Warhammer Skulls 2025 - May 22nd

[TheVoidDragon]

15 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

And certain posters will make sure that we retread it every time. 

 

It gets bought up often because it's just something relevant to the idea of a Total War 40k game in general. I would very much like if they made a 40k game as the WHF versions are just great, but wanting one doesn't mean those issues aren't a thing. Of course they could make the relevant changes and make a 40k game but that's the entire point of what is meant by saying it wouldn't be a good fit.

Hopefully we get some news about it soon and hopefully next week, although it'll probably just be the latest DLC really.

Edited May 15 by TheVoidDragon

[NovemberIX]

I'm fairly interested in seeing what sort of tie-ins and possible twitch drops might happen, I was rather tickled with the recent Rogue Trader/Darktide bit of kitsch. It's rather nice having so many currently supported games happening at one time to have this sort of event.

[DemonGSides]

27 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

It gets bought up often because it's just something relevant to the idea of a Total War 40k game in general. I would very much like if they made a 40k game as the WHF versions are just great, but wanting one doesn't mean those issues aren't a thing. Of course they could make the relevant changes and make a 40k game but that's the entire point of what is meant by saying it wouldn't be a good fit.

Hopefully we get some news about it soon and hopefully next week, although it'll probably just be the latest DLC really.

 

It doesn't "get brought up often", it's you bringing it up. It's not a real grievance because we don't actually know anything about the game, so it comes off as getting riled up over something that's completely unknowable and unknown. 

 

We get you think that the TW system for battles won't make sense for 40k; most people here disagree because the TW franchise has existed outside of "Napoleonic tactics" (which despite your use of rank and file is what you actually mean) and is currently in a gameplay space where rank and file is just one CHOICE of ways to play the game; TWWH3 has plenty of armies that do not play the rank and file or Napoleonic tactics game and operate differently (and more importantly, are fun to play) that you just conveniently ignore.

 

It's tiresome. We get it. Just don't play the game and ignore the reveal. The rest of us would like to either move on or wait for actual information.  Getting berated about how you don't think it works isn't fun for anyone but you. 

[TheVoidDragon]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

where rank and file is just one CHOICE of ways to play the game; TWWH3 has plenty of armies that do not play the rank and file or Napoleonic tactics game and operate differently (and more importantly, are fun to play) that you just conveniently ignore.

 

 

 

The exceptions are monsters, siege weapons and characters. That you could if you wanted to take an army of 20 Steam Tanks, or Giants or other monsterous units, or even single characters in no way means that the game is not built around depicting that sort of rank & file warfare (as that's how the quite significant core element of infantry units and cavalry are) any more than Warhammer Fantasy having those very same units means that is not a rank & file wargame. Those are elements added ontop/within that aspect of the game, not something that removes it and makes it no longer the case.

If you acknowledge that 40k infantry units do not function like Napoleonic Line Infantry and so for a Total War 40k game to properly work it would require some changes as while a few of the required things are there to a basic extent they'd need elaborating on, then there shouldn't even be anything to argue about as that is the entire point.

 

 

Quote

We get it. Just don't play the game and ignore the reveal.

 

You evidently don't get it considering I've said multiple times that I hope they do make a 40k game of some sort.

 

And it's equally as tiresome to have you constantly try and make out there's no difference between the two. I don't know if you either just aren't getting what is meant or are just ignoring it, but saying that WW2/Modern/40k infantry do not fight organized into a neat grouping with unit members lined up in horizontal ranks and vertical files should not be some sort of controversial thing.

Edited May 16 by TheVoidDragon

[Toxichobbit]

On 5/13/2025 at 11:13 PM, Indy Techwisp said:

 

I'm somewhat hopeful that they'll add another TSons enemy in a Mission soon.

 

There's been a rumour of Chaos Spawn being added for a few months now.

 

RE Total War Warhammer 40,000

 

Rumours have been around for about 5 years now. Valrak was far from the first person to be talking about it - other people who have contacts at Creative Assembly have been talking about it for a while.

 

These are the rumours that I've been hearing for a few years now:

• as Indy Techwasp already said, it's built on a new game engine, the same one they were developing for a Total War World War I game (which I think has been cancelled). So the current game engine which is geared towards rank and file isn't relevant.
• it's being designed to replace Total War Warhammer, which is Creative Assembly's biggest earner by far and is coming to the end of it's life. While Total War Warhammer still has probably a year or two more of updates, they need to be thinking about what will replace it as the breadwinner.
• the game engine was also intended to be used for Total War Star Wars - I'm not sure if that's still a thing or if it's scrapped.

 

In other words, if the rumours are true this is a completely new game. It's not a Total War game like any previous games, it won't have any rank and file mechanics and will be a new skirmish game engine. Arguing that 40k is a bad fit for Total War is pointless because aside from the brand name, this isn't a Total War game. Just like Dawn of War re-invented itself between each instalment, this is a re-invention of Total War.

Edited May 16 by Toxichobbit

[TheVoidDragon]

16 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

There's been a rumour of Chaos Spawn being added for a few months now.

 

RE Total War Warhammer 40,000

 

Rumours have been around for about 5 years now. Valrak was far from the first person to be talking about it - other people who have contacts at Creative Assembly have been talking about it for a while.

 

These are the rumours that I've been hearing for a few years now:

• as Indy Techwasp already said, it's built on a new game engine, the same one they were developing for a Total War World War I game (which I think has been cancelled). So the current game engine which is geared towards rank and file isn't relevant.
• it's being designed to replace Total War Warhammer, which is Creative Assembly's biggest earner by far and is coming to the end of it's life. While Total War Warhammer still has probably a year or two more of updates, they need to be thinking about what will replace it as the breadwinner.
• The game engine was also intended to be used for Total War Star Wars - I'm not sure if that's still a thing or if it's scrapped.

 

 

From what I remember, the origins of the WW1 / Star Wars rumours were a Total War forum post containing a mix of stuff that has since turned out to be fake.

 

Quote

In other words, if the rumours are true this is a completely new game. It's not a Total War game like any previous games, it won't have any rank and file mechanics and will be a new skirmish game engine. Arguing that 40k is a bad fit for Total War is pointless because aside from the brand name, this isn't a Total War game.

 

It having to change like that is exactly what is meant in the first place by the "it's not a good fit" argument.

Edited May 16 by TheVoidDragon

[Indy Techwisp]

At this point I'm hoping TW:WH40k is announced just so this topic can finally die

[Scribe]

Khorne save us...this again?

 

A TW 40K would work fine. Its not even complicated.

[Toxichobbit]

5 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

From what I remember, the origins of the WW1 / Star Wars rumours were a Total War forum post containing a mix of stuff that has since turned out to be fake.

 

 

It having to change like that is exactly what is meant in the first place by the "it's not a good fit" argument.

 

The rumours I heard came from a content creator who knows people at CA. I can't remember which creator though because I regularly watched multiple when I was playing TWW3 heavily a while ago, and I'm certainly not going back through thousands of videos to find where it was talked about. What I do know is that there wasn't any other stuff mentioned, just that TW40k was in the works, that Star Wars had been talked about and that a game engine from an aborted WWI project was being used. 

 

With regards to it not being a good fit - companies & franchises have to evolve to keep revenue streams going. If TW40k is real, then it's a franchise evolving so it can continue making money. TWWH has a limited life span which it is coming to the end of. The historical side of TW has been disappointing for a long time and unlikely to ever take off again. Simply put, CA are running out of content for rank and file games. They can either keep making games that are a "good fit" for TW and wait for Sega to asset strip them after a few more failures, or they can evolve and go in a new direction. and hopefully get another hit like TWW. 

 

Sure, 40k isn't a good fit for what the Total War name has represented, but times change. These exact arguments were playing out just over a decade ago when TWW was announced., and look how that turned out. 

 

You're welcome to your opinion and I can see where you're coming from with it. But the truth is that outside of the die hard historical TW fans (like the ones who are still angry about big monsters and magic in their franchise), nobody gives a hoot about whether 40k is "a good fit". 40k fans don't care, CA don't care, GW don't care, Sega don't care and the shareholders certainly don't care. What the various stakeholders care about is getting a good game, CA continuing to exist as a studio and of course, making lots and lots of money. 40k fits all of those criteria. 

[TheVoidDragon]

9 hours ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

The rumours I heard came from a content creator who knows people at CA. I can't remember which creator though because I regularly watched multiple when I was playing TWW3 heavily a while ago, and I'm certainly not going back through thousands of videos to find where it was talked about. What I do know is that there wasn't any other stuff mentioned, just that TW40k was in the works, that Star Wars had been talked about and that a game engine from an aborted WWI project was being used. 

 

One of the origins of the rumours was a total war series focused youtuber who said they had sources at CA, but what they claimed about the DLC for TW:W3 was completely wrong.

 

9 hours ago, Toxichobbit said:

You're welcome to your opinion and I can see where you're coming from with it. But the truth is that outside of the die hard historical TW fans (like the ones who are still angry about big monsters and magic in their franchise), nobody gives a hoot about whether 40k is "a good fit". 40k fans don't care, CA don't care, GW don't care, Sega don't care and the shareholders certainly don't care. What the various stakeholders care about is getting a good game, CA continuing to exist as a studio and of course, making lots and lots of money. 40k fits all of those criteria. 

 

Being a "good fit" for what they make is a part of what's intrinsically linked to it being a "good game" as they aren't going to want it at a lower quality than the rest of the series has with what they do, but yes A 40k game would be extremely popular and for that reason I'm fairly sure something will be made. Saying "It's not a good fit" isn't something that means it's literally impossible for a 40k game to happen, it just means that what the series does at the moment is something that would require changes to fit 40k better and those changes would be pretty significant - but it's not as if if they really wanted to, they couldn't just make all those changes and move away from what's currently at the core of the series. There's nothing actually stopping them doing that, it's an arbitrary limitation rather than something that would outright prevent it and there's also nothing wrong if that were to happen. There would be then matter of how much you think can be changed before it isn't really a "Total War" game outside of the name, but that's obviously something very subjective and ultimately, probably doesn't really matter too much. They could if they wanted to make a racing game and stick the "Total War" name ontop, it might not be a "Total War" game itself but that doesn't preclude it being good on its own.

At this point the reason the argument continues is because some just refuse to understand what is meant by saying the series focuses on rank and file warfare while 40k does not and adamantly claim it's a perfect fit already as if they're oblivious to the very obvious difference between the two. I'm quite sure if/when something is announced, those same people will look at having said "40k would require changes to work properly" and go "See! They made a 40k game, they just changed it to get 40k to fit, you were wrong!" and just having completely missed the point all along; If a 40k game doesn't involve essentially being a re-theme of the series with it being depicted within the rank & file mechanics it currently has at its core and they instead move things away from that to be more like a skirmish game (both in unit size and how infantry units behave) to better represent the combat of 40k then that will be exactly what what was being said in the first place.

But regardless of all that, a 40k game with the content and variety and scale of the Total War games would be just great to see no matter what it ends up being like.

Edited May 16 by TheVoidDragon

[Brother Casman]

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. There's "Total War" the brand and "Total War" the game engine.

 

Does 40k fit in "Total War" the brand? Yes, absolutely - 40k is, in essence, a futuristic total war (note the lower case, I'm referring to the actual state of warfare). 

 

Will 40k work in "Total War" the game engine? No, not at present - 40k is not Napoleonic warfare. The engine would have to change in order to accommodate 40k's differences. 

 

Bit of a Ship of Theseus debate, I'd say. Do changes in the game engine prevent it from falling under the brand? I would argue, no, it doesn't. No matter how many parts you replace, it's still the Ship of Theseus to me. Your opinion may vary, of course.

[ZeroWolf]

Moving on from that debate:

 

A bit of wishful thinking, but aside from the rumoured games, what would people like to see? In terms of what games bearing either the 40k (and all related licences like Necromunda, space hulk, LI, etc etc)

[TheVoidDragon]

27 minutes ago, Brother Casman said:

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. There's "Total War" the brand and "Total War" the game engine.

 

Does 40k fit in "Total War" the brand? Yes, absolutely - 40k is, in essence, a futuristic total war (note the lower case, I'm referring to the actual state of warfare). 

 

Will 40k work in "Total War" the game engine? No, not at present - 40k is not Napoleonic warfare. The engine would have to change in order to accommodate 40k's differences. 

 

Bit of a Ship of Theseus debate, I'd say. Do changes in the game engine prevent it from falling under the brand? I would argue, no, it doesn't. No matter how many parts you replace, it's still the Ship of Theseus to me. Your opinion may vary, of course.

 

This is pretty much it, yes.

 

They'd obviously be capable of making a great 40k game and giving it the "Total War" name regardless of the changes required to it to fit.

 

 

19 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Moving on from that debate:

 

A bit of wishful thinking, but aside from the rumoured games, what would people like to see? In terms of what games bearing either the 40k (and all related licences like Necromunda, space hulk, LI, etc etc)

I'm just hoping for something more substantial reveals than last year really.  Taking a look back at what there was :https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/uqbhpngw/skulls-2024-the-annual-celebration-of-awesome-warhammer-video-games-returns/

It was mainly just an announcement of Mechanicus 2 (which is great) and some DLC/updates for other stuff.
 

 

 

Edited May 16 by TheVoidDragon

[Cactus]

The makers of Speed Freekz announced today that they will be launching v1 as part of Skullz on the 22nd.

[TheVoidDragon]

1 minute ago, Cactus said:

The makers of Speed Freekz announced today that they will be launching v1 as part of Skullz on the 22nd.

 

And also that it's going from a free game, to paid.

 

Seems a bit of a strange move really considering it can barely get players for it while it costs nothing. I can't see charging for it helping with that.

[ZeroWolf]

Probably hoping to recoup the development costs. Unless the move out of early access comes with improvements however, I'm not sure it's going to work out for them. Which is a shame as the idea has great potential for orky madness.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

14 hours ago, Toxichobbit said:

Rumours have been around for about 5 years now. Valrak was far from the first person to be talking about it

 

That can't be true.

 

As large as Valrak is, he's not far from ANY person.

[Chapter Master Valrak]

18 minutes ago, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

 

That can't be true.

 

As large as Valrak is, he's not far from ANY person.

 

Spoiler

 

[MoriyaSchism]

Just you wait, they'll announce an official version of Chapter Master!

Edited May 16 by MoriyaSchism

[Scribe]

I am convinced the people who think this 'cannot be done' have never played the current version of TWW3.

 

Carry on I guess.

[TheVoidDragon]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

I am convinced the people who think this 'cannot be done' have never played the current version of TWW3.

 

Carry on I guess.

 

Then it sounds like just not getting what is meant in the first place. I don't want to go over it all again as it's gone on long enough.

Edited May 16 by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

3 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Then it sounds like just not getting what is meant in the first place. I don't want to go over it all again as it's gone on long enough.

 

Clearly there is a disconnect. Napoleonic, TWW3 is not.

[TheVoidDragon]

23 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Clearly there is a disconnect. Napoleonic, TWW3 is not.

 

Infantry units are still typically rank & file format just like they are in the rest of the series. That isn't something that's no longer the case with TWW3.

Edited May 16 by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Infantry units are typically rank & file format just like the rest of the series.

 

Yes all the skirmishers with ranged attacks, or the units that operate like literal tanks, or the flying units, or the dragons, or other monsters.

 

Yes, none of those have any approximate equal within 40K at any level of acceptable abstraction.

 

No sir, no way, just impossible.

 

lol

[TheVoidDragon]

2 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Yes all the skirmishers with ranged attacks, or the units that operate like literal tanks, or the flying units, or the dragons, or other monsters.

 

Yes, none of those have any approximate equal within 40K at any level of acceptable abstraction.

 

No sir, no way, just impossible.

 

lol

 

Ah yes. Because tanks and flying units and dragons definitely come under the category of infantry units

 

Edited May 16 by TheVoidDragon