40k and WHF are really, really similar

[Kahoolin]

Ah, thread no. 2 for today. I don't know if this is totally appropriate in this forum but buggered if I know where to put it

I've just been thinking, the difference between WHF and 40k as works of fiction is not that great. 40k Rogue Trader was created as fantasy in space as you all probably know, but since then, 40k has arguably become more popular than WHFB. Still, they are almost the same thing, and I think not in the way the writers back in the 80s intended. I'd classify them both as forms of dark science-fantasy with steampunk elements.

They both have demons and magic, which are major tropes of fantasy fiction. They both have guns, which signal science fantasy. The guns are clunky, unreliable, and poorly understood by our standards, which is a common trope of steampunk. The guns even look old-fashioned (guns in WHF are black powder, Guard tanks in 40k look like they are from a hundred years ago).
They both have non-human intelligent bipedal species (fantasy again, or at best science-fantasy), They both have mythologies essentially based on polytheistic creator gods and a war in heaven, more fantasy tropes. They both place humanity on the back foot, facing unspeakable threats using weapons and magic that they barely understand (dark fantasy). I'm sure the list could go on.

My point (yes, I do in fact have one) is that really, the major GW universes do not just share similarities, they are virtually the same thing. Even the dark tone is the same. The only real difference between them is the outer clothing of the tropes: 40k wears a dark future dress, and WHF is dressed up all medieval.

Sorry if everyone already knows this, I was just kind of shocked to realize that we normally think 40k is scifi, fantasy is fantasy, but I think it's more accurate to say they are both science-fantasy, just different.

[Nabterayl]

The only real difference between them is the outer clothing of the tropes: 40k wears a dark future dress, and WHF is dressed up all medieval.

You mean 40K wears a medieval dress, and WHF is dressed up all Renaissance.

[murrburger]

"They both have demons and magic, which are major tropes of fantasy fiction. They both have guns, which signal science fantasy. The guns are clunky, unreliable, and poorly understood by our standards, which is a common trope of steampunk. The guns even look old-fashioned (guns in WHF are black powder, Guard tanks in 40k look like they are from a hundred years ago).
They both have non-human intelligent bipedal species (fantasy again, or at best science-fantasy), They both have mythologies essentially based on polytheistic creator gods and a war in heaven, more fantasy tropes. They both place humanity on the back foot, facing unspeakable threats using weapons and magic that they barely understand (dark fantasy). I'm sure the list could go on."

Guns doesn't always mean sci-fi. In fact, all the guns in WFB have nothing to do with sc-fi...The guns are part of the Empire aren't really 'old-fashioned' because The Empire is at around the same era that actually would have those guns.

Guard tanks all look like they're from WW1/WW2. So I dunno about several hundred years ago.

I will argue that probably only Empire and Dwarves have anything to do with steampunk. And 40K, probably none. There's really no innovation at all. Nothing is being invented, and there's pretty much no hope for advancement. Another reason is because for Steampunk. there needs to be uhh.. steam.

40K does not use magic that often. It has the warp, and psykers are in fact, mutants with a certain gene. Sorcery and chaos is probably the closest it comes to magic. There's even a 'scientific' explanation behind Chaos and the like, but, there is also a more mythical explanation.

You're forgetting that there is some leeway between Fantasy and Sci Fi. I think the major differences is that Warhammer 40K takes place in the future (Could be our future. A very dystopian one at that) and WFB takes place in some sort of alternate reality.

Last thing, I don't think RT is Fantasy in Space. It is very much sci-fi, but a lot less dark than 40K. There's aliens, mutants, criminals turned super-soldiers, lots of punk themes... Sure there are Space Elves, but they're aliens. I know that's weak, but check out the original Star Trek sometime. It's just a miss-mash of things. Basically whatever ideas the creators wanted to explore, whatever cultures or time periods they wanted to include, they could. Star Trek was always pushing the boundaries of what we considered believable, and more than anything, it was a commentary on the times. It's the same with Rogue Trader, and I believe it reflects the time it was made in: it was a new gaming system, so they wanted to have a huge scope.

Fantasy hasn't evolved much, except for getting darker.

[Freefall945]

I wonder at what point it became popular for people to reclassify what we classically think of Sci-fi as Fantasy. I'm reasonably sure it started with Star Wars - and I wouldn't be surprised if TV tropes pushed it along.

You're right, there are marked similarities in the overall thematic elements of the settings, but looking at any single item - the dominant empire/imperium for example, the life of the common citizen, etc. - will reveal differences, typically a greater edge of severity in 40k.

Incidentally, can anyone remind me what is the difference (that is presently accepted ) between what we would call science fiction and science fantasy?

[Nabterayl]

Science fantasy, I think, is a story or milieu which in essence is a fantasy story, clad in the circumstances of science fiction. Science fiction, I think, is simply a story or milieu in which technology is advanced from its historical equivalent or is set in the future. You can be science fiction without being science fantasy, but I don't think you can be science fantasy without being science fiction.

To the OP's original point, I don't think that 40K is just fantasy in space, but I do agree that what makes it distinctive is that it's fantasy in space. Space marines aren't just Mobile Infantry crossed with the United States Colonial Marines. Everybody post-1986 does that. They're Mobile Infantry crossed with the USCM crossed with Bretonnians and a bit of the Empire's knightly Orders.

The major difference I see between them is that Fantasy is fundamentally a Renaissance world. A Renaissance world under siege, to be sure, but a Renaissance world nonetheless - things are moving forward, even in spite of the various problems that beset the Empire. 40K is fundamentally a medieval world, and specifically a "dark ages" vision of the medieval world - things are falling apart, and the Imperium is beset by various problems.

[Kahoolin]

Incidentally, can anyone remind me what is the difference (that is presently accepted ) between what we would call science fiction and science fantasy?

As I understand it science fiction is realistic - it is speculative, focussing on the "real" universe with our laws of physics, but if things were different. It also of course includes speculation about the future.

Science fantasy is Star Wars and 40k. It is basically fantasy (i.e. the setting has similar but not the same physical laws as our own), but in space with guns and stuff so you don't immediately think of it as being fantasy. It's fantasy set in the future, or a world like ours would be in the future if there was magic. Technology works, but so does magic (although in science fantasy it's often called psychic powers, the Force, etc).

That's why I classify WHF and 40k both as science fantasy. Psykers are really fantasy, not sci-fi. And in WHF battle, magic and tech are side by side; hence, science fantasy.

[Nabterayl]

Wikipedia suggests that the difference is one of degree - how much effort is spent to explain the fantastical elements? If you're writing in the Honorverse, there are very specific formulae that tell you how fast you're traveling through a specific band of hyperspace relative to normalspace, and you're expected to take account of time dilation effects. That's science fiction. If you're writing in the 40K universe, there are very specifically no formulae that tell you how fast you're traveling through the Warp. That's science fantasy.

[Kahoolin]

I will argue that probably only Empire and Dwarves have anything to do with steampunk. And 40K, probably none. There's really no innovation at all. Nothing is being invented, and there's pretty much no hope for advancement. Another reason is because for Steampunk. there needs to be uhh.. steam.

Yeah OK, I spose the defining thing about steampunk is that it is alternate universe sci-fi. The stuff looks old fashioned to us but isn't in that world. So yeah, 40k doesn't qualify, and fantasy not reeeaally, but it does have steam and Skaven are definitely influenced by the steampunk aesthetic.

To the OP's original point, I don't think that 40K is just fantasy in space, but I do agree that what makes it distinctive is that it's fantasy in space. Space marines aren't just Mobile Infantry crossed with the United States Colonial Marines. Everybody post-1986 does that. They're Mobile Infantry crossed with the USCM crossed with Bretonnians and a bit of the Empire's knightly Orders.

The major difference I see between them is that Fantasy is fundamentally a Renaissance world. A Renaissance world under siege, to be sure, but a Renaissance world nonetheless - things are moving forward, even in spite of the various problems that beset the Empire. 40K is fundamentally a medieval world, and specifically a "dark ages" vision of the medieval world - things are falling apart, and the Imperium is beset by various problems.

Ah, I didn't say 40k is fantasy in space, I said it was originally developed to be WHF in space. It's not now.

As to your second point, that's true, WHF is moving forward whereas 40k (the imperium anyway) is declining, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both universes where magic and technology co-exist. Neither of them is fantasy or science fiction as traditionally conceived (e.g. Tolkein or Asimov, respectively). They are both science fantasy, just one has a teaspoon of future added, the other a teaspoon of history.

[Nabterayl]

Ah, I didn't say 40k is fantasy in space, I said it was originally developed to be WHF in space. It's not now.

That's what I meant to say, yeah.

As to your second point, that's true, WHF is moving forward whereas 40k (the imperium anyway) is declining, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both universes where magic and technology co-exist. Neither of them is fantasy or science fiction as traditionally conceived (e.g. Tolkein or Asimov, respectively). They are both science fantasy, just one has a teaspoon of future added, the other a teaspoon of history.

I quite agree.

[murrburger]

How are pyskers fantasy, and not sci-fi? My argument is one word.

Dune.