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.

I'm not saying everything GW did with warhammer is bad. I'm saying what other companied do with it is usually better. And yes, they are doing their own thing, within scope of license. Like any creator, they put their own spin on things, and their spin is imo better than gw's basic spin.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Doesn't mean those units won't make it in. Some are specific to the End Times, but others were the usual filling of stuff that was backdated to having been around just not in army books. Blightkings, for example. We can even see in Khorne that Blood Warriors are in, and they were an AoS model release.

They're modelled after the Skullcrusher riders, not Chaos Mari- sorry, Blood Warriors.

Cronch wrote:
I'm not saying everything GW did with warhammer is bad. I'm saying what other companied do with it is usually better. And yes, they are doing their own thing, within scope of license. Like any creator, they put their own spin on things, and their spin is imo better than gw's basic spin.

In what way is it better? Got any examples?

Does this characterization of 3rd parties doing better than GW extend to fluff implementation in gameplay? Because when I played Total Warhammer I found Dwarfs to be unrepentant oathbreakers. That was not very immersive.

Cronch wrote:
No, that's still GW. Will King was like, the only one remotely worth reading in that pile (I should know, I had an embarrassing amount as a kid)

Point is, let CA do their own thing, so far it's more fun, inventive and coherent than anything GW produced for the setting.

Wrong. Jack Yeoville was also good.

Plenty of good and bad warhammer novels....like most mutli-author settings - and of course these will be subject to personel preferences.

Also games, esp games like Total War style, dn't really have strong stories. A huge part of it is just setting a scene and the story mostly happens in your own mind.

So if you don't quite notice that you can easily feel the story is outstanding because your mind is filling in all the little details and such and your play adds to that

 Geifer wrote:
Does this characterization of 3rd parties doing better than GW extend to fluff implementation in gameplay? Because when I played Total Warhammer I found Dwarfs to be unrepentant oathbreakers. That was not very immersive.

Like I said, better take on the setting in general. GW's take on warhammer is the least interesting and most restrictive so yeah they fail on that account for me.

Cronch wrote:
I'm not saying everything GW did with warhammer is bad. I'm saying what other companied do with it is usually better. And yes, they are doing their own thing, within scope of license. Like any creator, they put their own spin on things, and their spin is imo better than gw's basic spin.

It should be noted that the lead writer for the TWW games is Andy Hall, a previous long term GW employee who still has strong ties to the studio, GW themselves wrote all the new Cathay/Kislev lore and GW have final approval for anything done in the games. There's not really much of a CA vs GW divide when it comes to the actual lore, it's all had heavy GW involvement up to the point of GW outright writing the new lore/units. When it comes to lore this isn't really a strong 'CA spin'.

There's enough to make it feel fresher than the usual copy-paste-material from one edition codex to the next that GW did with old world back when it existed tbh.

Cronch wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Does this characterization of 3rd parties doing better than GW extend to fluff implementation in gameplay? Because when I played Total Warhammer I found Dwarfs to be unrepentant oathbreakers. That was not very immersive.

Like I said, better take on the setting in general. GW's take on warhammer is the least interesting and most restrictive so yeah they fail on that account for me.

So a better take is to ignore one of the most fundamental characteristics of the race? Curious

Cronch wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Does this characterization of 3rd parties doing better than GW extend to fluff implementation in gameplay? Because when I played Total Warhammer I found Dwarfs to be unrepentant oathbreakers. That was not very immersive.

Like I said, better take on the setting in general. GW's take on warhammer is the least interesting and most restrictive so yeah they fail on that account for me.

It's a bit hard for anyone to to discuss if you don't give any examples or elaborate on in what way you think its "better". Just saying " It's better" is quite meaningless.

Cronch wrote:
There's enough to make it feel fresher than the usual copy-paste-material from one edition codex to the next that GW did with old world back when it existed tbh.

Ahh you're comparing the battletome level lore more so than the actual written black library books?

I'd say that might well be true (I don't have generations of different battletomes to compare) since most Battletomes aren't a story they are a scene setter for the faction. So sometimes they will be mostly the same edition to edition because the scene is still the same; but sometimes there will be shifts and changes.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Does this characterization of 3rd parties doing better than GW extend to fluff implementation in gameplay? Because when I played Total Warhammer I found Dwarfs to be unrepentant oathbreakers. That was not very immersive.

Like I said, better take on the setting in general. GW's take on warhammer is the least interesting and most restrictive so yeah they fail on that account for me.

It's a bit hard for anyone to to discuss if you don't give any examples or elaborate on in what way you think its "better". Just saying " It's better" is quite meaningless.

Think of it like the weeb that thinks anything from Japan is automatically superior to anything Western. Same sort of mentality. Some are "GW can do no wrong", Cronch is "GW can do no right."

Via a solid source on Faeit 212

BREAKING!
We will see a preview for Warhammer The Old World at the beginningw of next Year, this one will be bigger than those we saw in the past and since the Game was the first Time announced in November 2019.

This preview will be a bit more precise about the Game.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2021/11/rumors-old-world-announcements-coming.html

Probably to tie it in with the launch of TWW3.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Probably to tie it in with the launch of TWW3.

Yeah a full on preview of the game a few weeks after the launch of TWW3 makes perfect marketing sense. If they could get the game out for Xmas 2022 even better, although I highly doubt they'll be able to hit that target given what's happened over the last 18 months.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Does this characterization of 3rd parties doing better than GW extend to fluff implementation in gameplay? Because when I played Total Warhammer I found Dwarfs to be unrepentant oathbreakers. That was not very immersive.

Like I said, better take on the setting in general. GW's take on warhammer is the least interesting and most restrictive so yeah they fail on that account for me.

It's a bit hard for anyone to to discuss if you don't give any examples or elaborate on in what way you think its "better". Just saying " It's better" is quite meaningless.

Think of it like the weeb that thinks anything from Japan is automatically superior to anything Western. Same sort of mentality. Some are "GW can do no wrong", Cronch is "GW can do no right."

GW doesn't seem to be able to anything right recently though.

Let me put it this way; the only thing that separates Blood Warriors from Warriors of Khorne is a fancy name. They're the same thing.

About time. I know that when they.announced it, they said it was a long term project, but there's been way too.few info on the game so far

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Let me put it this way; the only thing that separates Blood Warriors from Warriors of Khorne is a fancy name. They're the same thing.

No it's aesthetics. These and these are not the same. They have similar symbols, but their aesthetic is different. The Warriors of Khorne in TWW3 are those guys, but on foot. They're not AoS Blood Warriors.

Wow. Has it really been TWO YEARS since they announced this? And still basically no information, except that it's going to use 28mm (well, 32 probably) miniatures on square bases. I mean, I guess they did say it would probably be three years or more away.

I wouldn't say no to some solid information. After two years GW should have something to show.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wow. Has it really been TWO YEARS since they announced this? And still basically no information, except that it's going to use 28mm (well, 32 probably) miniatures on square bases. I mean, I guess they did say it would probably be three years or more away.

Honestly? Given the size of recent vampire models I'm not sure we can even call what GW does 32mm scale anymore.

That's only true if you believe those vampires are the normal size of a human in the setting. It could be the vampire line was designed by someone who made a mistake in scaling, but that's less likely since most of GW's stuff now is computer designed so if there's a scale issue its seconds to change the height of something. Thus we have to assume either GW is upscaling and started with Vampires or these vampires are bigger than normal humans.

Like you say, it might just be some weirdo designer's idea that vampirism makes you grow a head or two taller than the plebs* and everything else will be whatever could be considered normal for GW humans. It's not just vampires, though. Sister of Battle are taller than Genestealer Neophytes (a comparable, contemporary human model) and closing the gap to Primaris that have been made to represent Marines standing taller than normal humans. I found that dodgy at the time since there is no lore basis for recruiting only the tallest girls at the Schola Progenium. The champion of the new Vampire skeletons is 34mm tall to the top of his skull, in a pose that is anything but standing straight. For some reason Tomb Kings skeletons ended up noticeably different in size to Vampire Counts skeletons, for no good reason.

GW doesn't use scale in any, umm, let's call it scientifically sound way. It's hard to say if some models are simply outliers by mistake or if they are deliberately designed to be that exact size. Simply put, GW has done nothing to inspire confidence in me that they can produce to a standard in terms of size and scale. Hence the wariness.


*Is it like that in AoS? If it is, it completely escaped my notice.

To be honest scale is a minefield and its not just GW - even 3D designers in the 3D print world have exceptionally variable concepts of scale. Not even just the height of things but the proportions as well.

I like to think that you pay competent professionals to get it right instead of letting them do whatever and expect the customers to deal with the outcome. I'm old-fashioned like that.

 Geifer wrote:
I like to think that you pay competent professionals to get it right instead of letting them do whatever and expect the customers to deal with the outcome. I'm old-fashioned like that.

Pay?
COMPETENT?
PROFESSIONALS?

Sir, Games Workshop is just a multi-billion company and the monopolistic juggernaut of the tabletop gaming. I don't think they can afford that without losing 0.00001% of their profits for the current quarter. Think of the shareholders! Oh, the inhumanity!

Obviously I'm describing a general principle rather than the exact situation at GW that I wish it applied to.

That said, I don't think it's wrong to attribute a good bit of competence to the model designers. Pretty models are GW's bread and butter and they wouldn't be making such huge profits if they weren't capable of consistently making desirable, good quality models. Doesn't mean they don't also produce duds. Doesn't mean they don't also get details wrong. Competence is a sliding scale, not a binary choice.

It's been 2 years since announcement and we still don't really know what this even is. They've clearly put a lot of work into it with designing entire new factions, lore and rules supposedly similar to WHFB, if after all this it ends up being a relatively small thing that just gets some nice resin models a few times a year that'll be a bit of a disapointment. It is a forgeworld project so I'm not expecting it to get the same level of attention as AoS or 40k, but I just hope it's still a substantial return to the setting.

 Geifer wrote:
Obviously I'm describing a general principle rather than the exact situation at GW that I wish it applied to.

That said, I don't think it's wrong to attribute a good bit of competence to the model designers. Pretty models are GW's bread and butter and they wouldn't be making such huge profits if they weren't capable of consistently making desirable, good quality models. Doesn't mean they don't also produce duds. Doesn't mean they don't also get details wrong. Competence is a sliding scale, not a binary choice.

Not to some people it seems as I've seen so, so many people who act like regardless of what GW does, it's always the wrong thing.