Talk:Warhammer Adventures

From 1d4chan

Is it all bad?[edit]

I really don't think this is such a bad thing. This is for kids so obviously they don't really care about lore rape or things we'd have issues with. Plus, this isn't going to have any impact on 40k as a whole. But I'm saving the rest of my verdict until I read it. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

>This is for kids

That's the issue. Warhammer isn't for kiddies. Trying to appeal to kids is what caused Age of Sigmar to happen. --2001:8003:3895:3A00:E55B:6F53:6A8B:A837 04:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No, GW deciding that Fantasy's sales were too low to justify keeping it around is what caused AoS to happen. This is just a basic cash grab, nothing more and nothing less. --Newerfag (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Surely this is better than continuing to trim the edges off of the lore as a whole, and more frankly, who are they kidding with 'intelligent 18 year old'? I've been into 40k lore since 7 (Giant robots - titans - are brill, and we liked to design our own titans). Granted we were freaks who signed Sharpe books out of the school library and prompted a system of age-restrictions, but my point stands. Hobbies like 40k rely on a steady influx of youths to impression. As do we, if we want the IP to hang around. --Anonfag

I feel like this is those gag Judge Dredd ads about kids ratting out their parents to the Judges in exchange for hoverboards, but without the punchline. Or a Starship Troopers animated series based on the recruitment videos rather than the rest of the movie. Like someone saw the Robocop fake commercials and decided to make it real without any irony. Like the Godzilla cartoon with Godzooky where you have to wonder what someone was smoking to go so jarringly in a different direction with a franchise tie-in. --Thannak (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Social media shitstorm[edit]

Some Twitter shit that might be relevant to the reception section:

  • "Novice narrative designer" with a Twitter feed that seems designed to give the "we have to get SJWs out of /tg/ before they scare away the non-SJW players and ruin everything we love" argument ammo says that Adventures could be good, but only if the characters fight for trite mainstream ethics in the grimdark grimdarkness of the grimdark grimdark and #ResistTheImperium (retweeted by Cavan Scott): https://twitter.com/BenSandfelder/status/999130910854434818

Obligatory personal take: Combing through Cavan's Twitter feed for this list has lifted my opinion of the SJW-invasion scares from "unsubstantiated chicken-little knee-jerking" to "unlikely, but a legitimate concern." On the other hand, he seems to be insinuating as hard as he can without violating his NDA that his half of the series is going to ramp up the grimdark with each book that comes out, which is a sound strategy and gives me some hope that the books themselves might be decent 40k stories in their own right. OriginalPrankster (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I 100% agree with the last part.

Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's not kid ourselves, these people know where their paychecks are coming from and that if they bad-mouth their bosses they're going to be out of work. What did you expect, genuine acknowledgement of criticism? --Newerfag (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit disputes[edit]

  • Hello. This is the first time I've edited a wiki in my life. Someone with the IP 2600:1700:19c0:2760:455c:9e87:9871:56ea keeps undoing and making my edits go away.
I read in the rules that if such dispute were to happen, it'd be imperative to settle the dispute on the discussion part.
As a very anti-canonical and out of place story, so far, I made some comical edits to try to alleviate my frustration with the HORRIBLE idea from GW.
Somehow, someone claims some people from a certain "pol" - whatever that is - are unnecessarily angry at it for some reason and that's pretty irrelevant, since those people - whoever they are - have no power in the decision making of what Warhammer 40k becomes or not.
Nevertheless, I respected the edit and made fun of it by using a HTML strikethrough and added another two paragraphs.
In my view, I'm not doing anything wrong or breaking the rules of the website. So what happens about it?
Please, let me know so we can resolve this dispute. - REDACTED
  • ...So you decided to 'vent' your frustration over a children's book series by being aggressively unfunny and complain when someone reverted your edits accordingly, all the while pretending you somehow have absolutely no idea what's going on or whose opinions you were brainlessly echoing in said vent.
You have to be either impressively sheltered/naive or over-committed to an obvious pretense of such, but either way it's not gonna fly, I'm sure of that much. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:455C:9E87:9871:56EA 04:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Then why do you care so much about it? It is a legitimate question, after all it's just a children's book. - REDACTED
  • I could ask you the same, beyond the fact that your "Let's repeat what actual idiots think but claim irony" shtick isn't gonna win any favors. It's as played out as any form of humor can get. --45.18.185.176 04:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I will be honest with you, since you were incapable of it: this book is a stain in the reputation of Warhammer 40k.
I do not want this franchise to become a SJW Marvel comics in the future, there are other IPs out there with diversity that will satisfy people with such tastes.
If people like me do not step in and start to stop this assault on our hobby, then it will be just the start. It's how they took over websites like Reddit and the such.
Any feeble attempts to try to convince us otherwise are known to be lies, the internet already knows the modus operandi of progressive infiltrators and we can see their effects in action. Those were extensively reported by people like The Quartering, Arch Warhammer, etc.
If you regard this as "foolish and immature caring for a game", then you do not understand how they operate or have any real love, care or fun with the tabletop/franchise in itself.
You have no place over here, as you displayed a much bigger concern for editing a page rather than assessing the implications this book have on the intellectual property of Games Workshop. - REDACTED
  • That's a long way of saying "I'm a pseudo-intellectual dweeb who thinks my edits on a /tg/ wiki will make a difference in this imaginary culture war I'm fighting." Not only were you predictable as shit, you completely missed the part where I reverted only YOUR edits - almost as if I agreed with the general notion of this being an incredibly dumb move that clashed with the settings for completely different reasons.
Like you could've just admitted you're a reactionary sperg who watched Diversity and Comics too much from the start and spared us the embarrassing mental gymnastics. This "defender of the sanctity of Warhammer" shit isn't gonna win you any medals, unless they hand them out for being the logical conclusion of defining yourself by your fandom. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:455C:9E87:9871:56EA 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The cultural war is so imaginary and fake there's a random person from internet doing exactly what I have been accusing you of.
You don't fool anyone, we already know your ilk. - REDACTED
  • You're so anti-SJW you think you can stop me reverting your nonsense with the threat of reporting me for hate speech. In the UK. Where I don't even live.
This is actually pathetic now, but that's to be expected when you can't differentiate between people who disagree with you and actual SJWs. If this threat of infiltration existed for real, we'd already be fucked if this is the standard people set for resistance. --45.18.185.176 05:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Then explain it to me: why is it so important for you for satire and comic material to be purged out of a wiki page? This is what SJWs do, they police thought everything and everyone they don't like.
Explain it to me why this isn't SJW behavior without doing petty insults all the time. Come on, I'm waiting. Take your time. - REDACTED
  • I understand this is futile given the type of person I'm dealing with, but for the sake of the record, I'll highlight that you left out the part where:
1) Echoing the uneducated opinions of a board whose user base cannot see or conceive of anything that does not fit into their worldview - where everything is somehow conspiring to destroy them and other members of their "supreme race" - does not in any way qualify as satire or comedy.
2) You yourself blew up that excuse just a few paragraphs above. Besides, it has to actually be funny to count.
3) There is no purge - notice that, while undoing your edits, I left the entire rest of the page untouched. The problem isn't the page's humor. It's you.
4) You accuse me of being a thought policing SJW with nothing to go on but the fact that I'm reverting your edits, believing that nobody else but an SJW could disagree with your opinion (with no self awareness whatsoever).
5) You're assuming I take this as some kind of moral duty (which, by the way, you've made a lot of assumptions) when it's really just me clicking a few buttons and sparing other users the trouble of inevitably doing the same - you'd notice I'm not some lone wolf SJW out to stop your "righteous crusade" if you actually bothered to look into the edit history.
6) You've been so inconsistent with your responses, and it's pretty obvious you're reaching for any high ground you can get to stop me reverting ("reported for h8 speech!!1!1") that I'm almost convinced you're baiting (in which case gj fooling random strangers on the internet I guess?).
I could go on, but I think that'll do. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:88E:57E3:3EF3:457D 06:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Echoing the uneducated opinions..." SJW behavior and language
"..it has to actually be funny to count." Policing humour, more SJW behavior
"There is no purge..." Belittling others' opinions whom aren't on your side, more SJW behavior
"...with no self awareness whatsoever." Treating one's behavior as bad while doing the very same, SJW behavior
"..if you actually bothered to look into the edit history." Trying to minimize and alienate the portion of the audience and opinion you dislike, more SJW behavior
"You've been so inconsistent with your responses..." Projection, more SJW behavior.
No one on the internet, aside from really rabid leftists - or SJWs - use the term educated or uneducated. This is a name-calling tactic that really made your mask fall really quick.
If you do not understand that you are a SJW then you either have no self-awareness or you are simply denying your true nature or trying to probe on my foolishness. In either case, this is pointless.
I will keep undoing your changes until an administrator comes in to settle this.
Only a demented leftist/SJW would be able to have such stamina and determination to ruin a whole white-male dominated sub-culture.
You chase us away from society down to our basements and now we can't even have that anymore. This has gone too far and we are losing our patience. - REDACTED
  • "We"? If I needed to speak out against anything, I would do so myself. In any event, I have reviewed the edits in question and have found nothing that would suggest any political agenda for removing them. --Newerfag (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
>no one but SJWs use the word "educated"
>reverting your edits is somehow determination to ruin a "white male dominated" subculture
>everything I saw is somehow proof I'm an SJW
>only an SJW uses the word educated
Jesus, they programmed this one good. This is the most rote and base-level ideologue I've dealt with since those shitty JBP groups. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:D1F1:3061:DB1D:1B33 18:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And that's that. Now to wait for the inevitable sockpuppeting and claims that 1d4chan is fully coopted by the SJW agenda or some such other boogeyman-dependent horseshit. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:D1F1:3061:DB1D:1B33 21:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I can hardly fucking read this damned argument, this is a fucking mess. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If it makes you feel better, AssistantWikifag has been informed. I trust him to deal with the situation appropriately. --Newerfag (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Structure has been imposed. Angry Pirate (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Blood Bowl[edit]

Would the Blood Bowl comics fall under this as a prototype Warhammer Adventures? While they still have dark humor and a bit of blood, they're still fairly silly compared to even the more snarky Blood Bowl official supplement material. --Thannak (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Why was the "How to fix it" section erased?[edit]

There was nothing there really granting deletion, so why is it gone? Someone please bring it back. --Alumno Alumno (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it was Reddit tier bullshit that just sperged about the editor's favorite properties to spout memes from instead of providing meaningful feedback. Also, in my opinion any "fix it" section is premature; it seems to me that either a miracle occurs, GW does something right for once and the series turns out okay, or it's so irretrievably fucked that the only acceptable response to "how to fix it?" on release is "lower everyone involved in its creation into a vat." Better to save the concept for a postmortem once /tg/ has had a chance to do a proper analysis. OriginalPrankster (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe so, but then it would've been better to just change the title of the section into something like "Good steps to follow" and clarify that this are good examples of how to achieve what GW wants to achieve. That seems better than just erasing the whole section. --Alumno Alumno (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

To address the "It's not meant for you!" Argument.[edit]

If you think people don't have a valid opinion on this series or that you should just ignore them outright because you think the series isn't meant for them, then you should not post on the main page because 'it's not meant for you', so your opinion is also invalid and should be ignored. Anyone with a brain should realize quickly that people being annoyed that the books seem to ignore what was established decades in the past, isn't just people bitching because a series wasn't made for them. Those problems only get worse when you look at how this is supposed to be a gateway series for the younger audience, how are they supposed to have an easy time moving on to anything else when the stuff presented to them in these books doesn't work with the rest of the setting? Either they don't like the books and it doesn't help them get invested, or they do like the books but don't get invested in the surrounding material because there's going to be such a huge disconnect between the two. Saying that this series isn't meant for certain people isn't a defence, it's a flaw since the kids it's meant for are going to have a confusing time when/if they decide to look into the rest of the setting. Finally as I pointed out you can easily dismiss anyone's opinion/arguments by claiming that what they're against isn't meant for them. Don't like what I wrote here? It's not meant for you so you can't reply to it. It's the coward's way out when they don't want to address real criticism and instead want to hide under some sort of all-encompassing security blanket. -- Triacom (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • um yeah I don’t buy that criticism either. Most younger people will know the difference and will understand what is going on. Most younger people are actually smarter than took seem to present and really if anything they would likely be very intrigued by the more mature aspects as they get older. It was the same with me as I transitioned from comics to graphic novels with Batman for instance. The tones and story was very different but I understood immediately that it was just a different take on the same fiction. No offence but I hate that criticism that “people won’t understand the difference”, neckbeards the world over used the excuse that kids are smart they’ll get the grimdark stuff. Now when it isn’t convient now their not smart enough? I’m sorry but that criticism is itself a safety blanket and it is just used to dismiss legitimate benefits it can bring to the community due to a bunch of insecure players that are afraid GW will take away their grimdark (which itself is irrational and really if people just take a deep breath and think for a change they would realize how unlikely that outcome is). [::gbc343]
Personally, I do believe in this philosophy, but that isn't necessarily coming from my preference - I have three nieces, and they genuinely enjoyed Attack of the Necron. My oldest niece (6) loved Mekki, and liked the Skitarii miniatures when I showed them to her. My middle niece (4) thought that Necrons were the coolest thing, and wants me to get her a pack of Warriors for her birthday. They are not (objectively) old enough for the main 40k universe; not because of some stupid "protect the children!" morality bullshit, but because they simply won't understand it. This is, from my experience, a genuinely good way to get children involved, and there shouldn't be any issue with them transitioning into the 40k canon (the same way kids who grow up with Harry Potter or CS Lewis understand the nuances and more mature aspects as they grow older, naturally). Either way, this opinion belongs on the main page because, even if it isn't the largest held thought, it is a prevalent minority, even on /tg/, and it is exactly what the authors intended. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
To address both of these points, there's nothing wrong with making a series for kids, there's nothing wrong with changing a few things so long as you have good reasons to and there's plenty of reasons for holding the grimdark back when you want to ease younger audiences into the setting, however none of that should be backed with the defence of "It's not meant for you!" When people point out how it either outright ignores key components of the setting it's a part of. For gbc you seem to think that I'm assuming kids would be too stupid to understand the difference between the settings, when that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that I think it would be harder for them to get invested in the main setting because it's very clearly not the same thing. Instead of assuming them to be too stupid to notice a difference, I'm assuming that they're smart enough that they will notice the difference. To address this a little more, since you used comic books as an example, there are a number of comic books that I read as a kid and then when I wanted to read the newer stuff I found I couldn't get into it. The reason why is I recognized that they were completely different from one another, and I realized the only thing that was shared between the two were the names and basic look and that was pretty much it. It's more than just removing or adding in grimdark, after all the various novels and editions of 40k did that and I had no problem going from one to the other just fine (in fact I don't recall anyone complaining about how the earlier editions would change minor things about the setting as they went along), it's about major changes that kids are going to notice because it'll become obvious that they don't mix well with the regular setting and wouldn't hold up to even a kid's scrutiny.
As for Kracked Mynd, do you think it would be easier or harder for your oldest niece to get into the regular setting if she decided to read a Mechanicus book because she liked Mekki and found that the AdMech are against the types of things Mekki does, despite him being a part of the same faction? That's just an example I can think of right now for why changing things to this degree and then hiding behind that defence is a bad idea. For the record I'm not against the concept or even the books in general, I'm against the defence of hand-waving away criticism by saying that it's not meant for the people criticizing it because it's a terrible defence that doesn't help anything or anyone, it's the same as plugging your ears and pretending you can't hear what they're saying. -- Triacom (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think it would be easier, the same way my sister still loves Pirates after watching Peter Pan as a young child. Obviously, the pirates are shown vaguely villainous (the same way Mekki is a hero), but in reality pirates are known to have been sea bound rapists and pillagers (the same way AdMech are grimdark and barely heroic). Anyway, there are innovative/arguably heretekal AdMech, from individuals like Belisarius Cawl to Stygies VII's obsession with xenotech. Even if they are in the minority, they are still canon, and leave plenty of room for your dudes.
If you think it would be easier for them to get into something they learn is contradictory to the character they liked... then I guess that's your opinion then? Not really much I can do about that, all I can do is relate personal experiences where that's the kind of thing that ended up turning me away from certain comics, and eventually the comic industry as a whole because I realized it's only a matter of time before a writer came along and fucked up everything you enjoyed about it. To get to the Peter Pan example though, that's a bit of an unfair example I'd say, a more fair one would be if they enjoyed the Peter Pan movie a lot, then another movie came out portraying Peter as the villain and the pirates as the heroes, and when they didn't like that you just told them the movie wasn't meant for them. Yes there are radicals in the Mechanicus, but as far as Mekki's concerned it's not really acknowledged, that's another reason I think it might be a little surprising if they tried to get into the setting and found that the majority of the faction hates what Mekki's doing. -- Triacom (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I see your point, but I still don't think it'll be a huge deal. Either way, since we're having this conversation now (and I still firmly believe that this will be a great introduction to 40k), I think that it's still worth keeping the opinion on the page. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood me, these books aren't a huge deal, I made the section to explain why "It's not meant for you!" Isn't a valid defence. If it was then the whole page could be deleted and replaced with the words "40k isn't meant for the book's demographic. The end." That's about as valid an argument, in other words, it's not an argument at all. -- Triacom (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we're both confused (at least I am, but what else is new?). I don't think there's much of an argument to be had here at all, this is as close to absolutely subjective as possible, and is 100% determined by personal experiences (unless there's some psychologist I don't know about editing as an anon). Also, I don't think many people (who aren't fucking stupid) think that these books are a big deal - they clearly aren't taking up GW or FW's time or resources, and are even downloadable for free. Anyway, I just think that having the opinion that the books are positive (which is, admittedly, a minority on /tg/) is worth keeping on the page, as long as there's no excessive skub or edit wars because of it, which doesn't seem likely to me in the near future. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing subjective about trying to ignore criticism by saying that something wasn't meant for somebody else, it's a terrible defence that relies on pretending what other people say does not matter, that's the whole point of my argument. Hell, I could literally replace the references to the books in my initial post with anything else and I'd be making the exact same point. I think you're focusing on the books a little to much here and not what I'm actually arguing against. -- Triacom (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That's chill, but I'm genuinely lost to the argument, and I'm starting to think that my viewpoint is somewhat unrelated, but I'll have to wait for the lho to wear off to think straight enough for that. Either way, I think that the opinion (not argument) that the books are positive and that the primary demographic won't be affected by what amounts to relatively minimal fluff changes is relevant and should stay on the main page. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll start over then, here's my point: dismissing criticism because you think it's coming from people who aren't the target demographic is a dumb thing to do, no matter what it is. If they're making stupid points then it should be easy to debunk and defend the material using other material relevant to the discussion, here's an example:
Complaint: "This series doesn't have enough grimdark!"
Response: "Not every planet/faction is going to have the same level of grimdark and it would be dumb if they did."
How about another?
Complaint: "Mekki's dumb because he innovates!"
Response: "So Mekki's a radical then? They do exist."
Dismissing arguments out of hand instead of answering them like that is not helpful and accomplishes nothing. It's a dumb thing to do regardless of what you're talking about. To address your latest point: "that the books are positive and that the primary demographic won't be affected by what amounts to relatively minimal fluff changes is relevant and should stay on the main page." This is not relevant to my original point and we only started discussing it after getting sidetracked. -- Triacom (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel like that's on me then, since that's my entire opinion. I probably misunderstood your original point, because my whole thought it that the books are a purely positive addition to the fanbase and that any fluff discrepancies aren't too serious. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yet more Page Disputes[edit]

Some people might have seen this coming, but we might want to be on the lookout for the page being vandalised. Over the past couple of days I've spotted some vandalisation and spite editing on this page, and I fear things may get worse as we move closer to the release of the first books.--86.15.101.166 02:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, just looked at the history. Nothing too bad, but it looked like some Anon wasn't fucking having it. I went ahead and put it on my watchlist. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Some Anon" wouldn't happen to be me would it? I'm not the only user who undid your previous edit (thanks to someone trying to restore that information). And the guy who did that then spite removed an alarming chunk of the article...you can see why I'd be concerned.--86.15.101.166 02:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I saw what looked to be an undiscussed dispute between Newerfag and Gbc343, and then there was some crazy shit, in which you're the only anon (therefor with not reliable history). If the editing dispute continues between the namefags (both of whom are oldfags and know what tf they're doing), then I'll bring it up in the discussion. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've heard they're pretty good?[edit]

Not Horus Rising good, but they establish an effective grimdark atmosphere while still being engaging for kids. I'm not entirely sure about this because all of my knowledge of what happens in this series comes from memes, but in the first book one of the main characters (the adult, because of course) dies. -- ([User:Elvastan]) 02:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Balanced the Article Following recent events[edit]

So some idiot did a 'grim dark' re-edit of the genestealer book, miquoting the novel for some reason. This is currently a 40K meme, so it's probably wise to edit this piece now so we don't get hit with backlash.

To address this, I've re-edited and balanced the piece a bit more.

Speaking as a 40-something parent who got into this whole thing via a kids boardgame (Space Crusade), I've no problem with these fun, accessible books written for ten year olds. Anyone who thinks kids don't like 'grim' have never heard of Roald Dahl, clearly.

Happy to talk about changes to this article going forward. ([User:AmbullFucker]

It's a joke, juxtaposing the cover with other books that have Genestealers in them to show what else somebody might find if they looked for related material. You can tell it's not really a part of the Adventures series because it follows from another obvious fake image, and the name of the character is none of the characters mentioned above. I also changed back the incel bit because the character bios were released well in advance and did a poor job setting the series up. -- Triacom (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)