars have.

Sorry, I wasn't asking about 40 in the bible, I was asking about GW getting inspiration from the bible.

There are loads of other biblical references in 40k, so it is plausible.

Warhammer is very widely inspired. It would be odd if they didn't draw from the bible mythos.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Alternately we could be overanalyzing this one. They could have thrown darts at a number line. They could have picked it because it sounded catchy. Does it really matter?

It doesn't. But can't I ask? I'm curious.

One can always, always ask why.

They won't always get a great answer, though.

Back in the day, there was this advertising gimmick where some products would be given a flashy round number in their name to make it see futuristic (2000 was a heavy hitter in this department, invoking the new millennium a few decades away, but also having 'two' in the word which suggested to target audiences a sort of 'sequel' aspect to the product and therefore 'success')

That advertising gimmick was so ubiquitous that it entered pop culture, often in parody with ludicrously big numbers.

Therefore, the name 'Warhammer 40,000' readily explained to it's target audience in a tongue-in-cheek way, that this is Warhammer in Space.

 oldzoggy wrote:
this might help you along

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

I really enjoyed the original trilogy!

40 is definitely biblical and is also represented in other works of science fiction, with some overtly Christian themes. For instance, in Dune, Leto II is projected to live for 40,000 years (he is killed before that elapses, though).

40,000 years if far enough into the future that you can describe some magic-like advanced technology and just handwave it away as "Far Future Tech!"

 kronk wrote:
40,000 years if far enough into the future that you can describe some magic-like advanced technology and just handwave it away as "Far Future Tech!"

So is 100 years.

For 40K, I think pushing it so far into the future is more about the world-building. It lets them have a human civilisation that has waxed and waned and gathered a whole bunch of baggage.

 Skymate wrote:
I heard it was intended to be Warhammer: 4000 but someone said that 'was not far away enough' [or something along those lines] so an extra zero was added

I heard this as well though I can't point to a source.
Leaning more towards the foundation series explanation, 40k has borrowed quite a bit from it so why not the number. Big recommendations on those books btw.

 Nerak wrote:
Big recommendations on those books btw.

Or, for something equally entertaining, you could read the user agreement on your Windows installation.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nerak wrote:
Big recommendations on those books btw.

Or, for something equally entertaining, you could read the user agreement on your Windows installation.

I spend my days reading law texts. I'd recommend the EU-primary directives first 15 articles for anyone looking to expand their horizonts after finishing the two above mentioned litterary masterpieces. Article 3 point 3 in particular contains an highlariously entertaining highlight on economic growth and social stability.

Its Warhammer 40000 because it is bigger then Warhammer 4000, which was the first proposed name, which was disregarded because they wanted to add the number to the name of the new system and Rick said that the number should be realy big because of that reason. So they added a 0 and done.

Source is an interview with Jervis Johnson done by Alan Merett from the White Dwarf for the special ocasion of 25 years of 40k. Its in the german WD with the number 194, the one which you flip over for the 40k special segment.

tarrox wrote:
Its Warhammer 40000 because it is bigger then Warhammer 4000, which was the first proposed name, which was disregarded because they wanted to add the number to the name of the new system and Rick said that the number should be realy big because of that reason. So they added a 0 and done.

Source is an interview with Jervis Johnson done by Alan Merett from the White Dwarf for the special ocasion of 25 years of 40k. Its in the german WD with the number 194, the one which you flip over for the 40k special segment.

there should be an English version right?

Maximus Bitch wrote:

tarrox wrote:
Its Warhammer 40000 because it is bigger then Warhammer 4000, which was the first proposed name, which was disregarded because they wanted to add the number to the name of the new system and Rick said that the number should be realy big because of that reason. So they added a 0 and done.

Source is an interview with Jervis Johnson done by Alan Merett from the White Dwarf for the special ocasion of 25 years of 40k. Its in the german WD with the number 194, the one which you flip over for the 40k special segment.

there should be an English version right?

The english White Dwarf should be the number 385, at least it has the same cover and is also the anniversary one. And from reviews i just read, the interviews are in this one.

40k themes inspired by religion are not limited to the bible. One would argue that the concept of the thing closest to evil in the universe, chaos (beyond Moorcock, I know) has something buddhist in it.

If you think about it, the Warp is the place of the soul. Demons are there and are powerful because mortals are awful.

 insaniak wrote:

 kronk wrote:
40,000 years if far enough into the future that you can describe some magic-like advanced technology and just handwave it away as "Far Future Tech!"

So is 100 years.

For 40K, I think pushing it so far into the future is more about the world-building. It lets them have a human civilisation that has waxed and waned and gathered a whole bunch of baggage.

Fair point.

I disagree on the Foundation Trilogy. They were suspenseful, math-based history-onics thrillers!

I like how 40k is described as 400 centuries in the future, even the 10 thousand years passing between the HH and the 'present' sounds hugely vast!

A semi related question; which Scifi are set over 40,000 years in the future?

 insaniak wrote:

 Nerak wrote:
Big recommendations on those books btw.

Or, for something equally entertaining, you could read the user agreement on your Windows installation.

some people are capable of reading books that aren't pop up books with pretty pictures

You know, I was always perplexed by that as well.
It should really be 41k as it's set during the 41st millennium.
I guess it doesn't sound as good.