Anyone else believe Warhammer 40k is superior to Star Wars?

[JaggedFel]

I say DnD would have a much easier time in trying it then 40K

[t hedge coke]

Nevertheless, despite what some of the 40k haters say, I do believe 40k is one of the deepest lore/storytelling series/IP/universe out there.

I don't think there have been any haters in the thread. People just don't agree.

I'm glad you're passionate about it, but if you ask at a place like this, and you get responses from people who know what it is - which, a lot of people do not - and, still, no one is thrilled at the prospect, that isn't hate for Warhammer, it's just perspective.

[Coin Biter]

I partly appreciate what the OP, because back in the late 80s, with Rogue Trader, and Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Roleplay (including the brilliant Enemy Within campaign), GW reached a high watermark of creativity. They were some of the best written, most entertaining and whimsical war game and rpg content out there.

It's true that it wasn't original, but the writers did cobble together a range of different materials in a rather brilliant way. The comic Orks of Warhammer: destructive, creative and cretinous, bear little resemblance to Tolkien's Orcs, but have been hugely influential on subsequent iterations, particularly Blizzard orcs (stripped of their more entertaining elements). The Tyranids (which didn't originally resemble Heinlein's bugs) have subsequently been an inspiration for Blizzard's Zerg. The Slann - the Mayan supernatural/techno wizard frogs - have few parallels that I'm aware of. The whole chaos theme was taken over from Moorcock's work, but was fairly substantially reworked for the GW settings, including both the sci fi setting of Warhammer 40k and the early modern Germanic setting of Warhammer Fantasy Battle/Roleplay.

So although many of the elements in isolation were derivative, taken together they created a fairly cohesive and original whole - which has been hugely influential in its turn. But, for one reason or another, as a creative fictional entitiy GW's franchises were poorly managed... And we are where we are.

So yes, I can understand you being fonder of Warhammer 40K than the Star Wars franchise, and I also regret lost opportunities. Hell, GW won't even provide reprints/digital versions of its earlier publications, which strikes me as perverse. But there we are

[worstblogever]

To quote a 40K meme...

[Tendrin]

I think I'm the closest person in this thread to what could be called a hater, but even then, I'm fond of 40k. I bought the limited original Dark Heresy books for a friend right before GW cancelled it because itwasn't going to be 'profitable enough'. Most of my hate is reserved for Games Workshop as a company, 'coz they are TRULY awful. I mean, we're talking about a company that sued people over oversized paldrons, claims it owns the words 'space marine' while shamelessly ripping off 'Eldar' and 'Orks' and... it just goes on and on. They're a truly awful company.

40k has flaws that keep it from approaching mass appeal built right in. It's lack of strong female characters, for one.

[Coin Biter]

Personally, I still can't forgive GW for turning White Dwarf, a magazine I loved, into just an extended sequence of adverts - and that was over 20 years ago

I think in the 80s, though, GW was an almost wholly positive influence. It reprinted lots of US RPGs in the UK which simply weren't available here, particularly Chaosium products. And it's own RPGs were extremely innovative, with sporadically brilliant writing and art.

[Tendrin]

Personally, I still can't forgive GW for turning White Dwarf, a magazine I loved, into just an extended sequence of adverts - and that was over 20 years ago

I think in the 80s, though, GW was an almost wholly positive influence. It reprinted lots of US RPGs in the UK which simply weren't available here, particularly Chaosium products. And it's own RPGs were extremely innovative, with sporadically brilliant writing and art.

Can't speak or early GW, myself, but the company that exists now is a truly awful thing.

[Coin Biter]

Can't speak or early GW, myself, but the company that exists now is a truly awful thing.

I have heard about the controversy over GW's IP litigation, so I can see why you feel that way. I'd be a lot more positive towards GW, TBH, if it reprinted or sold e-books of its early products. They're part of war gaming/rpg history, and it seems a bit of a shame that they are so difficult to get hold of (this complaint is partly bitterness because I lost my editions some time ago, including Realm of Chaos, which I understand now retails for a truly ridiculous sum ).

[comicscollector]

No way Warhammer 40k is better that Star Wars.
Star Wars charm so to say,started in the late 70s,with a trilogy of movies still apreciated to these days,and had just expanted with other movies,video games and so on.
Warhammer can not hold a candle to that.

[Coin Biter]

No way Warhammer 40k is better that Star Wars.
Star Wars charm so to say,started in the late 70s,with a trilogy of movies still apreciated to these days,and had just expanted with other movies,video games and so on.
Warhammer can not hold a candle to that.

It isn't "better", although I can see why someone might prefer it, particularly in this Star Wars saturated week, where you can't open a newspaper without seeing some Star Wars related new story, or go to work without someone referencing some joke concerning "scum and villainy", making Jedi hand gestures, or gassing on about how the prequels are being underrated by people who are simply not paying attention to their subtle nuances At such a time as this, I can readily understand how someone might be drawn to a grimdark space odyssey in which mankind is ultimately doomed at the hands of ridiculously armoured incomprehensible alien monstrosities.

That said, it's worth remarking that at least in the earlier stages there was some serious talent involved in the Warhammer universe, including a young Kim Newman.

In some ways, there are some surprising similarities between the two franchises - in both cases, the Galaxy is defended by a group of sexless warrior monks who are insanely devoted to a pitiless, humourless ideal

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

I tried getting into W40K, but the fetishism of regressive race/gender politics kind of sapped the potential fun out of it, and the novels especially were a real drag.
Having said that, I did enjoy Fire Warrior on PS2 back in the day. Although it was a painfully average FPS, it had a great voice cast and the visual design and story seemed heavily influenced by 2000ad's Nemesis The Warlock.

[Expletive Deleted]

I have heard about the controversy over GW's IP litigation, so I can see why you feel that way. I'd be a lot more positive towards GW, TBH, if it reprinted or sold e-books of its early products. They're part of war gaming/rpg history, and it seems a bit of a shame that they are so difficult to get hold of (this complaint is partly bitterness because I lost my editions some time ago, including Realm of Chaos, which I understand now retails for a truly ridiculous sum ).

If GW re-released it, the new version would retail for an only-slightly-less ridiculous sum.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Do I like 40k better than Star Wars? You know, that really depends on how much grimdark I can handle on a given day. I mean, it's a fun setting but it's extreme to the point of absolute absurdity. What was that one weapon that grinds up dead bodies and turns them into combustible ammunition so it basically never runs out of bullets during a Waaaaargh? I can't remember, and more importantly could I handle daily immersion in a setting where a weapon like that is only considered mildly upsetting?

[Savage Savant]

It isn't "better", although I can see why someone might prefer it, particularly in this Star Wars saturated week, where you can't open a newspaper without seeing some Star Wars related new story, or go to work without someone referencing some joke concerning "scum and villainy", making Jedi hand gestures, or gassing on about how the prequels are being underrated by people who are simply not paying attention to their subtle nuances At such a time as this, I can readily understand how someone might be drawn to a grimdark space odyssey in which mankind is ultimately doomed at the hands of ridiculously armoured incomprehensible alien monstrosities.

That said, it's worth remarking that at least in the earlier stages there was some serious talent involved in the Warhammer universe, including a young Kim Newman.

In some ways, there are some surprising similarities between the two franchises - in both cases, the Galaxy is defended by a group of sexless warrior monks who are insanely devoted to a pitiless, humourless ideal

For sure. Like you mentioned in your earlier post, I meant from a strictly story-telling perspective (specifically regarding the genre of epic space opera series) that I personally find 40k to be superior to Star Wars. I totally acknowledge that GW heavily "borrowed" various ideas from other sources (namely from Michael Moorcock, Heinlein, 2000AD, Tolkien & Dune among a few other sources), however like you mentioned GW did it in a way that made it all work for those settings. And I know that a 40k film will never happen, but I could see a tv show being made (I made a thread about that subject over on the Heresy-Online forums & most posters agreed with me regarding a tv show, with many mentioning Eisenhorn being a good base for a potential tv show).

I know 40k is extremely over the top with a lot of it's characters and stories & weapons, however I think that's also one of it's appeals IMO. The manner in which GW blended Sci-Fi & Fantasy (the 40k setting) is just awesome IMO. I actually finished reading a few of Moorcock's Eternal Champion books and am currently reading a few of 2000AD strips (Judge Dredd & Slaine) and I gotta say, I'm honestly starting to get the feeling that British Sci-Fi writers are much more imaginative than American writers (I guess that another reason why I dig 40k so much because it draws from the wells of Moorcock & 2000AD writers).

Anyway, like I said earlier I wasn't trying to belittle the Star Wars franchise, just trying to provide solid arguments for another Space Opera series that I feel from a story-telling perspective brings more to the table (despite the table-top being the main medium for the franchise & the novels & everything else being second and GW being a fairly incompetent organization). I mean, I really find it hard to believe anyone would feel Anakin Skywalker's fall from grace to be more tragic and depressing than Fulgrim's right?

[adameastment]

I think I'm the closest person in this thread to what could be called a hater, but even then, I'm fond of 40k. I bought the limited original Dark Heresy books for a friend right before GW cancelled it because itwasn't going to be 'profitable enough'. Most of my hate is reserved for Games Workshop as a company, 'coz they are TRULY awful. I mean, we're talking about a company that sued people over oversized paldrons, claims it owns the words 'space marine' while shamelessly ripping off 'Eldar' and 'Orks' and... it just goes on and on. They're a truly awful company.

40k has flaws that keep it from approaching mass appeal built right in. It's lack of strong female characters, for one.

I completely agree with you on these points, GW is an awful company. They send cease and desist whenever they can because they don't want people "edging in on their ip". It's a bit ridiculous in some ways, in others I can understand (when other companies are making lots of money for making 3rd party items).

The issue I had, which ultimately made me back out of the war gaming market (and into the comicbook market ironically) was just the cost. The reason I bring up cost is really why it will never be as accessible or "big" as Star Wars. Star Wars has its own comicbooks, extended lore (even if it is non-canon now), merchandise etc etc. GW/40k does have this yes, but it's nowhere near as pushed or varied. You've got books - yes, but they cover their IP and help tell a story of the pre-existing lore. There isn't a lot of innovation within the franchise, whereas within Star Wars people are free to create a lot. 40K can create, but generally it's within the framework that already exists.

Not only that, Star Wars has characters that people can really and truly relate to. I don't think there is really anyone in the 40K universe who I can see as someone I can empathise with other than the Chaos Marine primarchs, why? Because the idea of following an essentially facist (which is largely what the codex astartes is) rule does not appeal but showing that you can succumb to the idea of sin etc is relatable ironically.

Also it's the idea of 40K for many people. Lots of people think it's a load of geeky lads who smell. That's hardly a good representation for a hobby that might potentially be bigger than Star Wars to have. That is also the biggest flaw it has, it doesn't appeal across the board - Star Wars does or at least, has the ability to, appeal to every gender. 40K lacks a "feminine touch" shall we call it?

40K was a big part of my childhood and teenage years, but the constantly increasing prices, comics, women and alcohol (I'm not an alcoholic, I just liked to be able to go out socially at uni) made me rethink my ability to keep on with the hobby.

Ultimately, no, I don't think it's superior. Neither do I think that (currently) it has the ability to be either.