Henry Cavill back again as Superman! Oops, nevermind.

Zykon TheLich

Extra Heretical!
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
3,463
795
118
Country
UK
...maybe?
Well, yes.

Also, if there was a Thatcher parody in 40K, wouldn't that parody be within the Imperium itself? Taking the most negative interpretation of Thatcher I can imagine (cold-hearted, anti-union, anti-welfare, selfish), those are all traits I'd sooner associate with the Imperium than orks.
I don't think even old school GW were ever really able to do biting political satire, or really intended to. They were a bunch of history nerds and wargamers that put a bit of their own humour into the game. Monty python references, all sorts of pop culture shit.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,508
2,172
118
On the third hand, I also think it's a stretch to compare Chaos to the Dark Lord trope. There's some similarities, sure, and from the outsider's perspective you could argue that the differences aren't without distinction (rule/destroy the world), but even then, I don't think it's 1:1 in that:
Of course it's not 1:1, otherwise it would receive a copyright suit. It is necessary to change something in order to create something new, but the fundamental shell of WFB is Tolkeinesque. Much like if you redecorate a house it might look different in lots of ways, but it's still got the same structure.

A dark lord is a fantasy trope of an evil (usually divine) power that poses an existential threat to the world, intent on utter subjugation or destruction. (This might be in comparison to a sort of "realpolitik" view of the world). How is this not Chaos? Plus that Chaos in the Warhammer world is unambiguously evil in nature: malevolence, betrayal, greed, selfishness, torment, corruption, killing, etc.

(Tolkien wouldn't be caught dead using Arthurian inspiration ala Bretonnians for instance)
This is unsupportable. We can, for instance, hardly fail to draw parallels between Aragorn and King Arthur, and Gandalf and Merlin. Tolkein was interested in early British myth; he was involved in scholarly work on Arthurian legend, and wrote a very long poem on King Arthur (unfinished). Tolkein may not have viewed Arthurian myth as a suitable main basis for the world-building he envisaged, but it seems unuspportable to think he did not incorporate elements of it.

I'm not entirely sure where your knowledge of Warhammer lore starts, but for me it was the mid-late 80s. Bretonnia was not principally modelled on Arthurian myth: that was a later development over the ~40 years they had to flesh out their creation (again, by particularly unadventurous borrowing). The Old World is just a take-off of medieval Europe, with Bretonnia as a sort of Hundred Years War Eng/Fra mash-up. Then Estalia as Spain, The Empire as the HRE, Tilea as Italy, Kislev as (Kievan?) Rus, etc. The names kind of give it away.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,508
2,172
118
I'm not sure how the stuff that was mentioned counts as the "raw minimum." Look at any playable faction in WFB, and you'll find detailed history behind it, that fits into a detailed history of the setting as a whole.
Again, as above.

GW have had 40 years to develop their product. But I remember the 80s, before a lot of that existed. The basic history is elder races of elves and dwarfs, they have a big war, diminish in the face of the rise of humanity and orc incursions. Elves mostly live in forests, dwarfs in mountains, except that island/continent with elves off overseas to the West (!). Even then, there are three types of elves: Noldor High elves, Sindar Wood elves, Teleri Sea elves. Plus ents, "halflings", etc. All these races are of course straight out of Tolkein cliche. Then just mix it up with a different flavour of dark lord(s), model human realms as pastiches of a few medieval European countries and add a couple other races. Lore done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,651
3,575
118
A dark lord is a fantasy trope of an evil (usually divine) power that poses an existential threat to the world, intent on utter subjugation or destruction. (This might be in comparison to a sort of "realpolitik" view of the world). How is this not Chaos? Plus that Chaos in the Warhammer world is unambiguously evil in nature: malevolence, betrayal, greed, selfishness, torment, corruption, killing, etc.
Well, that there's any number of factions fighting amongst themselves slightly alters than, but it's also said in various places that the great powers of Chaos aren't trying to conquer/destroy the world, they are playing with it. Or in other places that they aren't trying to do anything, they just are. But that depends on the author.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,508
2,172
118
Well, that there's any number of factions fighting amongst themselves slightly alters than, but it's also said in various places that the great powers of Chaos aren't trying to conquer/destroy the world, they are playing with it. Or in other places that they aren't trying to do anything, they just are. But that depends on the author.
Dude, when they replaced WFB with Age of Sigmar they literally destroyed the WFB world via the plot device of a massive Chaos invasion.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,651
3,575
118
Dude, when they replaced WFB with Age of Sigmar they literally destroyed the WFB world via the plot device of a massive Chaos invasion.
There's that, though everyone just wandered off and went somewhere else.

(Though, the only humans to do so were the Reich, which is amusing)
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Of course it's not 1:1, otherwise it would receive a copyright suit. It is necessary to change something in order to create something new, but the fundamental shell of WFB is Tolkeinesque. Much like if you redecorate a house it might look different in lots of ways, but it's still got the same structure.
I think it's highly debatable on the idea of the "fundamental shell" being the same, but that's not the crux of the argument. So on that note:

A dark lord is a fantasy trope of an evil (usually divine) power that poses an existential threat to the world, intent on utter subjugation or destruction. (This might be in comparison to a sort of "realpolitik" view of the world). How is this not Chaos? Plus that Chaos in the Warhammer world is unambiguously evil in nature: malevolence, betrayal, greed, selfishness, torment, corruption, killing, etc.
-Re-read what I wrote above as to why I distinguish between the two. You've pointed out in your own post that Chaos is "fundamentally evil," which is not a charge that can be levied against Morgoth or Sauron.

You're right in that the end goals are arguably the same - LotR 'lords' want to rule the world, Chaos wants to destroy it. Fair enough, if that's all it takes to be a dark lord, then sure, they fit the bill. But to be as succinct as possible, both in-universe and out-universe:

1: LotR lords take inspiration from Abrahamic mythology, Chaos is more eldritch in nature (I'd say Lovecraftian, but I don't think they quite fit the bill either.

2: LotR lords are fallen individuals (more on that later), Chaos is a fundamental force of nature within the setting.

3: The nature of corruption in LotR is more on a spiritual level, or when it manifests physically (e.g. orcs), it's done with direct intent. In contrast, Chaos corruption is mostly on a physical, undirected level

Basically, I call Morgoth/Sauron/Voldemort/Brona/Shadow Lord/whatever "dark lords" in that they're distinct individuals with distinct goals, with distinct human failings. I don't call Chaos "dark lords" for the same reason I wouldn't call C'thulu a dark lord, in that we're dealing with forces of nature that we can't comprehend, that are above comprehension, that can't be negotiated with or whatnot. In essence, it's the individual vs. the element.[/quote]

This is unsupportable. We can, for instance, hardly fail to draw parallels between Aragorn and King Arthur, and Gandalf and Merlin. Tolkein was interested in early British myth; he was involved in scholarly work on Arthurian legend, and wrote a very long poem on King Arthur (unfinished). Tolkein may not have viewed Arthurian myth as a suitable main basis for the world-building he envisaged, but it seems unuspportable to think he did not incorporate elements of it.
To quote Tolkien:

"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own, not of the quality that I sought, and found in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish; but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is not perfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion. For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal."

It's generally accepted that the purpose of Lord of the Rings was to create an "English mythology" - as in, something pre-Arthurian, pre-Norman, going back to the Celts (not sure where the Anglo Saxons fit in), etc. Obviously Tolkien was aware of King Arthur, but LotR itself is intended to be its own thing, even if it still borrows from other cultures/myths (Christian, Norse, etc.)

As for Aragorn and Gandalf matching Arthur/Merlin, again, I disagree. Sure, there's similarities, but that's like saying LotR and Narnia are similar because they both have dwarfs in them. Similar tropes, executed far differently, and with different themes behind them.

I'm not entirely sure where your knowledge of Warhammer lore starts, but for me it was the mid-late 80s. Bretonnia was not principally modelled on Arthurian myth: that was a later development over the ~40 years they had to flesh out their creation (again, by particularly unadventurous borrowing). The Old World is just a take-off of medieval Europe, with Bretonnia as a sort of Hundred Years War Eng/Fra mash-up. Then Estalia as Spain, The Empire as the HRE, Tilea as Italy, Kislev as (Kievan?) Rus, etc. The names kind of give it away.
I was first introduced to Warhammer in the 90s, but it's academic as to when the Arthurian stuff came in - lots of fictional settings have lore added to them over time. Heck, Lord of the Rings is a case in point.

As for the nations of the setting taking inspiration from real-world ones...yes, and? Of course, that was part of my point, the inspirations for WFB nations don't have that much overlap with LotR ones. Numerous fantasy settings take inspiration from real-world cultures, I don't see that as a mark against them.

Again, as above.

GW have had 40 years to develop their product. But I remember the 80s, before a lot of that existed. The basic history is elder races of elves and dwarfs, they have a big war, diminish in the face of the rise of humanity and orc incursions. Elves mostly live in forests, dwarfs in mountains, except that island/continent with elves off overseas to the West (!). Even then, there are three types of elves: Noldor High elves, Sindar Wood elves, Teleri Sea elves. Plus ents, "halflings", etc. All these races are of course straight out of Tolkein cliche. Then just mix it up with a different flavour of dark lord(s), model human realms as pastiches of a few medieval European countries and add a couple other races. Lore done.
Except the product HAS been developed over the last 40 years. You yourself point out that the Bretonnia of the 80s isn't the same as the Bretonnia of the 90s/2000s. You're also right in pointing out that stuff like elves, dwarves, orcs, etc., are Tolkien-esque tropes, but you've completely sidestepped the factions that have nothing to do with Tolkien.

There's also another point to make - you're conflating "effort" with "originality." I'm quite happy in saying that something like Bretonnia isn't that original (Arthurian legend meshed with France), that isn't the same thing as there being no effort involved. I mean, you CAN make that claim, but I'm not sure how one would come to that conclusion after reading an army book or browsing the wiki. By the logic you're presenting, something like A Song of Ice and Fire would be "low effort" since it's borrowing from the same sources, or something like Ranger's Apprentice would be on the same scale as WFB since they both draw on Arthurian legend, despite there being vast differences in the depth of the lore.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,508
2,172
118
-Re-read what I wrote above as to why I distinguish between the two. You've pointed out in your own post that Chaos is "fundamentally evil," which is not a charge that can be levied against Morgoth or Sauron.
I cannot seriously believe you wrote that. Of course Morgoth and Sauron are evil. Uncomplicatedly, irrevocably so. You can make some point that perhaps at one stage they were not and, Lucifer-like, "fell" through sins like pride, vanity, greed, etc. but this is not really important to the fact of what they are and represent in Tolkein's work, which is evil.

Fair enough, if that's all it takes to be a dark lord
Yes, the Chaos Gods are effectively dark lords. Representations of evil and destruction that plot the downfall or subjugation of civilisation. Even then, I don't think the "force of nature" idea works because they are very much portrayed as sentient individuals with specific plots and schemes. Hell, Biblical Satan is more of a "force of nature" than the Chaos Gods are. (Outside the Bible, however, Satan is vastly more portrayed as a specific individual).

The Elder Gods of Lovecraft mythos are not really dark lords. There are at least two reasons for this - firstly they are not antagonists, they're just sort of there, to hopefully never be encountered. Secondly, they are completely alien, not evil: they don't particularly want to dominate or destroy humanity, they just couldn't care less about humanity, it's an irrelevance to them.

To quote Tolkien:
Yes whatever. Tolkein is stating that Arthurian legends don't provide a suitable basis for the mythology he was constructing. That is very different from stating it's completely rubbish and he's never going to touch any of it, because Tolkein evidently was well into ancient British myth too.

There's also another point to make - you're conflating "effort" with "originality."
I don't think I am to anything like the extent you're making out, although I would point out that not having to think up something for oneself tends to save a lot of effort.

I think to be honest it was a good commercial choice to stick to the safe, tried and tested. After all, someone filled with imaginings of the Battle of the Five Armies wants to reimagine that experience by fighting with elves, dwarfs and orcs, not giant ants versus lizardmen. The use of Europe is again a way to ease someone into a setting with the comfort of familiarity. Warhammer has been wildly successful for a reason - and sure as hell it wasn't the dodgy rule systems.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I cannot seriously believe you wrote that. Of course Morgoth and Sauron are evil. Uncomplicatedly, irrevocably so. You can make some point that perhaps at one stage they were not and, Lucifer-like, "fell" through sins like pride, vanity, greed, etc. but this is not really important to the fact of what they are and represent in Tolkein's work, which is evil.
I disagree, that Sauron and Morgoth are both 'fallen' are very important to Tolkien's work.

Yes, the Chaos Gods are effectively dark lords. Representations of evil and destruction that plot the downfall or subjugation of civilisation. Even then, I don't think the "force of nature" idea works because they are very much portrayed as sentient individuals with specific plots and schemes. Hell, Biblical Satan is more of a "force of nature" than the Chaos Gods are. (Outside the Bible, however, Satan is vastly more portrayed as a specific individual).
Disagree, Satan has far more in common with Morgoth than the Chaos gods - (rebel against god, are 'fallen,' etc.). The Chaos gods aren't rebelling anything, the Chaos gods aren't one thing that became another, the Chaos gods simply "are." And while you could call them sentient with plots and schemes, they still have the trope of being unknowable, extra-dimensional, etc.

In other words, people can engage in conversation with Sauron/Morgoth, negotiate with them, capture them, kill them, etc. None of that applies to the Chaos gods.

The Elder Gods of Lovecraft mythos are not really dark lords. There are at least two reasons for this - firstly they are not antagonists, they're just sort of there, to hopefully never be encountered. Secondly, they are completely alien, not evil: they don't particularly want to dominate or destroy humanity, they just couldn't care less about humanity, it's an irrelevance to them.
Fair enough, but I'd say the Chaos gods are still closer to them than Sauron/Morgoth. Like the Elder Gods, they can't be directly encountered (for the most part, there's a few exceptions), they're completely alien to the setting, and they're a pantheon.

Yes whatever. Tolkein is stating that Arthurian legends don't provide a suitable basis for the mythology he was constructing. That is very different from stating it's completely rubbish and he's never going to touch any of it, because Tolkein evidently was well into ancient British myth too.
Wait, are you saying that I'm saying that Arthurian legend is rubbish, or that Tolkien is? Because neither is true. The point is that Tolkien wanted to create an English myth, and wanted something outside the Arthurian legends. That resulted in taking inspiration from, among other things, Celtic myth, since the Celts predate Arthur (I remember watching something ages ago about the idea of original English culture being lost due to the waves of invasions Britain experienced through its history, and Tolkien trying to recreate it or something along those lines).

If I draw inspiration from one mythology, that's not saying that every other mythology is rubbish.

I don't think I am to anything like the extent you're making out, although I would point out that not having to think up something for oneself tends to save a lot of effort.

I think to be honest it was a good commercial choice to stick to the safe, tried and tested. After all, someone filled with imaginings of the Battle of the Five Armies wants to reimagine that experience by fighting with elves, dwarfs and orcs, not giant ants versus lizardmen. The use of Europe is again a way to ease someone into a setting with the comfort of familiarity. Warhammer has been wildly successful for a reason - and sure as hell it wasn't the dodgy rule systems.
To the first point, I agree - worldbuilding is hard. Really hard. It's much easier to use elves and dwarfs rather than create your own peoples/races, since people immediately have a conception of what those two entail.

But to the second, I think we both agree that the Old World of Warhammer takes inspiration from Europe, but I think we disagree on that being the reason for its popularity ipso facto. Many fantasy settings take inspiration from Europe (heck, most of them), that isn't going to make it popular by itself (if anything, it would make it less popular since there's less to distinguish it). One of the reasons Warhammer has been successful is because of the scale and depth of its worldbuilding. It's worldbuilding that borrows heavily from real world cultures and whatnot, but it's worldbuilding all the same. Stuff like the Empire and Bretonnia have rich in-universe histories, regardless as to their point of origin.

Again, I could describe A Song of Ice and Fire as "War of the Roses with dragons," that doesn't mean that there isn't in-depth in-universe history behind it.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,651
3,575
118
I think to be honest it was a good commercial choice to stick to the safe, tried and tested. After all, someone filled with imaginings of the Battle of the Five Armies wants to reimagine that experience by fighting with elves, dwarfs and orcs, not giant ants versus lizardmen. The use of Europe is again a way to ease someone into a setting with the comfort of familiarity. Warhammer has been wildly successful for a reason - and sure as hell it wasn't the dodgy rule systems.
Warhammer was originally created to use models that were being made and sold for other things such as DnD, so originally at least it had to use classic monsters with some odd stuff through in.

(Of course, the box set for 5th ed WHFB came with lizardmen as one of the starting armies, which was a bit odd.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,508
2,172
118
I disagree, that Sauron and Morgoth are both 'fallen' are very important to Tolkien's work.
It's profoundly irrelevant to whether they are "dark lords" or not.

Although one might that Tolkein's ambivalence about Arthurian legend is relevant here - he wants to create a non-Christian world (although ironically one full of quasi-Christian ideas) and hence part of his disinclination to use Arthurian myth, which is heavily steeped in it.

Disagree, Satan has far more in common with Morgoth than the Chaos gods
There are sort of two Satans. Biblical Satan, and then the extended myth. Biblical Satan barely exists: effectively it crops up to tempt Jesus the once, and the serpent in the Garden of Eden is generally assumed to be Satan, and numerous other very minor mentions. A key here being that Satan approximately translates as "adversary" or "opposition": in many cases it is not obviously a being (or even necessarily malignly intentioned and outside God's control). It does not have plots and schemes, it just is and does.

This whole thing about Satan as the renegade angel Lucifer being cast out of heaven blah blah blah is effectively a sort of para-Biblical myth.

Wait, are you saying that I'm saying that Arthurian legend is rubbish, or that Tolkien is?
You said that Tolkein would not be caught dead using ancient British myth (#73). I do not think this credible, for reasons above.

To the first point, I agree - worldbuilding is hard. Really hard. It's much easier to use elves and dwarfs rather than create your own peoples/races, since people immediately have a conception of what those two entail.

But to the second, I think we both agree that the Old World of Warhammer takes inspiration from Europe, but I think we disagree on that being the reason for its popularity ipso facto.
WFB was leagues ahead of competitors even by the late 80s. There are two main reasons for this:
1) The rules. (Yes, I know I mocked them in the last post.) Despite their flaws, in the very early days they were the most compehensive out there to run an effective battle with the most professional production. By the time other creators had created arguably better systems than WFB, GW already had a lock on the market.
2) They were both a rules set and a miniatures creator. This has a powerful synergy, because it guarantees players could readily get models for their units - often not the case for many other game systems. Potentially also, of course, that they had their own stores.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
It's profoundly irrelevant to whether they are "dark lords" or not.
Maybe, but I still dont' see them as analagous to the Chaos gods.

There are sort of two Satans. Biblical Satan, and then the extended myth. Biblical Satan barely exists: effectively it crops up to tempt Jesus the once, and the serpent in the Garden of Eden is generally assumed to be Satan, and numerous other very minor mentions. A key here being that Satan approximately translates as "adversary" or "opposition": in many cases it is not obviously a being (or even necessarily malignly intentioned and outside God's control). It does not have plots and schemes, it just is and does.

This whole thing about Satan as the renegade angel Lucifer being cast out of heaven blah blah blah is effectively a sort of para-Biblical myth.
Alright, but which Satan is more ingrained in the zeitgeist. Biblical Satan, or the myth?

By this paradigm, Morgoth resembles the myth Satan, the Chaos gods don't resemble either. They might tempt their followers, but they operate on a far more literal level. For instance, the Chaos Wastes are just that - wastes, literally transformed by Chaos. Warpstone is a literal rock that has literal effects (e.g. skaven). The idea of temptation/sin is on a spiritual/metaphysical/metaphorical level. As in, if we assume the serpent is Satan, when Adam and Eve eat the apple, an idea I've seen bandied around is that the very nature of the world changed, albeit not physically. That still bears more resemblance to Morgoth than Chaos.

You said that Tolkein would not be caught dead using ancient British myth (#73). I do not think this credible, for reasons above.
I'll revise that to LotR.

I don't think Arthurian legend is rubbish (I grew up on it), I don't think Tolkien thought it was rubbish, but in the specific case of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wanted to stay clear of Arthurian legend.

WFB was leagues ahead of competitors even by the late 80s. There are two main reasons for this:
1) The rules. (Yes, I know I mocked them in the last post.) Despite their flaws, in the very early days they were the most compehensive out there to run an effective battle with the most professional production. By the time other creators had created arguably better systems than WFB, GW already had a lock on the market.
2) They were both a rules set and a miniatures creator. This has a powerful synergy, because it guarantees players could readily get models for their units - often not the case for many other game systems. Potentially also, of course, that they had their own stores.
Both of those points are on the level of gameplay. We've been talking about lore/worldbuilding.

I'm skeptical that the rules are attributable to Warhammer's popularity, given that like 40K, it's a multimedia franchise at this point. Videogames wouldn't operate on the same rules, novels wouldn't work if there wasn't backstory to draw from. This is definitely the case in 40K - I'd bet actual money that the majority of 40K fans are people who've never played the tabletop game.

Both variants of Warhammer started off as tabletop games, but nowadays, I doubt that's the de facto method of engaging with them. Heck, WFB was discontinued, yet it's still reasonably well known, even if long overshadowed by 40K.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,508
2,172
118
They might tempt their followers, but they operate on a far more literal level.
Bottom line, this is all very tom-ay-to, Tom-ah-to. They're dark lords.

I don't think Arthurian legend is rubbish (I grew up on it), I don't think Tolkien thought it was rubbish, but in the specific case of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wanted to stay clear of Arthurian legend.
In general worldbuilding, but it very much seems he did not stay clear in certain themes, characterisations and plots.

Although of course, by your own unnecessarily finicky standards that you're applying to WFB to deny it's Tolkeinesque, you should be arguing that LoTR is not based on German/Nordic myth because of all the non-German/Nordic influence.

Both of those points are on the level of gameplay. We've been talking about lore/worldbuilding.

I'm skeptical that the rules are attributable to Warhammer's popularity, given that like 40K, it's a multimedia franchise at this point.
Gameplay and the accessibility of the means to play it are very important for a game. It's meaningless to assess Warhammer's rise to prominence without acknowledging such factors. Particularly in the early days when Warhammer had much more limited worldbuilding, it really mattered. It's success spreading out from that is the hundreds of thousands of tabletop gamers familiar with it after it crushed all the opposition. In things like RPGs, for all its worldbuilding, it was not that successful: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay was frequently out of print whilst other pen and paper RPGs flourished.

But I would also point out that despite this, Warhammer's successes on other media - well, computer games - rely on gameplay. The W:TW series and Dawn of War are almost certainly the top-selling, but that's mostly because they were produced by highly reputable specialists in a popular genre.

In terms of worldbuilding, whilst I might criticise Warhammer worldbuilding as shallow, unoriginal and juvenile, that's not the same as saying it isn't popular: I've already said that unoriginality can be very helpful with popularity.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Bottom line, this is all very tom-ay-to, Tom-ah-to. They're dark lords.
Alright, we'll have to agree to disagree here.

In general worldbuilding, but it very much seems he did not stay clear in certain themes, characterisations and plots.

Although of course, by your own unnecessarily finicky standards that you're applying to WFB to deny it's Tolkeinesque, you should be arguing that LoTR is not based on German/Nordic myth because of all the non-German/Nordic influence.
X is based on Y.

X takes inspiration from Y.

Those are two different statements. As I've stated multiple times, WFB obviously takes inspiration from LotR, mainly in regards to some of its races (elves, dwarfs, orcs, etc.). And as I've also stated, there's plenty of elements that don't owe anything to Lord of the Rings.

By your own analogy, I wouldn't say LotR is based on X, but does take inspiration from X, "x" being various mythologies/cultures.

Gameplay and the accessibility of the means to play it are very important for a game. It's meaningless to assess Warhammer's rise to prominence without acknowledging such factors. Particularly in the early days when Warhammer had much more limited worldbuilding, it really mattered. It's success spreading out from that is the hundreds of thousands of tabletop gamers familiar with it after it crushed all the opposition. In things like RPGs, for all its worldbuilding, it was not that successful: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay was frequently out of print whilst other pen and paper RPGs flourished.
No doubt all of that's true, but what about novels? What about videogames that don't owe anything to its tabletop mechanics? What about the army books that included bundles of lore?

I doubt there'd be as much outrage about GW nuking the setting for Age of Sigmar (and retconning the events of Storm of Chaos for that to happen) if they didn't care about the setting itself.

But I would also point out that despite this, Warhammer's successes on other media - well, computer games - rely on gameplay. The W:TW series and Dawn of War are almost certainly the top-selling, but that's mostly because they were produced by highly reputable specialists in a popular genre.
There may be a kernal of truth, but Total War was a pre-established franchise, it has its own gameplay to draw upon as much as Warhammer. As for Dawn of War...okay, let's be generous and assume that the DoW games are based on 40K tabletop rules. Having played 40K 3rd edition and DoW 1, I wouldn't say so, but let's assume that's the case.

That still doesn't account for everything else, plus the 40K novel series, especially the Horus Heresy. It doesn't explain 40K's saturation in the popular sphere. You can never have played/consumed 40K in any fashion, and I can yell "for the emprah!", and people will know where I'm getting it from.

In terms of worldbuilding, whilst I might criticise Warhammer worldbuilding as shallow, unoriginal and juvenile, that's not the same as saying it isn't popular: I've already said that unoriginality can be very helpful with popularity.
I'm kind of on the fence of that statement, but it's beside the point. Both Warhammer properties ultimately borrow/steal a lot, but are the end results unique? Well, I can't think of much that's like 40K, even if it takes liberally from other IPs. WFB is far less unique, though in a way, arguably less juvenile in its areas. I mean, I get the appeal of Space Marines for instance, but they're a power fantasy in a lot of ways, and teenage boys are going to love that power fantasy. As an adult, I find myself sympathizing more with the Imperial Guard for instance.

Edit: I've just realized, no-one's talked about the lore of Age of Sigmar. Does no-one care, or am I just out of touch?

...nah, it's the kids that are wrong. :p
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
No one knows the lore to talk about it because no one cares enough to find out.
Something something Stormcasts are all ghosts, something something giants, something something vampires.
I honestly don't know AoS lore, much less the minutia. At least from what I've gathered at the local GW, its like a Saturday morning cartoon show, and all the factions seem to be aware they're just doing today's episode.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,090
5,385
118
Australia
Something something Stormcasts are all ghosts, something something giants, something something vampires.
I honestly don't know AoS lore, much less the minutia. At least from what I've gathered at the local GW, its like a Saturday morning cartoon show, and all the factions seem to be aware they're just doing today's episode.
From a pure pick up game perspective, unless you’re one of those hardcore gamers who run a story campaign with the battles, Saturday morning cartoon sounds like an ideal setup.
Two sides meet, they fight, one side is victorious and the other runs away shaking their fist declaring “I’ll get you next time, Gadget!”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 31, 2015
2,154
947
118
From a pure pick up game perspective, unless you’re one of those hardcore gamers who run a story campaign with the battles, Saturday morning cartoon sounds like an ideal setup.
Two sides meet, they fight, one side is victorious and the other runs away shaking their fist declaring “I’ll get you next time, Gadget!”
Yeah that kind of thing's fine but I think what it is missing is the sense of place and idea of a lived in world Warhammer Fantasy Battles had and 40k has, and on the whole the factions feel a lot more internally homogenised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,651
3,575
118
Edit: I've just realized, no-one's talked about the lore of Age of Sigmar. Does no-one care, or am I just out of touch?
Every now and then I stumble across something to do with AoS lore and I remember why I didn't deliberately go looking for it. NuWho is like that as well.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,238
8,496
118
This discussion about Warhammer is weird considering GW's notorious kitchen sink approach to creating their settings, taking bits and bops from everywhere and (sometimes barely) filing the serial numbers off. Mix together. Add grimdark. New name. Voila, you got your Warhammer races.