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.

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?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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?

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 disagree to a significant extent.

'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.

Hecaton wrote:

But "Leeds" is not a hobby. It's not the same as being a fan about something.

Lol I've heard it all now. Football fans aren't real 'fans' now?! Good grief, just stop. You're being ridiculous.

 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.

Deadnight wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

But "Leeds" is not a hobby. It's not the same as being a fan about something.

Lol I've heard it all now. Football fans aren't real 'fans' now?! Good grief, just stop. You're being ridiculous.

That's not what he said. Leeds isn't a hobby. You can be a fan of their football team, but your hobby isn't Leeds.

 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.

I think I detect a hint of bias in that run down of events, but sure, close enough

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.

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.

 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).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

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…

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

Kinda easier for everyone, isn't it?

 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?

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.

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.

Look for the 'discussions' about whether people who play Candycrush on a mobile phone are 'gamers'...
https://www.quora.com/If-you-play-Candy-Crush-are-you-a-gamer
There are subsets of hobbies, and terminology only stratches so far.

 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.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 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.

Hecaton wrote:

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.

 Gert wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

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:

 Gert wrote:

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.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Gert wrote:

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.