GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

[NIGHTBRINGER]

This discussion gives credence as to why it might have been retconned in the first place. It wasn't a major part of canon to begin with. I never came across the actual source material and only heard of it via the internet. That said, it could have been neat and they could have introduced a more badass champion of chaos who finishes the job that Grimgor started and takes up the mantle of the fourteenth Everchosen.

In the end, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

They're not going to try and kill off the three games and bring in an AoS Total War now, are they?

If they do another series my bet would be on 40k.

I know all! I see all!

 

[J.Logan]

I know all! I see all!

View attachment 169022

Pfft... not that impressive, considering it was leaked like two years ago. Now if you'd turned and said "If they do another series my bet would be on the Lord of the Rings" and it came true, THEN I would have been impressed.

Assuming it hadn't been leaked before hand

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Pfft... not that impressive, considering it was leaked like two years ago. Now if you'd turned and said "If they do another series my bet would be on the Lord of the Rings" and it came true, THEN I would have been impressed.

Statues are not erected in honour of critics!

 

[- Q -]

I know all! I see all!

View attachment 169022

That game is going to be huge.

 

[J.Logan]

Not me being a pessimist or a downer, but, if the cycle of development of TW:W is followed, at first it won't be. CA like their four race cycle, so we may well only be getting SPESS MAHREENS, Imperial Guard, Orks and Eldar. Other races will be DLC or for TW:40k2, or even 3, if CA turn around and say this is going to be a trilogy like Fantasy was.

However, I am very much open to and hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

A friend was instantly feeling annoyed because the only faction he would care to play is Grey Knights, and they are different enough from the usual marine mold that they aren't likely to be a SM subfaction. Meanwhile, where are my Tau?

 

[ChapterAquila92]

Yeah, I'm not convinced it's going to be the hit that many people pining for such a game think it will be.

We've seen very little gameplay thus far, and if CA are really trying to go for the "grand" in "grand strategy" that we know the Total War games to pride themselves in, I think they bit off more than they can chew short of them really limiting themselves to a specific planet or system.

 

[- Q -]

Not me being a pessimist or a downer, but, if the cycle of development of TW:W is followed, at first it won't be. CA like their four race cycle, so we may well only be getting SPESS MAHREENS, Imperial Guard, Orks and Eldar. Other races will be DLC or for TW:40k2, or even 3, if CA turn around and say this is going to be a trilogy like Fantasy was.

I'd expect the same, but I don't think that is a bad thing. All good things to those who wait... or something like that.

Yeah, I'm not convinced it's going to be the hit that many people pining for such a game think it will be.

The Warhammer Fantasy one was extremely successful, so I'd wager that moving up to Games Workshop's biggest IP will draw in a lot more players in. It will certainly be more successful that the current game. That's just my guess though.

 

[ChapterAquila92]

The Warhammer Fantasy one was extremely successful, so I'd wager that moving up to Games Workshop's biggest IP will draw in a lot more players in. It will certainly be more successful that the current game. That's just my guess though.

It's not a matter of whether the IP specifically will sell it or not that concerns me (honestly, 40k video games over the years have been pretty checkered when it comes to their quality), but rather whether or not the Total War franchise is best-suited for a 40k game in the first place.

Warhammer Total War's success was built off of two things: people longing for a return to Warhammer Fantasy after the tabletop game got shuttered and replaced with Age of Sigmar, and Warhammer Fantasy being a formation-based strategy game with an established setting that could very easily be slotted into a Total War title.

I just don't see the latter being a good fit with 40k, which honestly is more fitting of a battlegroup strategy game instead like Steel Division or WARNO.

Maybe chalk it up to someone who doesn't have all the information yet, but I'd also be highly concerned about campaign play, especially if they're trying to have it span multiple worlds, let alone multiple systems. This is something well above and beyond what CA have ever done in their Total War franchise, which is... ambitious, to say the least.

I'd also be concerned about what they're going to cut just to make it console-compatible (because yes, they're planning on making this Total War game available on console).

 

[Canas]

It's not a matter of whether the IP specifically will sell it or not that concerns me (honestly, 40k video games over the years have been pretty checkered when it comes to their quality), but rather whether or not the Total War franchise is best-suited for a 40k game in the first place.

Yeah, people keep forgetting that 40K is not the same natural fit as fantasy was for TW.

Also, the fact that it's set across multiple systems seems like an odd choice. Are we going to be conquering entire planets with 1 battle?

Honestly, it makes me hope it is not actually a TW game.

 

[J.Logan]

Yeah, people keep forgetting that 40K is not the same natural fit as fantasy was for TW.

Also, the fact that it's set across multiple systems seems like an odd choice. Are we going to be conquering entire planets with 1 battle?

Honestly, it makes me hope it is not actually a TW game.

Announcing it when Dawn of War 4 is still fresh on people's lips is... a choice.

Positive: I like the fact they look to be doing unit/chapter customisation. If I play as Space Marines, I can create the... I dunno... the "Le Enfant Terrible" chapter and paint it up how I want, arm my leader how I want.

Negative: You're right, small scale squad level combat doesn't feel a fit for Total War. I'll judge it when I see it. Again, while I'm not going in with high expectations, I WANT to be happy with the result.

The Warhammer Fantasy one was extremely successful, so I'd wager that moving up to Games Workshop's biggest IP will draw in a lot more players in. It will certainly be more successful that the current game. That's just my guess though.

Problem is, 40k player-base are a LOT harsher and will absolutely tear CA a new one if TW:40k has even half the issues TW:W had in this past year alone. In comparison, the fantasy player-base might as well be declared saints.

 

[- Q -]

but rather whether or not the Total War franchise is best-suited for a 40k game in the first place.

Yeah, people keep forgetting that 40K is not the same natural fit as fantasy was for TW.

You guys may very well be right, but that also gives them a chance to shake things up a bit. Do things a bit differently rather than dip into the same old tired formula.

I'm curious to see what they end up producing.

I'd also be concerned about what they're going to cut just to make it console-compatible (because yes, they're planning on making this Total War game available on console).

This I did not know. As a console guy, this makes me excited!

 

[Canas]

You guys may very well be right, but that also gives them a chance to shake things up a bit. Do things a bit differently rather than dip into the same old tired formula.

I'm curious to see what they end up producing.

Meh, the problem with shaking up old tired formula is that we know the old formula works. The new stuff might not
But yeah, we'll see what they make of it.

 

[ChapterAquila92]

This I did not know. As a console guy, this makes me excited!

Suffice to say I don't share your enthusiasm on that note. It might just be my experience growing up playing RTS and grand strategy games on the computer throughout the 2000s, but I've always found that strategy games on consoles tended to play as if you were underwater compared to their PC counterparts, and I don't like having to fight even a simplified UI just to play it. I dare say the last good one I played was Tom Clancy's EndWar, and that one gave you a (somewhat janky) voice command feature to make up for lost UI elements you'd otherwise have in a PC strategy game (command groups and hotkeys, especially).

 

[J.Logan]

It might just be my experience growing up playing RTS and grand strategy games on the computer throughout the 2000s, but I've always found that strategy games on consoles tended to play as if you were underwater compared to their PC counterparts

Ditto. I have no problem with console games, I own consoles even though I consider myself a PC gamer. I have no issue with playing ports on consoles*, but certain genres do not translate well, unless designed specifically for console, and even then you are still fighting to do what comes far more naturally with the PC kb&m experience.

Halo Wars for example: Designed with XBox in mind, yet it was still an RTS on console, and didn't feel nearly as graceful an RTS experience as you can get on PC.

So, yea... I am hoping for the best with TW:40k... but I do not support a Total War console adaptation unless it is a completely different game and not a port. Let the PC version play to the strengths of the PC, let the console version be its own thing that tries to play to the strengths of the console experience... whatever strengths a console has for RTS...

I swear that wasn't supposed to be a dig...

*I played the PS2 port of the original Deus Ex... that game was one that did NOT translate to console with grace. Yet I still enjoyed it as budget experience of my favourite game of all time.

 

[- Q -]

Meh, the problem with shaking up old tired formula is that we know the old formula works. The new stuff might not
But yeah, we'll see what they make of it.

I can't argue that changing the formula could mess things up, but equally it could deliver something truly great. Sometimes it's worth it to take a risk. And if it is bad, there are many, many, many Total War games available that deliver the same old thing.

Suffice to say I don't share your enthusiasm on that note. It might just be my experience growing up playing RTS and grand strategy games on the computer throughout the 2000s, but I've always found that strategy games on consoles tended to play as if you were underwater compared to their PC counterparts, and I don't like having to fight even a simplified UI just to play it.

Ditto. I have no problem with console games, I own consoles even though I consider myself a PC gamer. I have no issue with playing ports on consoles*, but certain genres do not translate well, unless designed specifically for console, and even then you are still fighting to do what comes far more naturally with the PC kb&m experience.

A fair perspective lads. From your end, as PC gamers, that makes sense. I don't have a PC, so this game just went from unplayable to a very likely purchase.

 

[J.Logan]

I can't argue that changing the formula could mess things up, but equally it could deliver something truly great. Sometimes it's worth it to take a risk. And if it is bad, there are many, many, many Total War games available that deliver the same old thing.

Fingers crossed.

 

[- Q -]

Fingers crossed.

 

[- Q -]

 

[- Q -]