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.
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.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
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.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
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
YMMV
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2022/03/02 07:38:11
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/02 11:56:11
Isn't that just being a fan of 40k? Not specific hobbies? Why use the word hobby when you mean fan?
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
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".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/02 13:16:29
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 ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/02 14:37:12
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
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.
