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 feel like there are a few options missing from the poll, such as:

"GW puts siege artillery in this game that has to be towed by trucks and armies themed after World War I."

Like literally, the most gunline-war to ever be fought is a role model for some entire armies. I'm surprised Peregrine forgot this, considering its predominantly FW.

Because if I wanted to stab things with swords, I’d be playing a fantasy game not a sci-fi game.

Except that 40k isn’t sci-if and never has been

It’s fantasy in space. That’s why everyone is running around in armour and with swords, daemons, God’s and magic.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Except that 40k isn’t sci-if and never has been

It’s fantasy in space. That’s why everyone is running around in armour and with swords

My favorite part are these models with armour and swords:


Or this:


Yeah tons of swords on this guy:

Sci-fi by definition requires all elements of the universe to be firmly rooted in reality, or plausible outcomes of the universe in which we reside.

Almost nothing in the 40k universe is theoretically possible in any way.

So while you site armies like guard or Tau, I’ll site:

Custodes
Grey knights
Dark angels
Black templars
Space wolves
Space marines
Chaos
Sisters
Orks
Incubi
Harlequins
Daemons

Over half of all the models GW makes are basically fantasy armies in space.

Also Cadians and Tau don’t fit the aesthetic of the universe as a whole. Those two armies should never have been made.

The fact that people think this is sci-fi or that people desire more armies like Tau says to me that GW have done a poor job relaying what exactly this universe is. A dark dystopian fantasy where swords and magic are indeed mightier than a gun.

What about admech then? They have some sword stuff but a lot more gun focused units.

Guys, have you noticed that Peregrine hasn't made a second post in his thread?

Mmmmmmaybe he's not that sincere. Just a thought.

I'd say because assault armies are an exercise in all or nothing frustration and have been for ages?

The beauty of Warhammer 40k is the mixture of a ton of inspirations from other genres, maybe you don't like everything about it, but it is hard to not have something that appelas to you. Trying to make it an all or nothing thing, and "Everything that doesnt fit my tastes doesn't belong in the universe" is the only wrong way to enjoy warhammer 40k. Be it saying tyranids don't belong because they are absurd and daemons don't belong because they don't have shooting, or Tau or imperial guard don't belong because they have a lack of meele.

Ad mech fits really well into the universe. They have a strong steam punk vibe. But mostly it’s because they represent the ignorance of the dark millennium.

They are the foremost creators of technology in the imperium. Where we look to logic and reason in the real world as motivators for technological advancement, they have literally done the opposite. They rely on myth and religious practices when operating on machinery. They aren’t permitted to advance technology beyond what is considered holy by the mechanicus overlords. They believe in and pray to machine gods.

They are the representation of how far humanity has fallen into the dark age of technology after the heresy. Where once there was science and reason, there is now only faith and ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you are correct Galas, everyone is free to like what they like. And I’m glad 40k draws on so much inspiration.

My point of contention is that I feel the play style of modern day 40k (aka: shooting) goes firmly against what I feel is the main focal point of the lore. I’m glad it’s there, I know some people prefer it, but I wish it was a supplementary play style to assault rather than the other way around.

 Octopoid wrote:
Guys, have you noticed that Peregrine hasn't made a second post in his thread?

Mmmmmmaybe he's not that sincere. Just a thought.

I can see where you're coming from there.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Ad mech fits really well into the universe. They have a strong steam punk vibe. But mostly it’s because they represent the ignorance of the dark millennium.

They are the foremost creators of technology in the imperium. Where we look to logic and reason in the real world as motivators for technological advancement, they have literally done the opposite. They rely on myth and religious practices when operating on machinery. They aren’t permitted to advance technology beyond what is considered holy by the mechanicus overlords. They believe in and pray to machine gods.

They are the representation of how far humanity has fallen into the dark age of technology after the heresy. Where once there was science and reason, there is now only faith and ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you are correct Galas, everyone is free to like what they like. And I’m glad 40k draws on so much inspiration.

My point of contention is that I feel the play style of modern day 40k (aka: shooting) goes firmly against what I feel is the main focal point of the lore. I’m glad it’s there, I know some people prefer it, but I wish it was a supplementary play style to assault rather than the other way around.

Cadians, or the imperial guard in general, also fit really well into the universe. They allow for a modern observer to place the horrors of the universe of 40k into a more understandable framework - the horrors of the various wars that humans have fought throughout history - amped up to 40k levels of absurdity and grimdarkness. The fact that the soldiers appear as something more familiar to an observer places the remembered terrors of the conflicts they're aping into the context of the unknown horrors of alien threats. This is why Aliens, Edge of Tomorrow, Starship Troopers and other such movies pitting recognizably equipped human soldiers against stranger alien adversaries are relatable.

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).

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Sci-fi by definition requires all elements of the universe to be firmly rooted in reality, or plausible outcomes of the universe in which we reside.

For my part, here's what Wikipedia defines Science Fiction as:
"Science fiction (often shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction, typically dealing with imaginative concepts such as advanced science and technology, spaceflight, time travel, and extraterrestrial life. "
Speculative: Check
Fiction: Check
Advanced science and technology: Check.
Spaceflight: Check
Timetravel: Check
Extraterrestrial life: Check

Or from OED:
"Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets"
Fiction: Check
Imagined: Check
Future: Check
Scientific/Technological Advances: Check
Major Social or Environmental Change: Check
Space or Time Travel: Check
Life on Other Planets: Check

40k looks like sci-fi to me.

I don’t have a problem with guard. Just the aesthetics of Cadians. I don’t think it fits, it’s far too modern.

The same is true for Tau. Their background is at least interesting. I have a strong aversion to their aesthetic and play style. If they’d gone full on samurai in space with giant katana wielding mechs, then I’m all for it. The main problem with Tau is that they are a completely one dimensional army. They only shoot in a game where there really should be a mix of everything. Tau forces you to create a Gunline or mobile shooting line simply for the fact that if you don’t do that, you can’t win. This makes for very boring games, and I think it was a mistake on the part of GW to introduce an army with such complete lack of options.

I don’t understand your last point about Eldar being like Tau, could you expand on your point? Are you just speaking aesthetic wise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The world of science fiction and fantasy is rich and varied. Often lumped together under the catchall term "speculative fiction," these two distinct genres encompass a number of sub-genres. Many who don't read sf/f are unaware that the two though close kin are very different. Isaac Asimov, once asked to explain the difference between science fiction and fantasy, replied that science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.


Sounds like Fantasy to me...

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I don’t have a problem with guard. Just the aesthetics of Cadians. I don’t think it fits, it’s far too modern.

The same is true for Tau. Their background is at least interesting. I have a strong aversion to their aesthetic and play style. If they’d gone full on samurai in space with giant katana wielding mechs, then I’m all for it. The main problem with Tau is that they are a completely one dimensional army. They only shoot in a game where there really should be a mix of everything. Tau forces you to create a Gunline or mobile shooting line simply for the fact that if you don’t do that, you can’t win. This makes for very boring games, and I think it was a mistake on the part of GW to introduce an army with such complete lack of options.

I don’t understand your last point about Eldar being like Tau, could you expand on your point? Are you just speaking aesthetic wise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The world of science fiction and fantasy is rich and varied. Often lumped together under the catchall term "speculative fiction," these two distinct genres encompass a number of sub-genres. Many who don't read sf/f are unaware that the two though close kin are very different. Isaac Asimov, once asked to explain the difference between science fiction and fantasy, replied that science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.


Sounds like Fantasy to me...

So you're saying things like Star Wars and Star Trek are fantasy, not science-fiction (ironically they fail more metrics than 40k even by my definition), that anything with FTL in it (including Asimov's own work), is fantasy (since we know that's not possible)?

Have you ever considered that you may be taking him too literally? Or even misquoting him entirely?

Star Wars absolutely is fantasy in space. It’s actually completely based on an old Akira Kurasawa movie called the hidden fortress. It’s actually a combination samurai/western. Hence why Vader looks like a samurai, why they wield swords and why Obi Wan is a Japanese sounding name, because the actor he originally intend for the roll was a Japanese actor and protege of Akira Kurasawa. He also stars in the movie Rashomon.

Star Trek I have never seen or been interested in so I couldn’t tell you honestly if it’s one or the other. From my understanding, it’s intent is to be rooted in reality as far as the possibility of aliens and technology is concerned. Even if said technology or aliens could not exist in reality, the point was intended to be that way. But again, I’m unsure.

There are sci-fi elements to 40k, but those are secondary to the main genre which is fantasy horror.

It’s up to you if you want to stretch the definition of what is or isn’t sci-fi. But I’m saying unequivocally, 40k is fantasy.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Star Wars absolutely is fantasy in space. It’s actually completely based on an old Akira Kurasawa movie called the hidden fortress. It’s actually a combination samurai/western. Hence why Vader looks like a samurai, why they wield swords and why Obi Wan is a Japanese sounding name, because the actor he originally intend for the roll was a Japanese actor and protege of Akira Kurasawa. He also stars in the movie Rashomon.

Star Trek I have never seen or been interested in so I couldn’t tell you honestly if it’s one or the other. From my understanding, it’s intent is to be rooted in reality as far as the possibility of aliens and technology is concerned. Even if said technology or aliens could not exist in reality, the point was intended to be that way. But again, I’m unsure.

There are sci-fi elements to 40k, but those are secondary to the main genre which is fantasy horror.

It’s up to you if you want to stretch the definition of what is or isn’t sci-fi. But I’m saying unequivocally, 40k is fantasy.

And I'm saying unequivocally that 40k is more than just fantasy, nor should it try to stoop to the level of mere fantasy.

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Star Wars absolutely is fantasy in space. It’s actually completely based on an old Akira Kurasawa movie called the hidden fortress. It’s actually a combination samurai/western. Hence why Vader looks like a samurai, why they wield swords and why Obi Wan is a Japanese sounding name, because the actor he originally intend for the roll was a Japanese actor and protege of Akira Kurasawa. He also stars in the movie Rashomon.

Star Trek I have never seen or been interested in so I couldn’t tell you honestly if it’s one or the other. From my understanding, it’s intent is to be rooted in reality as far as the possibility of aliens and technology is concerned. Even if said technology or aliens could not exist in reality, the point was intended to be that way. But again, I’m unsure.

There are sci-fi elements to 40k, but those are secondary to the main genre which is fantasy horror.

It’s up to you if you want to stretch the definition of what is or isn’t sci-fi. But I’m saying unequivocally, 40k is fantasy.

And I'm saying unequivocally that 40k is more than just fantasy, nor should it try to stoop to the level of mere fantasy.

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Speaking from a literary sense, 40k is strictly a classic Sci-fi story. Just as Fantasy isn't define by whether or nor a sword is present, neither is sci-fi. Sci-fi is defined by asking a core question about humanity and (sometimes) posing answers. Fantasy is about the growth of an individual(s) as they overcome a challenge. Giving Samwise Gangee a pistol doesn't make LOTR a sci-fi story any more than putting horses in Star Trek would make it a fantasy. 40k is largely a story about how humanity deals with the failure of great empires. The barbarians are at the gates, no one knows how to reclaim the lost glory, and even the most heroic efforts are only buying time until the end.


Alright, soapbox aside, back to the original question:

Have you never admired the moment in the movie where the stalwart line of riflemen picks up their guns and says 'We will draw the line here. We will hold and not retreat one step further. We kill them all or die in the attempt'

Then the invetible evil horde comes and the shooting starst and you wait to see if the line will hold or be overwhelmed.

Most GW factions are based on a kind of 'epic scene' idea and gunline factions are no different. It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

Good post, ChargerIIC.

Any time someone posts the "Why would you play a gunline?" question, we should post that scene from Starship Troopers where the Roughnecks have to hold the outpost against the Bugs while calling in evac.

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

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

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

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

Can you cite an actual dictionary (you know, the places where we get "actual" definitions) that agrees that Warhammer 40k is in no sense science fiction?

And yes you did. You said "Cadians" don't fit the aesthetic. Either you only meant three boxes of infantry (because those are the only "cadians"), or you meant "the way Imperial Guard is now" which includes their tanks and artillery.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction

Also, Star Wars was influenced by many sources, like the Lensmen series. You can tell by the aliens not present in Korusawa's historical drama.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

I think much of the hatred of gunlines is that it doesn't really feel like this at all.
Playing a gunline isn't stressful. Its just the application of advantageous probability.

Tyel wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

I think much of the hatred of gunlines is that it doesn't really feel like this at all.
Playing a gunline isn't stressful. Its just the application of advantageous probability.

From a purely win-not-win binary lens, yes.

From a narrative lens, the "application of advantageous priority" has no meaning, really, because what a gunline is in the narrative has very little to do with advantage/disadvantage (unless you mean to imply a commander who says "my men shall have guns and dig trenches, and that shall give them an advantage over the opponent!", but that's a narrative given.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skaorn wrote:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction

Also, Star Wars was influenced by many sources, like the Lensmen series. You can tell by the aliens not present in Korusawa's historical drama.

Thanks for yet another definition on the pile of "reasons 40k is sci-fi"

Tyel wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

I think much of the hatred of gunlines is that it doesn't really feel like this at all.
Playing a gunline isn't stressful. Its just the application of advantageous probability.

Than what you want is an adjustment of some rules, not a banning of an entire playstyle or the public shaming of the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skaorn wrote:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction

For our link-hating friends:

Definition of science fiction
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

40k is Science Fiction under these definition. Star Wars is not.

We might need to spin off a separate thread about this.

 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."

 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."

MFW people use a paraphrased uncited quotation from an author as the definition of a word that excludes his own work in the genre, and then progress to make a bunch of excuses why said definition wouldn't exclude his and similar works because they realize their cognitive dissonance.

"Why does anyone want to have a gunline army?"

I hate playing gunlines, even with large collections I always bring assault oriented lists. Shooting is important but I can't play with 3+ units, not counting the characters, that are purely assault oriented.

That's why I hated index drukhari, which were basically a gunline and now they have plenty of options for melee units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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."

MFW people use a paraphrased uncited quotation from an author as the definition of a word that excludes his own work in the genre, and then progress to make a bunch of excuses why said definition wouldn't exclude his and similar works because they realize their cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, break out your books and give a full academic citation when discussing something on the internet

I would love to see you frame a paper on "what is science fiction" based purely on a wikipedia definition. Make sure to start from the biased stance that melee weapons have no place in science fiction. You'll need to address Dune, of course, but i'm sure there's a wikipedia entry for that.



Not trying to pick on you, just remarking here that there are numerous real examples to support it... and basing an argument on wikipedia and a starting bias isn't really a great stance. I like you, so, not trying to be mean.

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.