Talk:Total War: WARHAMMER

From 1d4chan


Do you think we should kidnap some people from /v/ to write tactical guides up for some of these factions like what we did with the last stand or is that a waste of time? User:Dragonkingofthestars 10:47 , 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don´t really think people are going to come here for tactical guides for TW:W, because the subject is so close to tabletop I think it would be fine if someone did it, but it is IMO not something that is needed. Angry Pirate (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and guess that a lot of the recent edits were made by people who didn't have English as a first language because god damn do we have some eyesores on this article. Let's all just...go and edit this so it doesn't look like my great grandfather's rotten skeletal ass. Also as you can tell, I like this game, I like it a lot. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Radious Mod[edit]

Just a general question, does anyone have opinions on adding the Radious mod to the approved mods list? User:Norrick 7:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It completely breaks the game and makes everything unbalanced. Vampire counts with ranged units are OP to hell and it makes everything very dull.


Some mods are no longer being worked upon, so I referred to other mods in their stead.

Malal's back[edit]

That lovely chap who made the Chaos Divided mod has deemed it worthy to add a sub-mod to it. Mainly about that guy who doesn't(?) exist; Malal. I wasn't sure if this should be added yet to the approved mods since it looks pretty bare bones right now, but it could be worth looking out for, right?--TotalNuthead (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgot the link[1]. Sorry.--TotalNuthead (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Revamping the /tg/ mod list.[edit]

So I was wondering if it would be alright if the /tg/ approved modlist section got divided into a visual mod section and a more substantial gameplay mod section. It would help people browsing the page know which mod would break their current campaign and which one would be harmless.

I sorted the Gameplay mods and gave a little link that directs them to the steam page along with what mods if any the player needs. Tell me if it's becoming too unwieldy.

Alright, I added an overhaul section to the modlist to catalog overhaul mods and mods that change startpos.esf --Tankbuster (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, guys, we should really consider having a seperate mod page. A lot of good mods have come out recently and the section is getting cluttered. --Tankbuster (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerning TW:W 2[edit]

While it is a standalone the mechanics of the two games are effectively the same and new upgrades to gameplay in 2 will be implemented in 1. Does it make sense to have a separate page for basically a glorified expansion pack?

IMHO, no. I wholeheartedly agree on "glorified expansion pack" part. --Flutist (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps maybe if a split should occur, it should be one between a synopsis of development, /tg/ reaction, memes, and story, and a page about tactics and gameplay since each individual scenario will start to pile up. Or maybe just one giant page and collapsible sections, which tends to be how I prefer to go about long pages personally. --Thannak (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It would also be a better idea to have a unified page because you can always post mods and see if they work on the expanded map that will be released after TW:WH 2 launches, also where exactly will you put the grand campaign map when the three games launch and you have a giga mega campaign map to play around with? As it is Total Warhammer is a pretty good farewell to WHFB, the least we can do is keep that stuff in the same page. --Tankbuster (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
So does anyone actually oppose the merging of the two pages? Thinking of actually doing it soon. --Tenebrate (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Since no one cared enough to say otherwise, I went and merged the pages. Formatting on the second game factions is off, but they don't have enough text yet. --Tenebrate (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Nice. Although we might eventually have to make a new page for game mods by the time the trilogy is complete.--Tankbuster (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The second game is as big as the first and they will receive separate articles for the same reason Dawn of War did, they are different games. Far more important though, is that one page is far too small for a series of this magnitude. --Bruce Yarrick (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh great. Not only are you going against what the majority wanted, doing it without stating it first and without putting it to a new vote, you're ignorant about what you're arguing too. TW:W2's updates are going to be applied to the first game and its roster and map are going to be used there as well, making them a combined experience and turning the second game into an expansion pack more than a new game. It's a sequel in the same way that DoW:Winter Assault/Dark Crusade/Soulstorm was a sequel yet they don't get their own articles. As such I'm reverting your changes and putting a redirect on the TW:W2 page, as was originally voted on and which I support too (in terms of votes, you're out 5 to 1). -- Triacom (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Calm down newfriend. This was not a "vote", this was a small circlejerk of four, now five people, on articles edited by hundreds of people, you don't get more say than everyone else. Wiki protocol is: Different game, different article; your feelings don't override that. Your reasoning is also a false equivalency, comparing a full-priced game with just as much content as the original, to cheap, small expansions adding one or two factions. Next time, mention this on the page actually getting redirected and blanked. Yours truly, Bruce Yarrick (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, big words, big load of bullshit, especially on "hundreds of people" and wiki protocol. If you really think a game that adds four more races and a chunk of map to the existing one without changing graphics or gameplay or anything just because CA wants you to pay the full price and allow to play aforementioned chunk as a stand-alone campaign deserves it's own page, maybe you do think of Fall and Rise of Samurai to be different games from Shogun 2? --Flutist (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be living in a glass house there Yarrick. You claim that I don't get more say than anyone else, but then what makes your opinion so special that you can do exactly this? You claim this isn't a vote, just a circlejerk, but then what is a vote in your eyes if not several different people agreeing on a course of action? You claim that the articles are edited by hundreds of people, yet by looking at the history page we know for a fact this isn't the case, and I've been here for enough years to know that most articles relating to specific games have maybe a dozen active users editing them at best. You say that it has as much content as the first game, but in reality it has the same content as the first game with a new map and new factions, just like those expansions that did the same exact thing. You say that 'wiki protocol' is to make a new article for a new game, but aside from this being an expansion instead of a new game, this is arguably the second worst wiki to use that argument on (short of something like Encyclopedia Dramatica). I don't know if you noticed, but this isn't exactly wikipedia or any other wiki, instead this one's opinionated and that's part of the charm of it, which already breaks 'wiki protocol' because this wiki doesn't follow 'wiki protocol'. Despite what you think you can't just disagree with several other people and do something because you think that it's better to do this, and I have no idea where in the world this would be appropriate to do without convincing other people to go along with you first. What do you expect to happen besides it being redirected again now that I've pointed out the flaws in it? -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, calm down my newfriends, there is no reason to be this angry. A vote certainly contains more than 1% of it's editors editing it. There have been literally more than hundred people editing these two articles. If you don't believe me, check. Wiki protocol exists on every wiki, it is just adapted to local needs, for instance, multiple articles on a franchise of games and none on unrelated products. Most people don't check the talk page and most certainly wouldn't go to a different article for a vote on the fate of two, potentially three articles. Total War: Warhammer II has just as much content as the original, with the same number of factions and it's own complete campaign map, it's a false equivalency to compare something so distinct. You've pointed out your opinion and that's fine, but that's not anything tangible. Considering that none of this was ever even mentioned on the Total War: Warhammer II article, the one actually getting redirected; what do you expect me to do? Bruce Yarrick (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you assume we have Wikipedia's level of editors when we don't (saying this is only 1% of the editors is a joke at best, and a lie at worst). This vote is more than enough to tell whether or not something should be done because if you don't vote with your voice, you're going to vote with your silence and that's what anybody who didn't want this merger to happen did in the week that it was open to voting (that's more than enough time). 'Wiki protocol exists on every wiki...' No it doesn't. This isn't a set of rules that are forced to apply to every single wiki, hell if it did we'd have had different pages for every single edition of Warhammer and Warhammer 40k. Also try coming up with some new arguments, as I've already pointed out that TW:W2 doesn't have 'as much content' as the original, it has the same content with some new factions and a new campaign, just like the expansions that don't get their own articles. That is something tangible, as much as you don't like to admit it. Personally what I'd have you do is discuss why the page was directed before you immediately try to undo what other people have agreed to do, and piss them off in the process because doing so is the same as telling them that what they say means nothing to you, that you care nothing for decisions made by the majority, and that you're not going to listen anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way Yarrick, you can't try to take the high ground when you start calling somebody 'an ignorant idiot' and 'a pitiful child' just because they're doing what the community agreed on. This goes doubly when you're so ignorant about the mechanics of the game you're defending, and trying to get your way in the same way as an upset child. -- Triacom (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This is either willful ignorance or you just lying to make it seem like there haven't been over a hundred people editing, if you check the edit log, you will find over a hundred people on this article alone. I hate to break it to you Tria, but not everyone has this amount of freetime on their hands to constantly check the talk page of a specific article in the span of a week, most people just can't and most don't even know about the talk page and this is especially difficult with the new restrictive permissions in place. I've been here actual multiples longer than you and never seen someone so entitled and obnoxious, I have never had a dispute like this with ANYONE in the five years I've been here. That response was before this one, perhaps you should link the pathetic comment you made:"To be honest I just did this so the undo button wouldn't work", I've never seen anyone stoop so low for something so trivial and it is very revealing of how immature and pathetic you are, I genuinely pity you. Yes, Wiki Protocol exists even here, that's how we get complaints for "Is this article related to /tg/?" and deletion requests, there's a criteria for everything. There was no discussion of the blanking on the page itself, something you seem to keep skirting over. You can't just randomly redirect an article without even mentioning it on the article's page. You're not the majority and you never were. A vote would need to be advertised and have months at least. I don't think there's a particular problem with having a basic rundown on the original games page and a page for the sequel itself. Bruce Yarrick (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I do remember saying 'active' users, not 'one-off' users or users who're at another place with a different IP (sometimes people do have to go to work). Nobody interested in the wiki needs to consistently check the talk page, all they have to do is lurk on the recent changes page and everything that happens on the wiki will be shown to them (it's where I usually hang out, and it's how I know when you edit these pages). Also even if we did include different IP's, if you check the page for the sequel, there are definitely not a hundred people editing that page so your claim there is incorrect. You also haven't had a user account 'multiples' longer than me, you've just been here a little over a year longer, which is little considering that we're talking about four/five years now and you've done a fraction of a fraction of what I've done in that amount of time (you haven't even made 250 edits yet, instead you've been absent most of the time so your seniority means as much as other people's opinions mean to you). It's pretty rich that you're calling me entitled and obnoxious when you just want to get your way and I'm arguing in favour of what several other people have all agreed on, it's very revealing of "how immature and pathetic you are, I genuinely pity you." As for wiki protocol, that's not something that applies to all wiki's, that's protocol unique to this one so if it's what you want to discuss, you can't call it 'wiki protocol'. Now the reason I've avoided talking about why there was nothing on the other page, is because I thought it would be obvious that once it's redirected that the page, that other page's talk page will be very hard to access and that anyone who wants to talk about it will need to come here. 'You're not the majority and never were...' Then why are you the only one voicing dissent over this decision? Last I checked, if it's five vs one, the five are the majority, and asking for a vote to take months is absurd, this wiki doesn't have political parties and one week is more than enough. Finally, the problem with the sequel page is the exact same problem I already told you, it's the same game with new factions and a new campaign, and just like every other expansion, that's not enough to give it a new page where nearly all the information is going to be a repeat/rewrite of this one. -- Triacom (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This is pathetic, more than thousands of people read these articles and of the hundred plus users who have edited, you just brush it off. Because someone edited only three times or doesn't have an account, their voice doesn't matter? Why am I the only one voicing dissent? How about the fact that this was on the wrong talk page to begin with? You don't randomly blank articles with zero notice and claim there was a four person vote done on another article. If you wanted to do a "vote", it needs a lot of time and people. People in the real world don't have time to "lurk" incessantly everyday, it's not something everybody can do. Yes you can do it, but other people have different life arrangements(Hmm isn't there a certain condition to do with lack of empathy and being unable to understand other people's life circumstances?). There is no rush as this is so supposed to be a for-fun wiki that doesn't meaningfully affect you unless you let it. Again, I am not someone so entitled as you to think that I can edit whatever I want without backing it up or even lurking. It's patently clear to me you exclusively use this account, but I have made more edits off this account than on. I made this account, because of a premonition, that I would meet someone like you, who is a noob and makes his account to make his presence known, regardless of whether he edits a lot or not, ie. tripfag; when this goes against the whole idea of an anonymous base of people. This isn't a matter of political parties, this is a matter of common sense, that 1% should not speak for the majority, that not everyone knows, let alone checks the talk page. Bruce Yarrick (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, there's so much wrong here that I'm going to have to completely deconstruct it. Well then, let's get to it:
This is pathetic, more than thousands of people read these articles and of the hundred plus users who have edited, you just brush it off.
First of all I'd like to see your sources for such claims, because it sounds to me like you're greatly exaggerating. Before the first redirect, 50 edits were made to the Total War: Warhammer II page. That is it, exactly 50. If you can somehow get a 'hundred plus users' out of that I'd certainly like to hear how, especially since I'm counting 11 unique users/IP addresses (before the redirect) with no way to prove that the anons aren't the same people as ones who have usernames, or aren't the same anons from different locations. If we assume they're all separate people then that means of the 16 people interested in the page at the time of the vote (including me) 5 of them are for merging the pages, and 11 chose not to vote. That is not 1% of the users as you claim, that's 31.25%, which is more than enough to let the vote go through when there's no opposition.
Because someone edited only three times or doesn't have an account, their voice doesn't matter?
I never said this, what I was getting at is that somebody who edits the page once only or hasn't touched it in a very long time likely doesn't care anymore. I chose not to mention them because the active users are the ones that keep the page (and this wiki as a whole) alive and in the recent changes page, not the one-off users.
Why am I the only one voicing dissent? How about the fact that this was on the wrong talk page to begin with?
There are a few things wrong with this. First of all the second page debatably shouldn't have been made before the game was even out, therefore this was one of the correct places to discuss it. It's also relating to the series as a whole, which makes this one of the correct places to discuss it, especially since both arguments would be very hard to access when the other page becomes a proper redirect and speaking of that, once the redirect was implemented properly this became the proper page to go to since it contained the information for that game. At no point was it improper to bring it up on here, and in fact I'd argue it was far more improper to make the new page to begin with since I've already pointed out to you multiple times that it was not needed and should not have been made.
You don't randomly blank articles with zero notice and claim there was a four person vote done on another article.
There was a week of voting done before it was redirected and the information was merely moved to this article. There is no claim involved here, since that implies what you're saying didn't actually happen and the blank wasn't random. It was discussed, decided upon, then implemented, as it should have been.
If you wanted to do a "vote", it needs a lot of time and people.
One week is more than enough, and having more than 1/3rd of the interested users vote is also more than enough. Furthermore if we're looking at this as if it was a real-life vote to do something, then you either vote with your voice, or you vote with your silence, which means that vote passed unanimously. Honestly I'd say having a single user put up this vote would have been enough if nobody responded in a week since there'd still have been more than enough warning, as well as enough time for anybody to say otherwise.
People in the real world don't have time to "lurk" incessantly everyday, it's not something everybody can do. Yes you can do it, but other people have different life arrangements(Hmm isn't there a certain condition to do with lack of empathy and being unable to understand other people's life circumstances?).
How true, everybody does have other life arrangements, however I'm going to say that at some point in the week they could've said 'No'. Seven days is more than enough time for them to have done that, and choosing not to wait on other people who you do not know if they're going to vote or not isn't being a sociopath. It is pretty rich that you chose to say that however, since you've demonstrated a remarkable lack of empathy for others, as well as being unable to understand other people's life circumstances. At no point have you shown yourself to be capable of understanding the vote, or even the points that you're arguing against, instead you make up false statistics (turning 11 into 100+) and ignoring everything what other people tell you (even after I point out that TW:W2 is going to be the same game with new factions you still try to use the same points I just debunked).
There is no rush as this is so supposed to be a for-fun wiki that doesn't meaningfully affect you unless you let it.
I'm glad you said this because you've made it clear you need a break. Despite telling others to calm down (even telling me to calm down when I was calm) you've been progressively losing your mind over the course of this discussion and showing that this is affecting you in a meaningful way. Come back on Friday, I'm not going to redirect the TW:W2 page until this is settled so unless somebody else does it the page should still be there.
Again, I am not someone so entitled as you to think that I can edit whatever I want without backing it up or even lurking.
Did you read this before you posted it? This is exactly what you've been doing. You put the page back up because it's what you wanted to do, even when it wasn't what the majority wanted and you did so seemingly because you felt entitled to do it.
It's patently clear to me you exclusively use this account, but I have made more edits off this account than on. I made this account, because of a premonition, that I would meet someone like you, who is a noob and makes his account to make his presence known, regardless of whether he edits a lot or not, ie. tripfag; when this goes against the whole idea of an anonymous base of people.
The reason I made this account was because I started making frequent edits and didn't like the idea of my IP address being attached to each and every single one. This single account also makes it quite easy to watch the page I'm interested in since it highlights them in the recent changes page, and it makes it easier for me to do my solo-projects, as well as making it easier for other people to talk to me about something since I don't have to worry about them being confused over saying that I'm multiple accounts (and then have them wonder which username to address, or which talk page to visit if they want to talk to me directly). At a cursory glance one person with multiple accounts can easily appear to be separate people which some people could use to try and make it look like others are backing their opinions up (we had an issue with this a while back with one particular user who upon being warned by an admin, made a new account to try and make the same edits while appearing to be somebody else). This avoids that and is ultimately more convenient for me, but I'm glad your premonition told you the real reasons I made this account, reasons that were so devious even I didn't know about them!
This isn't a matter of political parties, this is a matter of common sense, that 1% should not speak for the majority, that not everyone knows, let alone checks the talk page.
Well when you find the missing 79+ users who edited the page (as well as the 479+ you seem to think there are since you keep calling us the 1%) please let me know. In the meantime I'll just point out that of the 11 editing the page, at least two know about the talk pages, and many of the others remaining have contributed to pages that have had other edits mentioning the talk page. If they don't know about this, then that's their own fault as they should have read the help page on this wiki before contributing, or they should have posted a message somewhere.
Now that I've gone through all that, I'll finish by repeating my point that if you don't vote with your voice, you vote with your silence. They were given more than enough time to vote, at any point after the merger they could have gone to the talk page and/or held a second vote stating that they didn't like the decision (something you could've always done instead of deciding your opinion mattered more than everyone else's votes) yet they didn't. When you next post, please don't post stuff you made up such as the 'hundred plus' editors, and don't try bringing up that people don't know about talk pages. If they don't want to read the help page for the wiki then their ignorance is not an excuse, and nothing is stopping them from doing what I mention here when they finally do learn that the pages exist. -- Triacom (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all I'd like to see your sources for such claims, because it sounds to me like you're greatly exaggerating. Before the first redirect, 50 edits were made to the Total War: Warhammer II page. That is it, exactly 50.
There have been 150 authors here and 19 on the other page, if you took the time to proofread you'll find that's "articles" plural.
5 of them are for merging the pages, and 11 chose not to vote. That is not 1% of the users as you claim, that's 31.25%, which is more than enough to let the vote go through when there's no opposition.
Actually, that'd be 5/169 or 0.02% of distinct authors. And you're not one of the users as you and your "voters" never even made ONE(1) edit unless it was to blank it.
I never said this
You were clearly stating it before and again in that post, maybe you should look at what you're writing.
There are
Not mentioning any of this there was wrong, as it came as a complete surprise. If you want to blank or redirect an article, you always go the talk page of that article. Doesn't matter what you think should've been in the first place, it's flat out dumb to not mention this on the page of the article getting removed.
I'm glad
Yeah, I noticed you gave up blanking the page after someone else started editing the page.
How true
You claim to understand what I wrote, but it's clear you didn't. Your perspective is that of someone who has always had the time to be here everyday. I am going to state this one more time, not everyone has the time to check an article everyday in the span of a week, not everyone even knows of the talk page, not everyone checks the talk page.
One week is more than enough
As I have stated, it is clearly not and having 0.02% of editors vote, is just pathetic.
There was a week of voting
On another article. A "claim" does not mean or even imply that the claim is incorrect.
Did you
Again, you are not the majority and you never were, 0.02% of authors voting is not a "majority".
I don't need to find them. The burden of proof and trying to find people to vote, is entirely on the people that wanted a vote. Currently you are 0.02%, so it is clear why the change was made so hastily.
Yeah, of course I'm not going to let the opinions of 0.02% of the editors just functionally delete an article without notice. You seem to keep parroting this and I'm not sure if you're ignorant or just lying. Total number of distinct authors: 150 and Total number of distinct authors: 19. Bruce Yarrick (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Wait, why are you looking at the users for any page other than the one we've been discussing? There's no point to this at all so try to keep it relevant to the actual authors on that article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though because even when you use this kind of logic to pad your stats you still get it wrong as 5 out of 169 is 2.95%, not 0.02%. For your second point, I double check stuff like that before I reply, maybe you should too because that way you wouldn't be padding your stats out with unrelated users and/or getting percentages wrong. For your third point, making the page in the first place was wrong, which makes this the correct place to put forward the question. Also this doesn't change the fact that the page is not only unnecessary, but the vote still stands to remove it and you've done nothing to prove why it should be kept. You do not always go to the talk page of that other article, if something was taken from something else then you should go to that article first, which has happened on other parts of the wiki, such as the Primaris page when people decided that a small blurb was enough to make half a dozen other pages (going to each of them individually instead of just asking why it they were added from the main page would've been stupid). However I'll add a small warning to the talk page on the other page to let people know why it was removed. Next point, I gave up on editing it because I want to finish this discussion first rather than contribute to an editwar. Next point, try reading what I wrote before replying, it might help you to understand when I say that all you need to do is check the recent changes page. I don't have time everyday to be on here, however that page and the watchlist page help catch me up on what I've missed and understand what's been going on in the meantime. I also addressed your false point about not everyone knowing of the talk pages, and I will not do so again. One week is more than enough, I stand by that point because everybody who wanted to object had enough time to say one word to the contrary, if they don't vote with their voice they vote with their silence, and saying that people 'claim' there was a vote does imply that it's incorrect as you're implying that it isn't a fact. Next point, if you claim to have something like 100+ authors, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. If we put it to a vote then it's entirely those people's faults if they don't show up. Final point, the article was moved, not deleted and I still don't know why you insist on adding together authors from different pages, or counting those after the redirect as they are not the ones we've been talking about. Seeing however as you're now just making statistics up I will have to ask moderation from AssistantWikifag, because you have yet to show why the games should be on two separate pages and are not listening to anyone but yourself. -- Triacom (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • How about this for a solution to debate on how to work these pages. A page for TTW as a whole with different categories for TWW1 and TWW2, the memes at the bottom, then a separate page which is our guide and tactics on the campaigns. Since the TWW2 races are going to be added into the base game and because there's already scenarios unique to specific armies, there isn't any need to split that page up. --Thannak (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with that, since my problem is that TW:W2 doesn't do enough to warrant a new page and everybody in here agreed before Bruce butted in. -- Triacom (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious about something Thannak, you were saying that we should have a separate tactics page, but you're putting the tactics up on this page anyway? Did you change your mind or are these going to be moved later? -- Triacom (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, what the flying fuck happened here? Also the memes need some updating --Tankbuster (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
What happened is Bruce decided they didn't like the vote and decided to just undo everything with no prior notice. -- Triacom (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

- I am not a regular contributor, and merely a sporadic reader of this wiki, and it seems I go against the grain here in disliking the official warhammer TW game. However, regardless of my attitude, it is clear that the "3 games" are in fact one game, with 2 expansions. The analogy with Shogun/rise/fall is very appropriate, and thus as not only the gameplay is all the same, as is the game engine etc, but in fact the 3 games are 'supposed ' to be merged or played as one eventually, it is clear there should be simply one page. Off topic, I would venture to say that this is merely one game, split into 'three games', and sold - with dlc - for £300. It was annoinced far in advance that the would be making a trilogy. I would furthermore venture to speculate that this is a business tactic of CA and/or Sega for milking a besotted fanbase. It is like DLc, but ramped up to 11. Have a nice day everyone.

What's new in TW:W2?[edit] seems I've caught you guys at an inopportune time but I have a legitimate question. I've seen many opinions on the nature of Warhammer II, and I'd like a conclusive answer. What makes Warhammer II (base game) different from Warhammer I (base game)? Both games have four races base, all with mechanics, quests, blah, blah, blah and all that jazz as well as being on a completely different continent. Yes, most expansions had two 'factions', but most were for factions that already existed and simply fleshed them out. I'd like to here your opinions on why this is, and to quote; "a glorified expansion pack". (And before some gets triggered and wastes their time on a fifty minute response by thinking this is a troll, I'm not. I legit want to hear what you guys/gals think. (I also didn't start a new section because I just need a response or two to get a feel for what the other side thinks.)) In anticipation for your responses, thanks. ++Sebrultar++

If you'd like to know what makes the base game itself different, the answer is it has a new map and new races. If you want to know what's new beyond that, nothing. Nothing at all is going to be new because all of the other changes that they're applying to this game are also going to be applied to the first one as well, making this the same game on a base level. This is also the reason why the games are going to have a feature that allows you to combine the two of them, letting you play any of their races on any of their maps in a much larger world and effectively beefing up the original with the new stuff. On another subject, don't feel bad about starting a new subject, if it's not necessary we can just remove the one line of code that makes it a new subject with less effort than it takes to make it, and if you want to sign your signature like everybody else does, just hit the tilde key four times where you want your signature to be (I do it after the two dashes because that helps differentiate it from the rest of my paragraph). -- Triacom (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

NOTHING IS DIFFERENT, IT IS MERELY ONE GAME SPLIT INTO THREE PARTS SO THEY CAN SELL DLC FOR FOR THE DLC (i.e. sell dlc for the two expansions). 1 GAME, SPLIT INTO 3, then SOLD FOR 300 FUCKING QUID. Tho I suppose u could kind of say this was done with dawn of war, but at least DoW had some years between them all. I felt the need to write in caps because of the RAGE and because YO DAWG I HEARD U DIDN'T LIKE DLC, SO I MADE DLC FOR YOUR DLC SO YOU COULD GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEYS. [FOR A SHIT GAME]

Easy Models?[edit]

Would it be possible to get the 3D game models and would any additional modifications be necessary to 3D print them? User:KittenHugz 10:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know how model to print would work, but it wouldn't be hard to rip the models from the game. I don't think anyone has yet however, otherwise we'd be seeing a LOT more memes and porn via Source Filmmaker. --Thannak (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding game related fluff/tips to the character pages themselves.[edit]

So i was browsing the 1d4chan entries on the different characters in warhammer fantasy. Characters like Ungrim, Thorgrim, and Skarsnik are basically stubs with an image or two attached. I was wondering if we could put game related trivia and minor memes about the video game counterparts into the character pages themselves, thus giving them more of a Character(heh) and rounding out the pages somewhat. Karl Franz seems to be a pretty good example of that so far. --Tankbuster (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Race vs. faction[edit]

In game ¨race¨ denotes individual ¨cultures¨ in a sense: Empire, Bretonnia, Wood Elves and such while ¨faction¨ denotes individual ¨nations¨ like Averland, Hochland etc. The players however use the word faction for both. I wondered if I should apply terminology correctly or just let it be as it is?--Crossil (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say to leave it as is. Race doesn't adequately separate things like Empire from Bretonnia (or the three elf groups from each other) and faction is a lot better in that respect. -- Triacom (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The Total Warhammer wiki sometimes uses the term subfaction for things like Lothern, Cult of Pleasure. Especially when said subfaction is playable. I think we should use that terminology. --Emerald Claw (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we put up a Tactica somewhere on the site?[edit]

The game is immensely popular and quite pertinent to this site's goals and there's pretty extensive analysis on the value of various units, lords, and strategies and tactics for both the campaigns and the battles. It might be worth doing in a somewhat similar format to the normal Warhammer tacticas the site already has. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Imho, no. This wiki is about tabletop games first and foremost, video games are simply "tolerated". --Flutist (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I also agree that we don't need one, though we really do need some sort of overhaul in separating the mechanics from just a main view of the page as it's a bit of a crowded mess right now. I remember people talking about doing that earlier and it seems it just never happened. -- Triacom (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is Boris?[edit]

After CA released the "What is Mortal Empires" Video ([2])and Boris Todbringer had been seen when they talked about the playable LLs, the TW WH Forum went a bit nuts. And after Whelan tried to calm down the Forum, users started to create pictures with the likes of "Where is Boris Todbringer?" [3] [4]. How about mentioning this in the Article?--2003:62:4600:E500:F175:57A5:E2DD:69DC 21:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


So I tidied up the gameplay section a bit.

I was wondering if it would be alright to have a more detailed campaign section where we can discuss about the campaign maps themselves and some campaign specific strategies. Currently the two games have a grand total of 5 campaigns between them and I was thinking why no one wanted to discuss the map themselves, since there is a lot of effort put into the different doodads on the map. --Tankbuster (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The idea of tactics has been brought up many times, if you scroll up you'll see it being shot down a few times. Personally I'm not against it, but if you want to do it I think it should be an entirely separate page.

Should we add a section on original stuff created by CA/changes made by them?[edit]

Hey guys, I was wondering if we should add a section like this for awhile now, but I was somewhat concerned about bloating an already lengthy page. Gist of the matter is that CA has made a number of interesting changes, such as the designs of the Kroxigor, or more recently their design for the Hierotitan. So I thought it would be interesting to have a part dedicated to those changes since it seems logical to mark down the differences from the original tabletop. Somewhat already covered by the "Creative Control" segment I added a while back, but it might be worth its own section now. --Hollownerox (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The mod section desperately needs it's own page. There are plenty of modding tips that I can write down that will bloat the page massively. --Tankbuster (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A Blob of a Page[edit]

From my point of view, after so long, the entire page is too bloated. It was a mistake to eliminate the Warhammer II page. At least it should be divided in the same way as the Dawn of War series having their own pages. - Ben (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should make some sections collapsible. The first and the second part do not differ all that much to be split in different entities.--Flutist (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be less of a blob if the mod section was a different page. Currently there is no way to actually add screenshots or have a mod help page at all while the main page is undoubtedly bloated. It would be real nice if someone made a mod specific page for the game. We are barely halfway through the trilogy and the page is way too big. --Tankbuster (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I concur with the idea of putting mods into their own page. I think Warhammer I and II should still share the same page due to its nature as a trilogy, however it is really the additional details that is bloating the page. The collapsible idea could work, but I think we might be better off just trimming the page of superfluous details. I noticed there was a bit of repetitive information being added onto the page, and I've been trying to clean that up when I can. --Hollownerox (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
In my mind the problem is that the article is too technical rather then giving a summary with some lulzy bits in it. This is probably due to the way that DLC are released every other month thus adding another couple paragraphs for each one. For instance the FLC section is almost irrelevant due to FLC being automatically updated. Then there's the gameplay section which should probably be a review rather then a guide.--Crossil (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I can see what you mean with the gameplay section, but I disagree on the note of the FLC. While they were initially automatically updated like with the Blood Knights in game I, eventually each FLC was given their own Steam page where you had to manually download them. Part of the reason why we added the FLC section to begin with was because a number of people weren't aware they even existed. The FLC/DLC section is taking up a significant amount of space, however since this series is so reliant on additional content its a bit difficult to trim it out. --Hollownerox (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and created a new mod page. Hopefully this helps with the bloat issues. --Tankbuster (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Grammar and "lulz"[edit]

I'm not sure if it's one person or many but a clear lack of understanding of the English language is once again plaguing this page. I understand that everyone is entitled to their edits but we need to be vigilant in helping out and fixing these. I also went through and removed a lot of cringe-worthy "jokes" in parentheticals peppering the early sections of the article. They weren't funny, they were clearly written by someone who knew English as their fourth language, one was straight up homophobic, and most importantly they contributed nothing to the page except groans and annoyance. I've gotten up through some of the Lore of Magic stuff but fuck this page is big. If anyone wants to help, please feel free. CrazyThang (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • gasp* Homophobic jokes? On MY 1d4chan?--Flutist (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It's more likely than you think! It just seemed oddly out of taste with our normal brand of truly excellent humor. CrazyThang (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed on the Grammar note, and I'll be trying to clean that up as much as I can, though I'm sure I'll overlook some things so I would appreciate more sets of eyes combing through. Some parts are honestly kind of hard to read due to all the run-on sentences and oddly organized thoughts. Also, and this was inevitable due to multiple people editing, the page could be made more consistent. Seems like people can't decide whether or not the names of units should be capitalized or not, so I decided to capitalize them all for the sake of consistency (and convenience). --Hollownerox (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the page bloat[edit]

So it's fairly obvious at this point that this page is getting a bit too big, especially considering that it will only get worse as more content is added. While giving the mod section its own page has helped, I think the core problem still remains. That being people posting more information than what is really necessary. This page is meant to give an overview of the game, not give in-depth analysis of the actual gameplay.

This is most evident in the factions section, where huge blocks are being dedicated detailing out how effective units are. The High Elves one in particular is a great example of unnecessary bloating. I think for the factions the way the Lizardmen, Skaven, and Tomb Kings have been written is ideal. They summarize the core mechanics of the factions, mention some of the unique differences between the subfactions/Lords, and only some details on how to play them. I'll be starting the process of trimming these sections down over the next couple of days (starting with the Game I races), but if any of you want to do so on a race you're most familiar with feel free to do so.

I've done up to the Vampire Counts so far, and will move onto the Warriors of Chaos and everything past that soon --Hollownerox (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the edge and about to trim this page to its bare minimum. Why is there a gameplay section that babysits you through the entire game? Just let me get my chainsword and I'll do it. --Crossil (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Salamanders were OP[edit]

Ancient Salamanders were OP as shit when they first came out and describing them as mobile Hellcannons would be to undersell it. Not only were they incredibly effective against the kind of micro units the page talks about, but they were also incredibly powerful against rank-and-file units, nuking everything they hit, by which I mean they outright killed the people in the units, whereas most long-ranged attacks will chip away at HP and you don't need to worry so much about people dying until their HP was much lower. The only things they weren't great at killing were flyers and war machines because of the chance they'd miss the machine or could be juked easier.

Also I really don't think that the skirmisher+skirmisher cav builds are all that impressive since most armies have ways of countering them should opponents suspect they're up against them. They're strong, I'm not arguing that, but they're not the end-all-be-all that the anon writing about it seems to think they are. This is especially evident with any faction that can use Net of Amyntok (or similar ability) or that has long-ranged shooting, or summoning, or their own micro-cav, or shielded units with a high block chance (in other words, every faction in the game). It really comes across as a case where people are trying to make it into a Dawn of War Eldar OP scenario when they're really not, and it ignores how CA routinely release outright broken units and then nerf them later, with the most evident case being in the Vampire Coast. Yes that had it's duds, but the broken shit was really broken. -- Triacom (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Giving each Race their own tactics page?[edit]

I've been debating about doing this for awhile now, but I'd like to hear all the other editor's thoughts on it. The page bloat is an obvious issue that we've been taking steps to fix. But a trend I've been noticing is that people seem to want to discuss the faction meta on the main page. I've personally been reluctant to keep those mentions on the page, since they can very quickly get changed in a patch, and people aren't quite that quick to update the page to reflect those changes. But it is clear that there is a desire to have some mention of unit effectiveness in the game.

So how about creating a dedicated tactics page for each of the Races in Total War: Warhammer and have those maintained by whomever wants to do so? I have mixed feelings about doing so, since it is piling more /v/ related articles on top of this one. But since we created dedicated pages for each Last Stand character for Dawn of War II, I don't see too much of an issue doing so with Total War: Warhammer.

Hell, we could probably even just copy and paste the format we had for the Tabletop game's Tactics page, just change the subsection headers like "Rare" to match Total War's gameplay style. Then we can use those pages henceforth for tactics, and keeping up with the current meta.

So thoughts on this? I'm not exactly an MP person so I can't help much with doing the actual breakdowns, but I can at least create each page and have a basic format made.

I'm not so sure that a full tactics page for each race would be needed compared to a general guide and player primer, since most units fall under a general roll and battlefields are a lot more fluid than on the tabletop. For example: 'anti-large', 'anti-infantry', 'armour piercing', 'air-force', etc but I'm not sure how that would be divided up between the factions, or if it should be divided up. A lot of advice you give for one faction's going to bleed over for the other factions too, and some of the advice will be entirely invalidated based on what your opponent brings and that's the main reason why I think a player primer might be the better way to go. Also one quick thing about Last Stand, it's possible to have builds and suggestions for that game that always work, since you're playing against a CPU and generally know what's going to be coming at you. In TW:WH you don't know what's coming at you until you're up against it which makes giving advice a lot harder since you might've made what seemed like reasonable unit picks, only for them to turn out to be useless because of what the enemy brought. -- Triacom (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Made a general tactics page[edit]

I decided to avoid bloating the page even further to create a general tactics page to get further into the meat of how the game works. I couldn't do much because my hands started to cramp, so hopefully we can expand it more later. This could function as a player primer to go more in depth with how units and armies work.

Lord Packs for game 1 DLC races?[edit]

I wanted to know what people thought of this, because there's a decent chance Beastmen and/or Wood Elves will be featured in the next DLC. Are people ok with it as long as they handle it like they did Wulfhart and Grom, or would we rather the DLC factions be left alone?

Why would people not be okay with it? Aside from Norsca, they need help. -- Triacom (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Grom and Wulfhart were both handled great. Both factions desperately need a tune up, and both have some characters that could make for good lords.

Dude, Wood Elves in particular desperately need an update; their Amber mechanics are a pretty massive chore to deal with early game.

This article is NOT awesome. It is a fucking mess.[edit]

Spelling and sentence structures are a fucking mess in pretty much every paragraph and section. The Awesome flag at the top needs to be replaced with a "This article is a mess" one.

So you found some typos and grammar problems and instead of just fixing them yourself you yell at others to do it? Way to pull your weight buddy
Look at that, I just fixed it with a good spellchecker. Incidentally, proofread your goddamnn work people. It's "cavalry", not "calvary". GET IT STRAIGHT! --Panthera Awesome (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)