White Dwarf

Speaking of Total Warhammer, what's Veeky Forums's general consensus of that, Mordheim, and the upcoming Total War 3?

>Now you know why they were suddenly okay with Total Warhammer.

I don't think GW was okay with anything, as part of some master plan at least, as much as their left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.

>let's shut down our decades old setting and shit on it
>what the fuck are you doing, we just struck a deal for a major video game title!
>oh

f-freee?

You sure it's not more
>we can't let them play a video game version of the boardgame; they might not want to buy our minis if it's all online!
All going into a mixture of "oh shit, we're losing a fucking tonne of money, we've got to change something" and "we're shutting this setting down, let's squeeze as much money out of it as possible".

I think Mordheim is solid, especially since they actually started making worthwhile DLC, but it's fucking Mordheim. I'm genuinely surprised they didn't put Warhammer somewhere in the title.

To me AoS doesnt make ANY sense at all though.

With those shitty rules, what's the motivation to buy expensive miniatures and paint them? Why not just use cardboard tokens?

If the game is pile your plastic shit vs the enemy's plastic shit, why would ANYONE buy the miniatures?

AoS is more of a specialist game than Blood Bowl for fucks sake, but it's there shoulder to shoulder with 40k right now

No

>>we can't let them play a video game version of the boardgame; they might not want to buy our minis if it's all online!

I think that fucked up train of thought has persisted since the very first Warhammer games and somehow on one ever bothered to explain to GW's marketing and CEOs that's not how shit works. Tabletop and video games are two different hobbies with two distinct groups. Sure, there is overlap, but you think your average players give a fuck about painting minis and being anal army rules?

40k is a gateway wargame to blood bowl.

>AoS monster costs about 240 bucks for one mini
My god.

It already happened.

As shit-tier as DoW 2 Retribution

Why would you want to use ugly cardboard tokens to play a shitty game?

>Total War 3
DoW III blew me away. Just its trailer -- it's way more effort than they've ever put into it. It gives the impression, at least, that they actually give a damn. Whether or not it'll suck despite that, I've no idea.
I haven't looked that much into it, to be honest. I was always more into 40k. But, from what I understood, their thinking was to try and milk people as much as possible, Whale-style.

"People will buy more minis so they beat the other guys"

Pretty dumb, frankly. Dawn of War is why I even got interested in GW products.

>least imagination required, get them interested
>more imagination required, get them hobbying
>most imagination required, try to win them back after they discover we're price gouging cunts and kill off their setting

As AoS has true line of sight (Against conventional wisdom that you see in games that are actually playtested and well designed), you do need to have a figure with the same profile. So yes, that does give you a motivation to buy the figures unless you want to make a 3-dimensional paper standee.

>in a sea of Starcraft-ts games
>one game dared to be different
>"MUHHHH BASE BUILDING REEEEEE"

I liked the mechanics of DoW2 more than DoW. You can argue the story quality, but DoW2 as a whole was more enjoyable to play.

Man, I so need to boot up Blood Bowl and actually play it. They just start going through the rules and I start dozing off.

I think he's trying to equal the characteristics commonly associated with top-down fantasy videogames, the cartoony, exaggerated and overblown proportions and details originally intended to make the in game models stand out and be discernible on the screen, with the ones that are arising now in GW's designs more than before.

Take archaon before and after
before it was about pose, references and flow of lines
now it is about size and quantity of features

>Implying that Dawn of War didn't get tons of people into 40K in the first place
Sure it wouldn't be everyone, but having a major video game is a great advertisement.

He said Retribution. Not DoWII proper.

I liked DoW2's true scale space marine models and the custom gear stuff.

It still misses the whole base building Age of Empires stuff and that is SHIT.

They should have added that option at least in multiplayer, but every fucking army has only 10 different units and no buildings save for the base

>But you can build turrets

>it needs to have base building cuz fewer units
No, it doesn't because of the interplay of other mechanics. But that's a discussion for /v/, not here.

Everything has fuller shapes and less small details from what I can tell. It's very striking on those dog units I forget the name of. Dire hounds or something. It looks like someone took a block of clay, and stringed off both sides of the head and a bit of angle, then penciled out teeth and eye sockets.

Oh yeah, It's DAWN of War. I'm an idiot. Haven't really been following DoW 3 too closely, but what I've heard is that people are afraid it's going to be simplified to a point where it's close to a MOBA. I don't know how valid these claims are though. I think they're mostly basing this off the fact that it's a more skirmish level game, and when compared to the other two, it looks much cleaner.

Frost Sabres*

That's what I was talking about. They're practically planes.

>skirmish level
Huh? It's on a bigger scale than before, right?

I don't like the insistence they keep putting on big super units.

Near the end of DoW2 development, they added the Beast of Nurgle, the Land Raider, and the Avatar because Nids have the Fex and people like seeing big units be a big deal and do big deal things.

So now they're pushing warhounds into this. And it's just stupid, imo because it removes the coolness of the non-warhound units. I liked the dreadnoughts being the big badasses they were. Now they're just some middle ground mecha unit.

Yes.

They're also hand sculpted from 6th edition you mongoloid.

Those are not new.

They look like 50's greasers.

I think that the point is that AoS models are overdesigned, whereas these are older models that are much simpler in appearance.

>snaps fingers menacingly

>There are still people who Unironically believe that TWW would've saved Fantasy

I never played fantasy so it took me a few months to realize sigmar wasn't in fact fantasy with a new alignment chart.

Basically Warhammer Fantasy players are split into 3 groups.

Pre-6 Edition, 6 edition, Post 6 edition.

Pre-6 edition are the old guard who remember how tall silly hats were the order of the day and the Slaan were a seperate race of amusingly named frog people.

6 edition is where WHFB became it's "strongest" with many feeling it's the most tactical, however it's where WHFB also became much more serious and new fluff generally ground to a halt

As a Pre-6, I find AoS fine.
Post 6 is an abortion, with only Powerplayers and children nosgalgic for it's horrible balance and clear favoritism.

>I find AoS fine.
That makes two of us

Fucking love High fantasy

Thing is, I can see what GW are doing with AoS.

Instead of a 30 year old setting where NOTHING moved besides a few paragraphs of text and anything beyond that shatters the paradigm, GW want a more freeflowing setting allowing anything and everything to be made.

I remember an Interview with a sculptor for GW once saying WHFB was hard as fuck to sculpt for because most of the older sculpts were rank and file and they are boring as fuck to sculpt and people never buy them anyway.

I just dont like the rules, which are shit when not nonexistent.

The models are a butchering of fantasy also.

They could have gone for a new setting but it is basically a videogame

>I find AoS fine.

*holds aloft a goblet*
For the Lady!

I disagree heavily there. Ironically, Fantasy was butchered not by GW but by the playerbase.

Nobody bought it. People either used historicals or Mantic or other cheap choices for their armies, leaving GW making no money in the support of a phantom game.

Why do people think GW went on to make so many monster units? Because they are the ones they can 100% copyright and ensure people will buy the actual model.

AoS basically proves the Fantasy Wargame doesn't sustain itself as a premium.

And as cruel as it sounds, Warhammer Fantasy is probably safer and better in a video game than a tabletop anymore.

>GW want a more freeflowing setting allowing anything and everything to be made.
one year and more than 6 books later every story can be summed with
>stormcast deploy
>fight chaos for the macguffin
>third faction appearance
>explosion

I'm curious, does anyone have a concise list of all these retarded rules? I'm wondering if orc (or whatever they're called now) players have to constantly yell WAGH!!! whenever they attack.

>AoS
>setting

Slavposter, you can stop now.

>Nobody bought it.
Yeah because game was dead after 8th edition, which was made by GW because they want to grab more money from lower platerbase.

Assuming you're actually serious, that's ridiculous. 6th edition is way more balanced and fun than 5th edition.

And I think you're confusing darker art for an actual tonal change.

Is that a tripfag or do you actually think I'm Slavic?

>6th edition was way more balanced
>Hello, I am Vampire counts.

You're in every thread Slavposter. You use the same stupid arguments like

>Silly rules
>No rules
>No points
>It's not a setting

Is it so hard to get your slope-headed inbred brain to read up on the subject before looking like a fool?

Nobody bought it because it was becoming videogame-tier shit with magic shitfest and minis that looked like play-doh models.

Warhammer 6th went so well because it was basically a feasible historical setting with fantasy factions in it, and there was actual strategy involved.

Before dying whfb was 40k only with magic instead of bullets

Better than

>99% of the book is the same apart from 2-3 new units and 10 lines of new text

Hello, I am Wood Elves, enjoy my shooting phase.

vampire counts in 6th were upper mid tier just like the rest of fear causi g armies. hordes of chaos were the top tier army at the moment

Still worse than all 6th edition campaigns.

>Hordes of chaos
>Top tier

Since when? Everything was overcosted and Chaos Lords were just shit tier Vampire Lords

>Wood Elves
>6th edition
>Useful

>6th edition
>HEROHAMMER REDUX edition
>Actual startegy

Look, I loved 6th edition too, but 6th edition was basically "Lord solos the game"

Nice shooting+ strong hero upgrades; Sounds fine for 6th edition.

>Ironically, Fantasy was butchered not by GW but by the playerbase.
It's not a matter of opinions here.
Either it's the seller that doesn't produce the right offer or the seller that doesn't choose the right target.
There's no space for blaming the customers ever in marketing.

if they weren't buying it was because gw was making an unappealing offer, if the offer was unappealing it has to do with the quality or the chosen target: they were selling a game that required always more numerous outdated sculpts to an overall younger target.

Dude, I was just asking for a list of those ridiculous rules everyone complains about. I think there's one about wearing a hat, and another about wearing clothing of a certain color, I'm pretty sure there's one about getting an advantage for having the largest mustache out of all the players or something.

But seriously, I don't usually even hang out on Warhammer-related threads. I'm usually on the /ccg/ or /wbg/. I was just curious because the conversation starter was Total Warhammer and I'm into vidya.

And I wouldn't argue the second or fourth points. I mean, there are still rules, and it's still a setting, no matter how poor or shallow one might perceive it to be. I did hear about the no points thing. Are people misrepresenting that?

Every faction had OP wacky shit back then, from the gatling slann to the steamtank murdertrain

you're mistaking that user for someone else m8

No, you literally just described 5th edition.

best core in the game
20 dice magic phases with top tier lores
lots of chaff and fast support
can choose units from 3 different armybooks, thus best flexibility in the entire game

chaos was so over the top in 6th I almost felt bad for playing it

>"Lord solos the game"
What lord could do that besides a fully kitted out 2nd gen slann with all lvl1 spells and some more ?

you're comparing campaign books to armybooks editions, do you unserstand that?
have you ever read an armybook that wasn't 7th ot 8th edition?

mixing up editions

You're getting old, satan

Brets were fucking worse
>cavalry edition
>brets get cavalry hitting like trucks and getting rank bonuses
It was so good it was still playable in 8th infantryhammer

>Best core in the game

So Marauders, whose large bases made them easy to outflank

>Chaos Lord
>Vampire Lord
>Ogre Tyrant
>Bret Lord
>Dwarf Lord

6th edition was Herohammer, You'd spend 700 points on a Lord, have him hover around a unit and then have him cut through everything.

So do you admit that the entirety of AoS lore is equivalent to a 40-something pages army book ? Because that's pretty shit compared to, say, Gotrek and Felix.

>6th edition was Herohammer, You'd spend 700 points on a Lord, have him hover around a unit and then have him cut through everything.
That was 5th. 6th was cavalryhammer.

>Compare Army books with Army books
>B-BUT WHAT ABOUT NOVELS

AoS has Novels too. It just doesn't have 30 years worth of novels.

>spend 700 points on a lord
>Warlod: 90 points
>Grey Seer: 235 points
>maximum magic item limit 100 points

I don't know where you are getting these numbers. Were you one of those people dumb enough to field Archaon?

>Skaven player

Ah I see, you're just a mongoloid.

>read AoS novels
>it's exacly like
They probably have some code set up for random story generation.

The anal devastation is real.

>Expensive lords in Cavalry buses are the strongest thing in 6th edition
>Oh but as a Skaven Player I never experienced this.

That's also why Skaven were fucking shit.

You could nearly do that for a slann. It was something like 350 for base, 150 for 2nd gen and 100 items.

Same for a Daemon prince, Vampire Lord and Chaos Lord too.

Also, Ogre Tyrants and Bret Lords were beefy.

Out of curiosity, how is 3rd edition? That's the Oldhammer standard I think.

Yeah, its almost like that wasn't the only strategy or something!

>>Compare Army books with Army books
if we have to comoare armybooks with amrybooks we would end with shit like the seraphon repeating the same paragraph 5 times all over it and call it a day while the lizardmen would actually describe historical events that influenced the faction on top of cities, locations and peculiarities.

but the matter was you comparing the staticity of armybooks' editions to the dinamic of a moving narrative.

it doesn't mean shit because the moving narrative is either repetitive, irrelevant or just absent.
change for change's sake does not make stuff objectively better.

>Hit guys in front with Anvil
>Wheel around your Mjolnir tier hammer to obliterate the entire enemy army in a sweeping charge

That's how I remember 6th edition anyway.

deathstars shitter detected

Yawn. Wake me up when interesting armies like Skaven and Lizardmen show up in Total War.

>the lizardmen would actually describe historical events that influenced the faction on top of cities, locations and peculiarities

Yeah, and those would be written 30 years ago and copied into every book henceforth.

Gunline style armies hard countered this, which is where all the huge butthurt about Skaven comes from. Though they weren't the only army that could gunline.

>Shitter

There was literally no downside to not running a deathstar.

Even Dwarves ran the Hammerbros.

But don't you get it? it's the DEEP TACTICAL HISTORICAL FANTASY everyone loved about the Warhammer world, except Brets were always a low selling army.

>Butthurt
>About Skaven

>Anything with fear hitting it on it's flank made the entire Skaven Army run away

Top kek.

>Gunline hard countered Deathstar

TOPPEST KEK

it was less than 30 years and yes, you're paying for an updated edition of the same book, not for something entirely different.

>except Brets were always a low selling army.
>implying brets weren't popular during the time where they haven't been updated for several editions.

Seriously though, how retardedly wordy are the new names for everything?

I can't even read the new stuff