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.

Voss wrote:
Er... what? This isn't about GW in any way at all.

Some people have said it is, in this thread.

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.

Too bad that doesn't happen and grouping loads of different people together and telling them "you're all the same" never ends well.

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.

Weird because talking about 40k is how I got a bunch of friends into the hobby. Not TTWG, 40k.
Also weird how my family all made an effort to learn that it was my hobby so when they got me gifts it wouldn't be stuff that I would just ignore. Or how my family takes an interest in my hobbies so they don't just sit there and ignore me at family gatherings. Or how during 2020 lockdown my family actually played Warhammer with me because they wanted to bond and cheer me up during a bout of the Big Sad. Or how I made friends with someone based on our mutal love of 40k at my work.

Voss wrote:
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.

Please show me all of the Infinity video games, novels, and comics please.

I know you're joking, but there are Infinity novels, comics, and RPGs. There probably aren't video games, but still.

I'm actually not joking.

 Gert wrote:
I'm actually not joking.

Modiphius makes the Infinity RPG. They've made two manga-style comics ("Outrage" and "Betrayal") with more on the way. There's a novel coming, dunno about what stage of production it's in yet. There are also multiple games which don't count as wargames which are set in the universe - Aristeia, and the two kickstarter ones (Defiance and TAG Raid).

I've played all of those games and read the comics. But I don't say "Infinity" is my hobby, I say "tabletop gaming" or "wargaming," because I'm not desperate to signal my allegiance to Corvus Belli.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
The point is that calling myself a 40k player actually communicates information to you that you can use.

Except not really, because there's a lot of people who are in to 40k who don't play the game - they just read the BL novels or play the vidya or whatever. So if your hobby is actually the wargame of 40k, say you're a wargamer. Because then I can actually talk to you about painting or the game.

PenitentJake wrote:
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.

If you say you're a fan of 40k, it's not necessarily true that you can intelligently discuss 40k, or even that you play it.

PenitentJake wrote:
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.

Sure. But that's not the same thing as saying "my hobby is 40k."

PenitentJake wrote:
Describing me as a wargamer is a bad idea.

What's going on here, exactly? Are you insecure with being associated with the products of anyone except the industry leader, or what?

The classic dismissal of Infinity because its not as big as 40k is really getting old.

"Your hobby isn't 40k it's wargaming/painting/reading because it just is okay" is a weird hill to die on btw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
The classic dismissal of Infinity because its not as big as 40k is really getting old.

No one is dismissing it, just holding it up as a point of comparison in terms of the range of media available to consume as part of a hobby. The point being that you would burn through extrenuous media of the game/setting fairly quickly and you would be forced to seek other places to get new stuff to consoom resulting in searching out other game systems, whereas with 40k it seems unlikely that anyone could exhaust the amount of product there is. There is always going to be more 40k, so people like Jake don't even need to look outside of 40k even if they wanted to (which many don't).

 Sim-Life wrote:
"Your hobby isn't 40k it's wargaming/painting/reading because it just is okay" is a weird hill to die on btw.

Good thing giving reasons then, and not doing what you're saying.

 Sim-Life wrote:
No one is dismissing it, just holding it up as a point of comparison in terms of the range of media available to consume as part of a hobby. The point being that you would burn through extrenuous media of the game/setting fairly quickly and you would be forced to seek other places to get new stuff to consoom resulting in searching out other game systems, whereas with 40k it seems unlikely that anyone could exhaust the amount of product there is. Especially these days.

No, Gert very much dismissed it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
The classic dismissal of Infinity because its not as big as 40k is really getting old.

I just picked a name out of the hat my dude. The only TTWG that have a similar media presence to Warhammer, and 40k in particular, are ones that are adapted from existing properties such as Star Wars or The Walking Dead.

A point was made earlier, maybe it was Doc, reminding us that GW has made 40k into its own ecosystem… I think that sim is saying the same thing in a different way in regard to lees stand alone universes.

I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

No answers are necessary. Point being here that there is one faction who seems intolerant of the way that others understand the world and their places in it… why is this so important to them?

 jeff white wrote:
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.

 jeff white wrote:
A point was made earlier, maybe it was Doc, reminding us that GW has made 40k into its own ecosystem… I think that sim is saying the same thing in a different way in regard to lees stand alone universes.

I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

No answers are necessary. Point being here that there is one faction who seems intolerant of the way that others understand the world and their places in it… why is this so important to them?

Not sure about other countries in the world, but there are large parts of Poland where you either play w40k or you don't play anything at all. It would be like being a fan of sports, but euro sport only shows dirt bike racing 24/7.

Hecaton wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

"40k" is not an activity.

Yes it is.

 jeff white wrote:
A point was made earlier, maybe it was Doc, reminding us that GW has made 40k into its own ecosystem… I think that sim is saying the same thing in a different way in regard to lees stand alone universes.

I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

No answers are necessary. Point being here that there is one faction who seems intolerant of the way that others understand the world and their places in it… why is this so important to them?

Seems to me there are specific individuals being intolerant, not 'factions.'

Gert wrote:Too bad that doesn't happen and grouping loads of different people together and telling them "you're all the same" never ends well.

Yes, yes. Tolerance and acceptance are bad. Very grimdark.

 Sim-Life wrote:


Yes it is.

Only if you count the job you need to have to support the hobby.

It's really not helpful for this discussion that "40k" means at least two distinct things to people here, that people slip between interchangeably.

"40k" is a tabletop wargame
"40k" is also a universe, within which is set the aforementioned wargame, the largest sci-fi novel library, a huge range of beautiful models, and much more.
That's quite a significant difference if we're talking about what's a hobby and what isn't.

I interpreted the "40k" that this thread title pertains to to be the latter.
In that sense, I say that the 40k universe is not a hobby. It is a universe/interest which spans multiple hobbies.

I would also say the same about the 40k game, it is not a hobby in and of itself, it is one particular offering/subset of the wargaming hobby.
In the same way "scale modelling" is a hobby, with subsets of Gundam/tanks/planes/cars/whatever.

But I get a strong sense people are slipping between the definitions, misunderstanding what definitions others are using, and ultimately talking past each over.

I also really don't see the relevance of Game's Workshop's "all-inclusive experience" to suggesting 40k is it's own standalone hobby.
You might like films, but that doesn't make Netflix a hobby in and of itself, even if they offer some of their own originals you might enjoy.
They're just the retailer you commonly buy from.

When I '40k', I often use a non-GW airbrush to paint, non-GW magnets to build and non-GW dice to play. Even if the rules, models and paints are from GW, am I doing 40K right?
Am I '40K'ing, or Wargaming?

Karol wrote:

Not sure about other countries in the world, but there are large parts of Poland where you either play w40k or you don't play anything at all. It would be like being a fan of sports, but euro sport only shows dirt bike racing 24/7.

That used to be true for every game, and then someone starts a playgroup that gets people into it. If you're too much of a normie to start your own playgroup, idk what to say, man...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Yes it is.

Nah. Playing the game "Warhammer 40,000" is. But that's wargaming. Reading the books is.. but that's reading. "40k" as used in the context I meant it is just an IP.

The game has always been a bit meh, and imho with the recent moves to make it more workable for competative play even more so now, just completely bland. For me the game is just a chance for spectacle and to show off your models to each other and make them look cool together. As a stand alone thing it's whatever.

Hecaton wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.

40k and wargaming are both activities, and be very different things. A lot of people just collect and paint the models, then maybe read the lore. Others just read the books. Or play the videogames. Or watch stuff from the channel. Or do a combinations of those things. Those people do 40k, even investing a lot of time and money in 40k, but they're not wargaming. The game is just a fraction of what 40k is, and although I like the game and I do play, I think it's not even the biggest/most important/most popular part of it.

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.

40k and wargaming are both activities, and be very different things. A lot of people just collect and paint the models, then maybe read the lore. Others just read the books. Or play the videogames. Or watch stuff from the channel. Or do a combinations of those things. Those people do 40k, even investing a lot of time and money in 40k, but they're not wargaming. The game is just a fraction of what 40k is, and although I like the game and I do play, I think it's not even the biggest/most important/most popular part of it.

In those examples 40k isn't an activity; it's the IP/universe that activity is focused on.

It's like saying "I'm doing Star Wars!" - no, you're watching a film and that film is called Star Wars.

Hecaton wrote:


Nah. Playing the game "Warhammer 40,000" is. But that's wargaming. Reading the books is.. but that's reading. "40k" as used in the context I meant it is just an IP.

By your logic playing the game is simply playing. Not wargaming, which is more specific. Like reading comics, newspapers or books instead of just reading.

40k is a combination of multiple activities, it's not just "reading" or "playing" ("wargaming").


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I also agree with sim that insisting that wargaming is the hobby, when a person identifies as a 40k hobbyist exclusively, is a weird thing to do… what if the reverse were to be maintained? So, you like football. But you say that you are into sports. But only ever pay attention to and play football. So I say no, you are not a sportsman, or athlete, you are a footballer. No one is doing that, here, but why not?

The difference is that "football" itself is an activity, and therefore a hobby. "40k" is not an activity. "Wargaming" is.

40k and wargaming are both activities, and be very different things. A lot of people just collect and paint the models, then maybe read the lore. Others just read the books. Or play the videogames. Or watch stuff from the channel. Or do a combinations of those things. Those people do 40k, even investing a lot of time and money in 40k, but they're not wargaming. The game is just a fraction of what 40k is, and although I like the game and I do play, I think it's not even the biggest/most important/most popular part of it.

In those examples 40k isn't an activity; it's the IP/universe that activity is focused on.

It's like saying "I'm doing Star Wars!" - no, you're watching a film and that film is called Star Wars.

If you're also playing videogames, reading stuff, cosplaying, playing board/miniature games about SW etc... then yeah, also SW can be an activity.

Performing multiple independent activities does not form one super-activity, even if the subject of each is the same IP.

If you read a 40k book and then paint a 40k miniature you read a book then you painted a miniature. You didn't "40k".

Why do you care so much about how people define their hobby?

It's really an inconsequential distinction.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Performing multiple independent activities does not form one super-activity, even if the subject of each is the same IP.

If you read a 40k book and then paint a 40k miniature you read a book then you painted a miniature. You didn't "40k".

But by this logic playing is still playing. And boardgames aren't really much different than miniature wargames. So I don't get why miniature wargaming is entitled to be a whole independent category.

In fact people who are heavily into gaming in 40k are typically heavily into multiple sorts of other gaming experiences: boardgames, videogames, cards, etc... they should be considered "gamers" or simply "players", definitely not "wargamers". Which sounds cool but really isn't a category as wargaming is not an hobby, it's just a specific way to do an hobby. Just like reading comics isn't the same thing and the same than reading magazines, except it kinda is since both cases fall under the same hobby's category, which is "reading".

I think that if an IP drives the interest, that IP might be identified as the hobby. I for example couldn't care less about wargaming in general, or boardgames, or even painting anything that isn't GW. I'm only interested in GW stuff. I might wargame sometimes, but I'm definitely not a wargamer. Or a painter, even if I paint miniatures. It's not a super-activity but there wouldn't be any of those activities without the interest in that IP, which is why I think something like 40k might be considered the hobby. In my case (GW, not specifically 40k) it definitely is. How people define their hobby is entirely subjective.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why do you care so much about how people define their hobby?

How much do you think I care? Enough to argue the point on the internet in my spare time is a very low bar for me.
Why even do you care how much I care?

If your point is this is so trivial, you don't want to discuss it; just leave the thread.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why do you care so much about how people define their hobby?

Some people are obsessed with definitions and rules, and in any geek-related fields there's a large crowd of this kind of "lawyers".

I only care enough to be pedantic. If someone told me they were a 40k hobbyist out in the wild, I wouldn't care at all. I only care here because it became a weird definition argument, and I like those.

yes

 Gert wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
The classic dismissal of Infinity because its not as big as 40k is really getting old.

I just picked a name out of the hat my dude. The only TTWG that have a similar media presence to Warhammer, and 40k in particular, are ones that are adapted from existing properties such as Star Wars or The Walking Dead.

*Arguably* Warmahordes (though I'm not certain on the comic front, but there is a video game...) in terms of forms of media interacted with. Breadth, rather than depth?