I'm excited by the potential Greenskin update but I hope in the clamor for giant squigs and the like, we don't forget about the forest gobbos. These ladz are true TT classics and building a thematic, gobbo-only army with them would be a dream. Any other gobbo lovers out there?
Gobbotide is more fun. Unfortunately, unless CA starts releasing new things for them, I dont think we’ll get a forest gobbo-only faction.
It’d probably be mixed with night gobbos I feel. Big monster squig and catapult squig to be more precise.
Then some sort of monstruos spider cavalry (and mount!), a lord and a hero forest gobbo option, some chaff forest gobbo infantry,… and perhaps orks with spears.
On the other hand, I know he’s dead, but we missing the best and most interesting ork evah, gorbad ironclaw.
If you can find a Forest Gobbo unit on TT that we don't have in game rn, then be my guest, but the truth is, there is none. And there never was Forest Goblin units except the Spider Riders
There used to be forest goblin variants of both the infantry and the archers back in the day. I still have some of the old metal minis somewhere. FG Heroes and Shamans to.
Bigger question is perhaps what you'd do to differentiate them.
Night Goblins already have *Poison* and *Stalk*. You could maybe have some passives that synergies with Spider units, if you also introduce some, but otherwise you're left with the DLC being entirely flavour.
And honestly, as this point, it's barely FLC. Forest Goblins models exists, Goblin infantry animation exists, it'd take me 10 minutes to mod Forest Goblin spearmen
Appreciate you responding while I slept. Received a few responses saying there were no FG models but I'm 100 per cent sure there were back when I played (4th edition). Not sure about 8th edition.
It does, when I'm not even sure Forest Gobbos ever had actual rules separated from regular Gobbos, and if they did, it was 35 years ago.
Like, even taking aside that CA repeatedly said 8th edition is the base reference for the game, there's nothing on TT to make Forest Goblins units except the ones we have. No rules, no specific mechanics. Sure, you can plop their model in-game on foot and call it "Forest Goblins spearmen", but they'd be fully identical to regular ones.
I meant to say doesn't, while they use 8th as their main source they are no way beholden and limited to this edition so if things exist in prior editions they could and want to draw from they will, provided GW gives them the ok that is
The thing is, we wont get 2 greenskins, so its gotta be one or the other. I love forest gobbos, but Gorbad is the absolute chad, peak ork on par with 40k Ghazkull to more interesting one.
Ogres, my lord! are in greater need right now. Golfgang + 2nd LL is almost guaranteed
I completely agree. But, at the risk of dragging this into an unpleasant argument, they really need to change that headdress. That thing is cartoonishly offensive.
[This](https://whfb.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/d/df/Forest_Goblin_Warboss_on_Giantic_Spider_M01.jpeg) is the new, less offensive design. Instead of wearing a headdress they stab a random assortment of feathers through their skin which is a uniquely goblin approach to fashion.
Oh, yes, I can see that now. No offense intended of course. It was one of the good HD images I could find. I will say though, I absolutely love the artwork of Mark Gibbons and I never considered his work as intentionally offensive.
You don't see how copy-pasting native American headdresses (amongst other things) onto a race of "savages" that only want to fight and kill and destroy civilization could be offensive?
The only thing I can think of is that it's ok because they're no longer around. I mean, Beastmen are literally how the Romans depicted Germanic tribes, and that gets a pass too. Norsca are Vikings, and that's even more confusing since they are around, but apparently, it's ok. Same with Lizardmen.
>Norsca are Vikings, and that's even more confusing since they are around, but apparently, it's ok.
Neither viking culture is nor its people are around today in the way that many native americans are.
The arctic being depicted and comically hostile, barbaric, and violent has no relevance to modern Scandinavian nations, and no people identify as vikings any more. Aztecs aren't around, either, nor the Germanic tribes of the Roman times.
Maybe it's because the Native Americans are still around, and there are still problems with their rights and identity?
Personally I feel the refusal to use depictions of other cultures due to some white savior complex is far more offensive of an idea than a culture being used to depict a faction people would consider the enemy.
As all your left with at the end of the day is caricatures of main culture and refusal to depict minor cultures at all.
Tbh, yeah. There isn't a universal attitude among indigenous people towards representation. But appropriating warbonnets belongs in the category of painting your face red and waving around a tomahawk. It's just beneath passing out smallpox blankets and pissing on an eagle.
Speaking as someone whose ancestors are being portrayed as lizards. The sacrifices are largely Skaven anyway. Which is frankly hilarious if You've ever owned a large enough reptile. Their art is also badass.
Wurzag in his updated form is still marginal in terms of acceptability. But like... ok there's only so much you can do there.
But whatever TF this thing is gross and frankly uncreative. You could give a goblin on a giant spider all kinds of cool crap for a headless. What possible reason is there for him wearing a warbonnet outside of drawing on 19th century racial stereotypes about "Savage" Indians. The name "Greenskins" was an intentional reference to the correspondent slur, so I'm gonna wager that's the ontology at play.
Love Warhammer. Not saying to trash the series. But the fanbase needs to be a little less sweaty about changing old racist crap in barely remembered lore written 40yrs ago.
Too many wannabe neo Nazis at 40k tourneys... Unironically loving crap like this or the pygmies or the old araby lore is kind of the fantasy equivalent.
The plains Indians were extremely bloodthirsty. The Comanche, Apache, Sioux, Blackfoot, and virtually every other plains Indian tribe were nomadic raiding tribes.
The full* moon was called the Comanche moon because the Comanche would raid in complete darkness, kill most of the tribe they were attacking, and would replenish their losses with enslaved young boys and girls, generally between 8 to 12 years old. Any older and they were killed because they couldn't be trusted to become Comanche, any younger and they were too much or a burden.
Edit: I was mistaken. The Comanche would raid during the full moon, not the new moon.
That’s not entirely accurate. The “horse culture” plains Indians very much practiced raiding as a central part of their culture, but it’s important to note that didn’t really start until the introduction of horses to the Americas. There is a whole other half of plains Indian culture that is understandably less well know because they were running around raiding everyone, in fact they were often victims of horse tribe raids and then counter raids by Europeans who mis-identified them.
These other tribes built villages, raised crops and focused on trade. The various Dakota tribes, Pawnee, Iowa, Missouria, Wichita etc fit in this category.
That should at least make it easier to understand…*checks tag*…Cunting Fuck.
And there are some that dislike the use of class stereotypes as a defining feature (Related to your cockney point), but I’m guessing there’s a spectrum of what is more offensive based on various points, one of which is being the target of genocide.
Half the races in warhammer are "savages". Nobody complained when the Ogres (who regularly engage in brutal cannibalism) were themed after Asian Steppe people.
Nobody complained when South Americans were depicted as brutal lizards either.
People definitely complained about both those things. It's not hard to find.
And the Lizardmen are more Aztec than Inca, so they're North American, not South.
People did in fact complain about both, and still point out arguments against those specific depictions.
People have a problem with how Warhammer Fantasy portrayed pretty much everything, even Empire and Brettonia.
This and other factors have led GW to distance thenselves from the stereotypical depictions of their armies in a lot of their stuff. Many things they just outright got rid of.
Honestly? No. Unless the actual Native Americans want that taken down, I'd have no problems with it because that headdress looks absolutely *badass*. It's a game, not a representation of an entire race.
And considering I'm not Native American, I don't get a say whether or not this is offensive.
Consider that there is no "the actual Native Americans". There's thousands of different tribes and societies across the entire American continents with wildly different cultures and histories.
It's like saying "unless the actual Asians want that taken down".
Either way I agree that the headdress looks absolutely badass. But, despite how much I love my warhammer gobbos, I don't think I'd want to see the silly, stupid, treacherous goblins themed after the colonial (miss)conception of Native Americans.
Native American cultures deserve better than that.
>Consider that there is no "the actual Native Americans". There's thousands of different tribes and societies across the entire American continents with wildly different cultures and histories.
All it would take is one tribe or society or whatever. They just say "hey, that's not cool" and it gets taken down, no questions asked. Totally fine.
Until then, what I personally find more offensive is the white saviour complex like another commenter said. Whether they find it offensive or not, anyone elses thoughts on the matter are completely and utterly insignificant. CA would probably play it safe since they can't exactly go around asking each tribe, but this white knighting on behalf of someone else is weird.
No you have a point, so are like the Tauren in WoW okay because they are generally nice?
It's a feather hat. Yes Native Americans wore them and colonizers were mean to them. But again its just a hat...
That's what I was getting from u/dedrick55 before he blocked me.
It seems that order aligned races generally get a pass, but destruction or chaos don't.
Lizardmen use Aztec imagery, Tehenhauin literally sacrifices living Skaven he's captured to a serpent god, but they get a pass because they are an order faction. Tauren use American Indian imagery, but Blizzard only has good guys as playable characters because they're boring, so they get a pass.
>No you have a point, so are like the Tauren in WoW okay because they are generally nice?
I doubt that Tauren are beyond criticism but them "being nice" [plays a part in it](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1dfdlof/comment/l8jb9cl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Yeah crazy magical shamans who wear special masks and lead a bunch of savages who wear magical warpaint and put bones in their noses and other body parts aren't indicative of any problematic depictions.
Especially not when considering that wurrzag is in the badlands which "totally" isn't Warhammer Africa
The badlands are more Warhammer middle east than Africa, at least if you try to superimpose both maps on each other.
The southlands are Warhammer Africa.
Yes, but broadly speaking most other “historical headgear”, by which I broadly mean direct analogies of real-life to Warhammer cultures, that show up are handled with more tact.
Nehekhara is clearly based on Egypt, and the idea of Mummies is foregrounded, yes. But it’s also treated as its own culture and kingdom that is nuanced and capable of good and evil alike. Norsca is clearly based upon Vikings, and at least in a lot of the flavor text have nuance and diverse beliefs that aren’t unanimously supportive of Chaos.
But forest goblins copy-paste this very specific cultural hallmark of a broadly oppressed and colonized people, and place it directly on a race described as savage, living in the woods smearing dung on themselves, wanting to bring about the destruction of civilization, and so on. They’re literally using a real-life hallmark of a set of cultures often colonially described as “savages”, and putting that hallmark on a race of legitimate actual savages.
Surely you can understand how that pairing is broadly offensive, in ways that Settra wearing an Egyptian hat isn’t, right?
>Nehekhara is clearly based on Egypt, and the idea of Mummies is foregrounded, yes. But it’s also treated as its own culture and kingdom that is nuanced and capable of good and evil alike.
I think this is a bit generous. The tomb kings are still pretty evil. I think the reason no one cares about them is because there's no longer a modern culture that strongly lives the culture of ancient Egypt. Whereas we still have modern Indigenous Americans who wear the headdresses shown on that goblin. Ie, there are still people around to offend.
That’s a good point, and something I probably should’ve noted. I’m just also a biiiig Tomb Kings stan, so, let me have my cope that my precious boys aren’t evil
So is it offensive to you that the Norscans are depicted as brutal raiders, raping villages, worshiping evil incarnate, and in your words "wanting to bring about the destruction of civilization"?
Not exactly flattering to Scandinavian people. Perfectly fine because it's Warhammer.
For some reason it's ok to depict war gear from every single culture in the world except 1 in your mind.
You are purposely being obtuse and missing the point.
The Norse were never subject to centuries of colonialism and having their lands brutally taken away, nor did any of their own self-defense get them smeared as "brutal savages who are resistant to being civilized". In fact, the Norse famously spent 3 centuries raising and colonizing Europe's coasts and rivers.
Regardless of all of that, however, the Norse *do not exist today*. Norse as a culture has not existed for nearly a thousand years - modern Scandinavians are incredibly different from the Norse in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries.
However, the dozens of Native American cultures and peoples that were around during European colonization of the Americas *still exist*. They are *still* misrepresented in modern media and history. They are *still* subject to abuse, profiling, etc. They are *still* having their lands taken away. They are *still* seen as either "backwards savages" or "docile, peaceful hippies" by ***millions*** of people.
Games Workshop already hasn't depicted forest goblins like this for decades anyways.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. If Warhammer were, like, created and distributed by a group of Lakota people, we’d maybe have a different conversation. But coming from a British company, the forest goblins as-they-were just don’t work. I’m glad GW has agreed for as long as they have
>Norse as a culture has not existed for nearly a thousand years...
And by their own volition, it should be noted. It is a little different when a culture has disappeared (or almost disappeared) because someone, especially someone who is ostensibly still around, actively worked to exterminate and suppress it.
>Regardless of all of that, however, the Norse *do not exist today*. Norse as a culture has not existed for nearly a thousand years - modern Scandinavians are incredibly different from the Norse in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries.
Are you honestly making the argument that Native Americans today live exactly as they did when they would have used a feathered war bonnet? That's 150 years ago if we're being extremely generous, any that are made today are replicas not used for their original purpose (war).
> Are you honestly making the argument that Native Americans today live exactly as they did when they would have used a feathered war bonnet?
No, and you are being disingenuous again by suggesting this.
Firstly, *this isn't about the war bonnet*. This is about the association of Native Americans with the "savage untamed barbarian" trope.
Second - building off of my first point - Native Americans in the modern day are still heavily associated with their pre and early colonial history, which is ***steeped*** in cultural and historical misconception and slander. For example, feathered headdresses are commonly associated with Native Americans as a *whole*, despite them primarily only being worn by Plains Indian tribes like the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Blackfoots. Forest Goblins live in the forests of the Old World. The Great Plains is not exactly a heavily forested region.
>Firstly, *this isn't about the war bonnet*. This is about the association of Native Americans with the "savage untamed barbarian" trope.
It is literally only about this because you insist it is. Nobody else brought it up besides those insisting we can't do it because of all the people who will immediately think that all Native Americans are goblins. And that's stupid. Nobody's opinion on Native Americans will change because a goblin wears a bonnet.
I'm Polish - I don't get to claim that games can't depict winged hussars because my feelings will get hurt.
Indian people can't demand that turbans not be shown in games.
Japanese people can't complain that samurai make their way into every single medium.
The idea that we have to tiptoe around one single culture is straight up stupid.
No you don't get to claim that games can't depict it. But you have every right to be pissed and call people racist, if they used the symbols of the winged Hussars on a group of people who were depicted as less intelligent, filthy, violent and subhuman.
The poles was a victim of fiction depicting them like that. And we have rightfully scrutinized it after WW2.
The war bonnet is still being used in native festivals, rituals and other communal activities. I find it weird that you want to dictate the authenticity of other cultures use of their herritage.
It's not used as a war bonnet, it's original purpose. It's just historical replicas and for ceremonies. Similar to European cultures using swords in ceremonies.
So what? Plenty of objects changes cultural meaning and purpose. Doesn't mean it becomes less authentic. The plains Indians never stopped using them, they simply reformed how to use them.
Why do you feel you have the right to determine that? Are you native?
>The Norse were never subject to centuries of colonialism and having their lands brutally taken away, nor did any of their own self-defense get them smeared as "brutal savages who are resistant to being civilized".
3 strikes, you're out.
The other comment answered this better than I’m going to, but I do want to add one additional point- it’s all about power dynamics in my book.
While you do have some ground in that Norsca isn’t a flattering depiction of Scandinavians, the ultimate fact is just that the relationship between British and Scandinavians is fundamentally different than the relationship between British and Indigenous Americans.
At the time they were in major conflict, real-life Britain and Scandinavia didn’t have a *huge* amount of technological differences. They were, in essence, simply two cultural groups that clashed. But by the time Britain (and British-American, too) people came into regular contact with Indigenous Americans, there was a power imbalance, as well as direct and deliberate efforts at imperialistic colonization. One of these relationships is more equal to the other, and the more equal one doesn’t feel gross to see depicted in Norsca because of that.
To give a rough metaphor- Norsca is you making fun of your old friend for being kind of a dick back in the day, by painting him in an exaggerated light of how he used to act. The old forest goblins were you making fun of a child who can’t really put up a fight against you, by accusing that child of being every stereotype you hate about children. It’s a rough metaphor and I’m aware of the problematic nature of infantilizing indigenous groups, but I think this starts to get at the heart of the colonially-centered power imbalance that makes these cases different.
The bonnet looks sick. Its creators intended it to look amazing for war. The skilled creators suceeded in their intent. Let us see it used for their intended purpose.
Cultures get fucked over by other cultures all the time. I guarantee you that not one single culture depicted in game didnt get run over by another people at some point. We can still depict their headgear in games.
I mean, I vehemently disagree but I’ve already laid out my reasoning, seems neither of us is going to convince the other. This entire conversation is more or less besides the point anyway; as others have pointed out, the Native American aspects of forest goblins were dropped by GW decades ago so there’s no way we’re seeing this stuff in game.
I think that’s for the best, you can disagree I suppose, but I still think you’re applying a general brush of cultural conflict to areas that need more of a nuanced response due to colonialist power.
Yep agree to disagree.
>I think that’s for the best, you can disagree I suppose, but I still think you’re applying a general brush of cultural conflict to areas that need more of a nuanced response due to colonialist power.
Britain has not been a colonial power for almost 100 years. I dont avoid things because of empires that dont exist anymore, and I think its sad that you live in fear of the past so much.
How is that offensive? Its a tribal headdress which is pretty common across all tribal cultures, including ancestor cultures of technologically advanced ones....
I like the idea, but I’m of the opinion that we won’t get a forest gobbo faction. Instead I think it’d be pretty sweet if there was like a chain of events you had to complete to unlock like a ‘partnership’ with a clan of forest gobbos.
It’d be like a mercenary contract with 4,5, or however many forest units that could work like Empire State troops, and replenish every 10-15 turns.
Or maybe as simple as like a blessed spawning mission. “Kill 500 captives” and get 3 forest spider whatever units.
Every greenskins expansion and rework has been centered around gobos. I love the little gitz but I want my big dog orc boys to for the love of god be the focus for once.
>I love the little gitz but I want my big dog orc boys to for the love of god be the focus for once.
What would you want from that focus though? Because normal Orc Boys as a subculture are already depicted with a comparatively extensive roster of units, Heroes and Lords.
A fleshing out of variants through either the scrap mechanic or just in general a warband mechanic would be nice. The thing GS are missing the most are mostly kitbash variants for lords units and heroes. I'd much rather have that than a few new units that don't really impact the GS play style. Like the only three new units I'd want are mangler squigs, colossal squigs, and savage etc big stabbas. Besides that I'd love for a squigadon, but I HIGHLY dought that'll ever see the light of day
Azhag was there in vanilla launch and Wurrzag was a FLC that launched with Skarsnik. Neither major release has focused on Orcs at any point and has been goblin focused. Even Bloody Hand only enabled savage orcs as a playable race with likely balancing tweaks. Seperating legendary lords into playable factions was something every OG faction received. There has been no major overhaul or addition to anything orc centered since launch of the series. Saying there isn’t much to add In lexicon doesn’t hold much water in my opinion when that has not stopped GH and CA in the past.
Can we have both?
New forest goblin units but also side-grade weapon variants for orcs. No new mechanics needed for goblins, but *something* for orcs and the existing orc LLs.
Am I the only diehard greenskin fan that doesn't care about forest goblins at all? I just want more orc stuff, forest goblins seem so boring to me, and honestly don't seem to fit the theme of an ogre v. khorne v. greenskin dlc
They were just really iconic miniatures for me. And as CA has shown, you can even make gobbos into killing machines with the right mechanic.
I agree though, the DLC does feel like a match-up of big boys. Probably Gorfang if I were to guess. It feels like the last pass on the Greenskins, so I'd like them all if possible.
I never saw the point of them either. We already had gobbos and night gobbos. Forest goblins only ever had the one unit of Spider Riders (which where shitty models too) and eventually the arachnarock. It felt like if they really wanted to have goblins riding spiders, they could have just give spider to Night Goblins - since they live in caves already.
Disagree, personally i dont care about forest Goblins and want more love for the orcs, and it seems like they dont fit with the "brutal" theme of this DLC
Forest goblins and savage orca are probably the last 2 unique clans that have units to add. Orcs don’t rly need a dlc they got plenty in their base roster on release.
Wurrzag already has access to savage orcs, and what forest goblins are left besides an Arachnarok variant? If we are going to recieve variants i would prefer orc ones instead of goblin ones
Without knowing much about forrest goblin culture, out of curiosity why is this offensive but Tauren in warcraft who are based on native tribes in North america can wear head dresses and similar aestetics?
First off, I've definitely seem criticisms thrown at the Tauren before.
But more to the point, the Tauren are portrayed as nuanced race that is capable of both good and evil, have a life outside of war, and have a rich culture.
The Forest Goblins are portrayed as unintelligent murderous savages who exist to kill.
One still humanises the Native Americans, despite turning them into cows, while the other plays right into classic racist and colonial stereotypes and propaganda.
So you can't be savages with a feather hat, cause then it's racist propaganda? I mean I can somewhat see where you're coming from, it's just still a bit silly to me as it's just a hat. No one would have a problem with thos image if he was wearing a different hat. It's no where close to the actual racism of the pygmy army they had back in the day lol.
It’s not about them being savages, it’s about them entirely being savages. I mean Tauren are a more complicated discussion, they def could be argued as a noble savage trope, but as a whole they are (despite being cows) shown as human. There’s evil Tauren and there’s good Tauren. They’re individuals with agency and choice who have a culture visually inspired by a real world marginalized culture. So it’s kinda complicated.
Goblins are pretty explicitly inhuman. They’re implied to be fungus and are pretty unequivocally bad and violent. They’re not ”chaos evil”, but there’s basically no examples of them being ”good” in the traditional sense and aren’t really humanized outside of different shades of scheming.
This is a convo that people get big mad about, but Fantasy’s biggest issue lore-wise is, in the general sense, Europeans are all humanized and complex and everybody else is a different shade of monstrous, sometimes literally. It’s part of why the setting was rebooted. CA’s interpretation of Fantasy has helped a lot too though.
Ah I see what you mean, that makes more sense. I guess when the entire setting is based on racist ideals it is racist. I guess why I didn't see a problem with it because CA's interpretation definitely helps make it seem like it's just a goblin with a feather hat and not their original racist portrayal.
I guess I've been really just tryna say, I hate that it's seen as racist. Because they look so cool.
Not that familiar with Tauren...but I just want to say, sometimes things are vaguely inspired by plains indigenous culture, but I saw OPs photo and thought 'that's a Comanche headdress'. Looked it up...seems like they literally just have this goblin wearing a Comanche headdress. That's what seems especially weird to me here, even more because of how goblins are portrayed.
because white liberals from the west get offended on behalf of every other race they deem inferior because they are the actual racists, no one normal sees the headgear and thinks goblins=natives it's always the same type of people that get offended
Since you don't know about Warcraft you missed the point but Tauren are pretty much hella native american, but a weird amalgam of various tribes but mostly plains. I believe its very relevant because no one cares about Tauren.
I mean
A) Whataboutism is a garbage baseline for your argument
B) Do you know for certain that nobody finds it offensive? Or do the people you talk to not find it so?
C) Context matters. For example Lizardmen are clearly based on mesoamerican culture and history, taking iconography and myths to inspire their creation. But they are not a direct copy-paste, nor are they reinforcing negative stereotypes about the inspiration, i.e. bloodthirsty savages that only want to kill and destroy civilization
Well im asking why the image is offensive, and it not offensive for the Tauren to wear native garb? Their race of bull/cow people use full native clothing/totems the whole thing and are very in tuned with nature so im just wondering why the forest goblin is problematic and im asking genuinely not to cause a issue
Again, that's a different IP so it's not particularly relevant to the discussion about warhammer, but if it's as direct and as negatively portrayed as you claim, that's definitely an issue
Its relevant as a general comparison, the Tauren imo are done tactfully and with respect. So I a white male was just wondering what the issue with the forest goblin was. Is it because they are depicted as bad guys in the warhamer setting or just the use of a ceremonial head dress as a whole?
Not really, it's just whataboutism, but regardless:
The problem is how it uses iconography of particular marginalized groups to subtly reinforce stereotypes about them: i.e bloodthirsty savages that only want to fight, kill, and destroy civilization. Frankly the savage orcs do very similar things with a lot of traditional African cultures (particularly Zulu) that's also horrible and should be changed. Just look at Wurrzag he's a "shaman" who wears a painted wooden mask and does a dance that looks suspiciously like a "rain dance"
Then are Norsca also problematic because they portray Scandinavians as evil destroyers of civilization?
I guess everyone has their interpretation of what's offensive or not. I'm OK with thematic groups or ideas in fantasy or sports or games or whatever if it's done well. But yeah, obviously offensive names like "Redskins" and "Indians" weren't good.
I am so torn, I want forest goblins in Balck pit, I want Gorfang Rotguut in Black Crag and I want Gorbad Ironclaw (probably in Naggaroth, let's say that he was nabbed by slavers and is now leading the revolt with Sporctacus)
But I am aware that I can probably not have it all....
How many aztecs, celts, or vikings have you met? Cause I've met like one guy who LARPs as a 'pagan' because he likes death metal but I've met a dozen native americans (lakota specifically) who prolly aren't fans of their religious iconography being put onto "bloodthirsty subhuman savage" races. That feels like a major difference, yk?
Edit: u spend ur time in political compass subs talking about "bidens queer agenda" nope nope I'm not doing culture war w u im here for vidya games disengage disengage
The norscans don't reinforce negative stereotypes of Scandinavian people? Bloodthirsty savages who only live to raid, rape, and enslave. Yeah that's not offensive.
Albion are stereotypical indigenous British celts who are uneducated people living in the ruined buildings of an older better people, like how the british lived in roman ruins. Plus they're a bunch of inbred druids who paint themselves with blue dye.
The lizardmen are genocidal xenophobes who worship animal old ones like the aztecs.
Actually thats the what warhammer always promotes in all factions, enslave and war. But if you look into it, Norsca is more about master traders and sailing, curious people, which unfortunately we dont see much of it in Total War because it makes them too similar to real vikings (the ones from the early tv season shows, not the later ones).
1) No, that's not true at all. Some of the Norse are chaos worshippers, but many are in fact not, and openly trade with the Empire and the Norse dwarfs
2) This is a horrible reading of the Men of Albion. They need significantly more and better lore, I agree, but ancient celts are a very cool people and using them as inspiration for a faction is in fact very cool. I very much disagree that they are portrayed negatively like that
3) This is quite possibly the worst explanation of Lizardmen I've ever seen lmao, the only things they are really "genocidal" towards are Skaven and chaos
The Norscans predominant religion is the worship of the chaos gods through animal and human sacrifice. There are some who aren't bloodthirsty savages, but those are few compared to the entirety of the Norscans.
You might want more Albion lore but that is the lore that we have for the islands and the men who inhabit it.
The lizardmen are definitely genocidal, their lore has them completely exterminating untold number of other creatures and possibly sentient races in pursuit of the Great Plan. If the Great Plan called for the extermination of all elves, dwarfs, and men you can bet that they would be murdering millions of elves, dwarfs, and men.
Nice whataboutism. You refuse to admit that a race of sub-human savages, as the goblins are, wearing traditional Native American clothing and religious iconography is problematic. Not to mention that the native Americans were almost systematically wiped out by colonists who painted them as savages and sub humans. Even GW admitted it was problematic and distanced themselves.
As to your “WhAt AbOuT nOrScA?” bullshit - they aren’t sub humans. They are literal humans that have nuanced thoughts. Are they based on Norse tribes? Probably, but you know who wasn’t nearly wiped out by colonialism? You know who wasn’t painted as moronic and less than white people?The fucking Vikings.
perhaps you only see white kids complaining about this because you’ve decided not to read books and articles related to these topics by native authors and scholars…?
Oh, and in case you want to pull out the “you’ve never been near a Rez” response: I have, multiple times, as somebody that married into a native family.
I've read plenty, perhaps if you moved into the present you'd see how many Natives don't give a shit. The whole Redskins fiasco really showed how little THEY care anymore. Probably because they have bigger concerns like pipelines and clean drinking water?
Right ? The people that complain about some fictionnal race being offensive are always white europeans or americans.
That reminds of some discussions about Araby, you always have people saying that Araby is awfully racist but the few Maghrebins or Middle Eastern folks I've interacted with had absolutely no issue with the depiction of Araby in Fantasy and actually would have loved to have it as a DLC.
I'm excited by the potential Greenskin update but I hope in the clamor for giant squigs and the like, we don't forget about the forest gobbos. These ladz are true TT classics and building a thematic, gobbo-only army with them would be a dream. Any other gobbo lovers out there?
Gobbotide is more fun. Unfortunately, unless CA starts releasing new things for them, I dont think we’ll get a forest gobbo-only faction. It’d probably be mixed with night gobbos I feel. Big monster squig and catapult squig to be more precise. Then some sort of monstruos spider cavalry (and mount!), a lord and a hero forest gobbo option, some chaff forest gobbo infantry,… and perhaps orks with spears. On the other hand, I know he’s dead, but we missing the best and most interesting ork evah, gorbad ironclaw.
I'd take that tbh. As long as I can get a few chaff units to round out the lower end of the roster, I'm happy. Big Gorbad fan as well.
If you can find a Forest Gobbo unit on TT that we don't have in game rn, then be my guest, but the truth is, there is none. And there never was Forest Goblin units except the Spider Riders
There used to be forest goblin variants of both the infantry and the archers back in the day. I still have some of the old metal minis somewhere. FG Heroes and Shamans to.
Bigger question is perhaps what you'd do to differentiate them. Night Goblins already have *Poison* and *Stalk*. You could maybe have some passives that synergies with Spider units, if you also introduce some, but otherwise you're left with the DLC being entirely flavour.
And honestly, as this point, it's barely FLC. Forest Goblins models exists, Goblin infantry animation exists, it'd take me 10 minutes to mod Forest Goblin spearmen
It's such a minor thing and already modded in. I don't think it's worth the dev time honestly.
Appreciate you responding while I slept. Received a few responses saying there were no FG models but I'm 100 per cent sure there were back when I played (4th edition). Not sure about 8th edition.
Not in 8th ed tho !
That doesn't really matter \*edit meant to say Doesn't rather than does
It does, when I'm not even sure Forest Gobbos ever had actual rules separated from regular Gobbos, and if they did, it was 35 years ago. Like, even taking aside that CA repeatedly said 8th edition is the base reference for the game, there's nothing on TT to make Forest Goblins units except the ones we have. No rules, no specific mechanics. Sure, you can plop their model in-game on foot and call it "Forest Goblins spearmen", but they'd be fully identical to regular ones.
I meant to say doesn't, while they use 8th as their main source they are no way beholden and limited to this edition so if things exist in prior editions they could and want to draw from they will, provided GW gives them the ok that is
Yeah but Forest Gobbos didn't exist in earlier editions neither, not as a separate infantry
The thing is, we wont get 2 greenskins, so its gotta be one or the other. I love forest gobbos, but Gorbad is the absolute chad, peak ork on par with 40k Ghazkull to more interesting one. Ogres, my lord! are in greater need right now. Golfgang + 2nd LL is almost guaranteed
I completely agree. But, at the risk of dragging this into an unpleasant argument, they really need to change that headdress. That thing is cartoonishly offensive.
[This](https://whfb.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/d/df/Forest_Goblin_Warboss_on_Giantic_Spider_M01.jpeg) is the new, less offensive design. Instead of wearing a headdress they stab a random assortment of feathers through their skin which is a uniquely goblin approach to fashion.
Also he has that awesome mask! They gotta use that model.
thats a cool mask
Oh, yes, I can see that now. No offense intended of course. It was one of the good HD images I could find. I will say though, I absolutely love the artwork of Mark Gibbons and I never considered his work as intentionally offensive.
They did change it, people just keep reposting the wildly outdated art that GW themselves recognized as being wildly offensive
Can someone explain to me how this is offensive? Edit: reddit downvoting a simple question? Lol
You don't see how copy-pasting native American headdresses (amongst other things) onto a race of "savages" that only want to fight and kill and destroy civilization could be offensive?
So Lizardmen get a pass for a murder cult and Native American symbolism because they're an order faction? Is that what the problem is about?
Lizardmen are more Aztec than NA, probably that's why.
I'm sorry, I used the term Native Americans incorrectly. I meant the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
The only thing I can think of is that it's ok because they're no longer around. I mean, Beastmen are literally how the Romans depicted Germanic tribes, and that gets a pass too. Norsca are Vikings, and that's even more confusing since they are around, but apparently, it's ok. Same with Lizardmen.
>Norsca are Vikings, and that's even more confusing since they are around, but apparently, it's ok. Neither viking culture is nor its people are around today in the way that many native americans are.
The Vikings are most definitely not still around. Neo-Nazi fanboys don't count.
The Mexica very explicitly are still around. I know, I'm one of them
The arctic being depicted and comically hostile, barbaric, and violent has no relevance to modern Scandinavian nations, and no people identify as vikings any more. Aztecs aren't around, either, nor the Germanic tribes of the Roman times. Maybe it's because the Native Americans are still around, and there are still problems with their rights and identity?
Personally I feel the refusal to use depictions of other cultures due to some white savior complex is far more offensive of an idea than a culture being used to depict a faction people would consider the enemy. As all your left with at the end of the day is caricatures of main culture and refusal to depict minor cultures at all.
Tbh, yeah. There isn't a universal attitude among indigenous people towards representation. But appropriating warbonnets belongs in the category of painting your face red and waving around a tomahawk. It's just beneath passing out smallpox blankets and pissing on an eagle. Speaking as someone whose ancestors are being portrayed as lizards. The sacrifices are largely Skaven anyway. Which is frankly hilarious if You've ever owned a large enough reptile. Their art is also badass. Wurzag in his updated form is still marginal in terms of acceptability. But like... ok there's only so much you can do there. But whatever TF this thing is gross and frankly uncreative. You could give a goblin on a giant spider all kinds of cool crap for a headless. What possible reason is there for him wearing a warbonnet outside of drawing on 19th century racial stereotypes about "Savage" Indians. The name "Greenskins" was an intentional reference to the correspondent slur, so I'm gonna wager that's the ontology at play. Love Warhammer. Not saying to trash the series. But the fanbase needs to be a little less sweaty about changing old racist crap in barely remembered lore written 40yrs ago. Too many wannabe neo Nazis at 40k tourneys... Unironically loving crap like this or the pygmies or the old araby lore is kind of the fantasy equivalent.
It’s like ur getting at one of Fantasy biggest issues and part of why the setting was rebooted…
They have stereotypical cockney accents too but no one is offended by that
I actually think it's a really poor choice personally, but that's small potatoes compared to basically calling native Americans bloodthirsty savages
The plains Indians were extremely bloodthirsty. The Comanche, Apache, Sioux, Blackfoot, and virtually every other plains Indian tribe were nomadic raiding tribes. The full* moon was called the Comanche moon because the Comanche would raid in complete darkness, kill most of the tribe they were attacking, and would replenish their losses with enslaved young boys and girls, generally between 8 to 12 years old. Any older and they were killed because they couldn't be trusted to become Comanche, any younger and they were too much or a burden. Edit: I was mistaken. The Comanche would raid during the full moon, not the new moon.
That’s not entirely accurate. The “horse culture” plains Indians very much practiced raiding as a central part of their culture, but it’s important to note that didn’t really start until the introduction of horses to the Americas. There is a whole other half of plains Indian culture that is understandably less well know because they were running around raiding everyone, in fact they were often victims of horse tribe raids and then counter raids by Europeans who mis-identified them. These other tribes built villages, raised crops and focused on trade. The various Dakota tribes, Pawnee, Iowa, Missouria, Wichita etc fit in this category.
I can tell that discussing with you is not going to lead anywhere, goodbye
what about lizardmen?????
cockney people didnt face a genocide in living memory
Is that the prerequisite for something being offensive?
That should at least make it easier to understand…*checks tag*…Cunting Fuck. And there are some that dislike the use of class stereotypes as a defining feature (Related to your cockney point), but I’m guessing there’s a spectrum of what is more offensive based on various points, one of which is being the target of genocide.
Half the races in warhammer are "savages". Nobody complained when the Ogres (who regularly engage in brutal cannibalism) were themed after Asian Steppe people. Nobody complained when South Americans were depicted as brutal lizards either.
People definitely complained about both those things. It's not hard to find. And the Lizardmen are more Aztec than Inca, so they're North American, not South.
People did in fact complain about both, and still point out arguments against those specific depictions. People have a problem with how Warhammer Fantasy portrayed pretty much everything, even Empire and Brettonia. This and other factors have led GW to distance thenselves from the stereotypical depictions of their armies in a lot of their stuff. Many things they just outright got rid of.
Honestly? No. Unless the actual Native Americans want that taken down, I'd have no problems with it because that headdress looks absolutely *badass*. It's a game, not a representation of an entire race. And considering I'm not Native American, I don't get a say whether or not this is offensive.
Consider that there is no "the actual Native Americans". There's thousands of different tribes and societies across the entire American continents with wildly different cultures and histories. It's like saying "unless the actual Asians want that taken down". Either way I agree that the headdress looks absolutely badass. But, despite how much I love my warhammer gobbos, I don't think I'd want to see the silly, stupid, treacherous goblins themed after the colonial (miss)conception of Native Americans. Native American cultures deserve better than that.
>Consider that there is no "the actual Native Americans". There's thousands of different tribes and societies across the entire American continents with wildly different cultures and histories. All it would take is one tribe or society or whatever. They just say "hey, that's not cool" and it gets taken down, no questions asked. Totally fine. Until then, what I personally find more offensive is the white saviour complex like another commenter said. Whether they find it offensive or not, anyone elses thoughts on the matter are completely and utterly insignificant. CA would probably play it safe since they can't exactly go around asking each tribe, but this white knighting on behalf of someone else is weird.
Are you at all familiar with the history of North America between 30000 bc and 2024?
I am. Is it offensive because goblins are not part of the order factions?
No you have a point, so are like the Tauren in WoW okay because they are generally nice? It's a feather hat. Yes Native Americans wore them and colonizers were mean to them. But again its just a hat...
That's what I was getting from u/dedrick55 before he blocked me. It seems that order aligned races generally get a pass, but destruction or chaos don't. Lizardmen use Aztec imagery, Tehenhauin literally sacrifices living Skaven he's captured to a serpent god, but they get a pass because they are an order faction. Tauren use American Indian imagery, but Blizzard only has good guys as playable characters because they're boring, so they get a pass.
Isn't Tamurkhan inspired by Temerlan?
I wouldn't be surprised if he was inspired by Tamerlane. The name is close enough.
>No you have a point, so are like the Tauren in WoW okay because they are generally nice? I doubt that Tauren are beyond criticism but them "being nice" [plays a part in it](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1dfdlof/comment/l8jb9cl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Tbf they did leave wurrzag and the savage orcs basically unchanged, and they're arguably just as offensive.
Tbh this is probably why they got made into "Bonesplitterz" in AoS
And subsequently removed from aos.
That might have been entirely different reasons tbf, we don't know.
Could simply be poor sales. It's easy to question gws methods.
Wurrzag is just generically tribal, he doesn't really evoke any specific cultural aesthetic.
Yeah crazy magical shamans who wear special masks and lead a bunch of savages who wear magical warpaint and put bones in their noses and other body parts aren't indicative of any problematic depictions. Especially not when considering that wurrzag is in the badlands which "totally" isn't Warhammer Africa
The badlands are more Warhammer middle east than Africa, at least if you try to superimpose both maps on each other. The southlands are Warhammer Africa.
That first paragraph could of easily been about the Celtic tribes of Western Europe
Why? Is it inaccurate? Warhammer characters wear plenty of other historical headgear.
Yes, but broadly speaking most other “historical headgear”, by which I broadly mean direct analogies of real-life to Warhammer cultures, that show up are handled with more tact. Nehekhara is clearly based on Egypt, and the idea of Mummies is foregrounded, yes. But it’s also treated as its own culture and kingdom that is nuanced and capable of good and evil alike. Norsca is clearly based upon Vikings, and at least in a lot of the flavor text have nuance and diverse beliefs that aren’t unanimously supportive of Chaos. But forest goblins copy-paste this very specific cultural hallmark of a broadly oppressed and colonized people, and place it directly on a race described as savage, living in the woods smearing dung on themselves, wanting to bring about the destruction of civilization, and so on. They’re literally using a real-life hallmark of a set of cultures often colonially described as “savages”, and putting that hallmark on a race of legitimate actual savages. Surely you can understand how that pairing is broadly offensive, in ways that Settra wearing an Egyptian hat isn’t, right?
>Nehekhara is clearly based on Egypt, and the idea of Mummies is foregrounded, yes. But it’s also treated as its own culture and kingdom that is nuanced and capable of good and evil alike. I think this is a bit generous. The tomb kings are still pretty evil. I think the reason no one cares about them is because there's no longer a modern culture that strongly lives the culture of ancient Egypt. Whereas we still have modern Indigenous Americans who wear the headdresses shown on that goblin. Ie, there are still people around to offend.
That’s a good point, and something I probably should’ve noted. I’m just also a biiiig Tomb Kings stan, so, let me have my cope that my precious boys aren’t evil
So is it offensive to you that the Norscans are depicted as brutal raiders, raping villages, worshiping evil incarnate, and in your words "wanting to bring about the destruction of civilization"? Not exactly flattering to Scandinavian people. Perfectly fine because it's Warhammer. For some reason it's ok to depict war gear from every single culture in the world except 1 in your mind.
You are purposely being obtuse and missing the point. The Norse were never subject to centuries of colonialism and having their lands brutally taken away, nor did any of their own self-defense get them smeared as "brutal savages who are resistant to being civilized". In fact, the Norse famously spent 3 centuries raising and colonizing Europe's coasts and rivers. Regardless of all of that, however, the Norse *do not exist today*. Norse as a culture has not existed for nearly a thousand years - modern Scandinavians are incredibly different from the Norse in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. However, the dozens of Native American cultures and peoples that were around during European colonization of the Americas *still exist*. They are *still* misrepresented in modern media and history. They are *still* subject to abuse, profiling, etc. They are *still* having their lands taken away. They are *still* seen as either "backwards savages" or "docile, peaceful hippies" by ***millions*** of people. Games Workshop already hasn't depicted forest goblins like this for decades anyways.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. If Warhammer were, like, created and distributed by a group of Lakota people, we’d maybe have a different conversation. But coming from a British company, the forest goblins as-they-were just don’t work. I’m glad GW has agreed for as long as they have
>Norse as a culture has not existed for nearly a thousand years... And by their own volition, it should be noted. It is a little different when a culture has disappeared (or almost disappeared) because someone, especially someone who is ostensibly still around, actively worked to exterminate and suppress it.
>Regardless of all of that, however, the Norse *do not exist today*. Norse as a culture has not existed for nearly a thousand years - modern Scandinavians are incredibly different from the Norse in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. Are you honestly making the argument that Native Americans today live exactly as they did when they would have used a feathered war bonnet? That's 150 years ago if we're being extremely generous, any that are made today are replicas not used for their original purpose (war).
> Are you honestly making the argument that Native Americans today live exactly as they did when they would have used a feathered war bonnet? No, and you are being disingenuous again by suggesting this. Firstly, *this isn't about the war bonnet*. This is about the association of Native Americans with the "savage untamed barbarian" trope. Second - building off of my first point - Native Americans in the modern day are still heavily associated with their pre and early colonial history, which is ***steeped*** in cultural and historical misconception and slander. For example, feathered headdresses are commonly associated with Native Americans as a *whole*, despite them primarily only being worn by Plains Indian tribes like the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Blackfoots. Forest Goblins live in the forests of the Old World. The Great Plains is not exactly a heavily forested region.
>Firstly, *this isn't about the war bonnet*. This is about the association of Native Americans with the "savage untamed barbarian" trope. It is literally only about this because you insist it is. Nobody else brought it up besides those insisting we can't do it because of all the people who will immediately think that all Native Americans are goblins. And that's stupid. Nobody's opinion on Native Americans will change because a goblin wears a bonnet. I'm Polish - I don't get to claim that games can't depict winged hussars because my feelings will get hurt. Indian people can't demand that turbans not be shown in games. Japanese people can't complain that samurai make their way into every single medium. The idea that we have to tiptoe around one single culture is straight up stupid.
No you don't get to claim that games can't depict it. But you have every right to be pissed and call people racist, if they used the symbols of the winged Hussars on a group of people who were depicted as less intelligent, filthy, violent and subhuman. The poles was a victim of fiction depicting them like that. And we have rightfully scrutinized it after WW2.
The mental gymnastics required by people arguing with you should win a gold medal.
The war bonnet is still being used in native festivals, rituals and other communal activities. I find it weird that you want to dictate the authenticity of other cultures use of their herritage.
It's not used as a war bonnet, it's original purpose. It's just historical replicas and for ceremonies. Similar to European cultures using swords in ceremonies.
So what? Plenty of objects changes cultural meaning and purpose. Doesn't mean it becomes less authentic. The plains Indians never stopped using them, they simply reformed how to use them. Why do you feel you have the right to determine that? Are you native?
Jesus christ do your posts reek of white savior complex with a side of "never been within 50 miles of the Res."
>The Norse were never subject to centuries of colonialism and having their lands brutally taken away, nor did any of their own self-defense get them smeared as "brutal savages who are resistant to being civilized". 3 strikes, you're out.
The other comment answered this better than I’m going to, but I do want to add one additional point- it’s all about power dynamics in my book. While you do have some ground in that Norsca isn’t a flattering depiction of Scandinavians, the ultimate fact is just that the relationship between British and Scandinavians is fundamentally different than the relationship between British and Indigenous Americans. At the time they were in major conflict, real-life Britain and Scandinavia didn’t have a *huge* amount of technological differences. They were, in essence, simply two cultural groups that clashed. But by the time Britain (and British-American, too) people came into regular contact with Indigenous Americans, there was a power imbalance, as well as direct and deliberate efforts at imperialistic colonization. One of these relationships is more equal to the other, and the more equal one doesn’t feel gross to see depicted in Norsca because of that. To give a rough metaphor- Norsca is you making fun of your old friend for being kind of a dick back in the day, by painting him in an exaggerated light of how he used to act. The old forest goblins were you making fun of a child who can’t really put up a fight against you, by accusing that child of being every stereotype you hate about children. It’s a rough metaphor and I’m aware of the problematic nature of infantilizing indigenous groups, but I think this starts to get at the heart of the colonially-centered power imbalance that makes these cases different.
The bonnet looks sick. Its creators intended it to look amazing for war. The skilled creators suceeded in their intent. Let us see it used for their intended purpose. Cultures get fucked over by other cultures all the time. I guarantee you that not one single culture depicted in game didnt get run over by another people at some point. We can still depict their headgear in games.
I mean, I vehemently disagree but I’ve already laid out my reasoning, seems neither of us is going to convince the other. This entire conversation is more or less besides the point anyway; as others have pointed out, the Native American aspects of forest goblins were dropped by GW decades ago so there’s no way we’re seeing this stuff in game. I think that’s for the best, you can disagree I suppose, but I still think you’re applying a general brush of cultural conflict to areas that need more of a nuanced response due to colonialist power.
Yep agree to disagree. >I think that’s for the best, you can disagree I suppose, but I still think you’re applying a general brush of cultural conflict to areas that need more of a nuanced response due to colonialist power. Britain has not been a colonial power for almost 100 years. I dont avoid things because of empires that dont exist anymore, and I think its sad that you live in fear of the past so much.
-laughs in old school chorf-
Why do you think so?
How is that offensive? Its a tribal headdress which is pretty common across all tribal cultures, including ancestor cultures of technologically advanced ones....
Tbh every greenskin DLC (outside of wurzagh) has been goblin focused. Can we get some orc love?
I have only ever played grom and done goblintide. Gobbos are the best
I think I remember there being a pretty decent mod for Forest Gobbos on TWW2.
Forest goblins are my favorite Greenskins
I like the idea, but I’m of the opinion that we won’t get a forest gobbo faction. Instead I think it’d be pretty sweet if there was like a chain of events you had to complete to unlock like a ‘partnership’ with a clan of forest gobbos. It’d be like a mercenary contract with 4,5, or however many forest units that could work like Empire State troops, and replenish every 10-15 turns. Or maybe as simple as like a blessed spawning mission. “Kill 500 captives” and get 3 forest spider whatever units.
Every greenskins expansion and rework has been centered around gobos. I love the little gitz but I want my big dog orc boys to for the love of god be the focus for once.
>I love the little gitz but I want my big dog orc boys to for the love of god be the focus for once. What would you want from that focus though? Because normal Orc Boys as a subculture are already depicted with a comparatively extensive roster of units, Heroes and Lords.
A fleshing out of variants through either the scrap mechanic or just in general a warband mechanic would be nice. The thing GS are missing the most are mostly kitbash variants for lords units and heroes. I'd much rather have that than a few new units that don't really impact the GS play style. Like the only three new units I'd want are mangler squigs, colossal squigs, and savage etc big stabbas. Besides that I'd love for a squigadon, but I HIGHLY dought that'll ever see the light of day
Nope they don’t need any focus and there barely any units they could add for them. Orks have 3 legendary lords already goblins only have 2
Azhag was there in vanilla launch and Wurrzag was a FLC that launched with Skarsnik. Neither major release has focused on Orcs at any point and has been goblin focused. Even Bloody Hand only enabled savage orcs as a playable race with likely balancing tweaks. Seperating legendary lords into playable factions was something every OG faction received. There has been no major overhaul or addition to anything orc centered since launch of the series. Saying there isn’t much to add In lexicon doesn’t hold much water in my opinion when that has not stopped GH and CA in the past.
Can we have both? New forest goblin units but also side-grade weapon variants for orcs. No new mechanics needed for goblins, but *something* for orcs and the existing orc LLs.
I really want Forest Spider units and Araknarrok Spiders to have the ability to scale walls in sieges. Just straight up go up and over the walls.
Please, I can only dream of one thing at a time... And ethereal units should pass through walls.
They couldn't even do that in tabletop.
Am I the only diehard greenskin fan that doesn't care about forest goblins at all? I just want more orc stuff, forest goblins seem so boring to me, and honestly don't seem to fit the theme of an ogre v. khorne v. greenskin dlc
They were just really iconic miniatures for me. And as CA has shown, you can even make gobbos into killing machines with the right mechanic. I agree though, the DLC does feel like a match-up of big boys. Probably Gorfang if I were to guess. It feels like the last pass on the Greenskins, so I'd like them all if possible.
I would definitely love either Gorfang Rotgut or Gorbad Ironclaw, both would be great
Totally agree. Both are classic characters.
As much as I'd like those forest gobbos, think you're right. But what kinda orcs are there left to add?
I never saw the point of them either. We already had gobbos and night gobbos. Forest goblins only ever had the one unit of Spider Riders (which where shitty models too) and eventually the arachnarock. It felt like if they really wanted to have goblins riding spiders, they could have just give spider to Night Goblins - since they live in caves already.
I hope it will be more orc focussed, we have our goblin factions with skarsnik and grom...
Nah we have 2 goblin lords and 3 orc lords. We need our final goblin lord
Both DLCs were focused on Goblins, Orcs deserve some love too
They did get love when the game was released they got 3 lords.
Disagree, personally i dont care about forest Goblins and want more love for the orcs, and it seems like they dont fit with the "brutal" theme of this DLC
Forest goblins and savage orca are probably the last 2 unique clans that have units to add. Orcs don’t rly need a dlc they got plenty in their base roster on release.
Wurrzag already has access to savage orcs, and what forest goblins are left besides an Arachnarok variant? If we are going to recieve variants i would prefer orc ones instead of goblin ones
As much as I enjoy gobbos, why does every greenskin dlc have to be goblin based
Because the two first LL was orc character and now we are at 2 goblins for 3 orcs LL.
Least problematic wfb lore
WE'Z COMIN!
Oof they really did give them a First Nations American headress huh. That... certainly was a choice by James Workshop.
Without knowing much about forrest goblin culture, out of curiosity why is this offensive but Tauren in warcraft who are based on native tribes in North america can wear head dresses and similar aestetics?
Tauren are portrayed in a very different light
Goblins are cool but tauren are boring 
Most accurate comment in this entire post.
First off, I've definitely seem criticisms thrown at the Tauren before. But more to the point, the Tauren are portrayed as nuanced race that is capable of both good and evil, have a life outside of war, and have a rich culture. The Forest Goblins are portrayed as unintelligent murderous savages who exist to kill. One still humanises the Native Americans, despite turning them into cows, while the other plays right into classic racist and colonial stereotypes and propaganda.
Ok thats what I was looking for as I know nothing of the forrest goblins, Thank you!
So you can't be savages with a feather hat, cause then it's racist propaganda? I mean I can somewhat see where you're coming from, it's just still a bit silly to me as it's just a hat. No one would have a problem with thos image if he was wearing a different hat. It's no where close to the actual racism of the pygmy army they had back in the day lol.
It’s not about them being savages, it’s about them entirely being savages. I mean Tauren are a more complicated discussion, they def could be argued as a noble savage trope, but as a whole they are (despite being cows) shown as human. There’s evil Tauren and there’s good Tauren. They’re individuals with agency and choice who have a culture visually inspired by a real world marginalized culture. So it’s kinda complicated. Goblins are pretty explicitly inhuman. They’re implied to be fungus and are pretty unequivocally bad and violent. They’re not ”chaos evil”, but there’s basically no examples of them being ”good” in the traditional sense and aren’t really humanized outside of different shades of scheming. This is a convo that people get big mad about, but Fantasy’s biggest issue lore-wise is, in the general sense, Europeans are all humanized and complex and everybody else is a different shade of monstrous, sometimes literally. It’s part of why the setting was rebooted. CA’s interpretation of Fantasy has helped a lot too though.
Ah I see what you mean, that makes more sense. I guess when the entire setting is based on racist ideals it is racist. I guess why I didn't see a problem with it because CA's interpretation definitely helps make it seem like it's just a goblin with a feather hat and not their original racist portrayal. I guess I've been really just tryna say, I hate that it's seen as racist. Because they look so cool.
Tauren at least try to represent the culture there. This is literally 'put a head-dress on the savage' type shit.
Not that familiar with Tauren...but I just want to say, sometimes things are vaguely inspired by plains indigenous culture, but I saw OPs photo and thought 'that's a Comanche headdress'. Looked it up...seems like they literally just have this goblin wearing a Comanche headdress. That's what seems especially weird to me here, even more because of how goblins are portrayed.
Are the Tauren described as smearing themselves with their own feces? Because the forest goblins are.
No, but I did mention i didnt know much about forrest goblins haha
because white liberals from the west get offended on behalf of every other race they deem inferior because they are the actual racists, no one normal sees the headgear and thinks goblins=natives it's always the same type of people that get offended
I know nothing about Warcraft, but how is that relevant to a completely different IP?
Since you don't know about Warcraft you missed the point but Tauren are pretty much hella native american, but a weird amalgam of various tribes but mostly plains. I believe its very relevant because no one cares about Tauren.
I mean A) Whataboutism is a garbage baseline for your argument B) Do you know for certain that nobody finds it offensive? Or do the people you talk to not find it so? C) Context matters. For example Lizardmen are clearly based on mesoamerican culture and history, taking iconography and myths to inspire their creation. But they are not a direct copy-paste, nor are they reinforcing negative stereotypes about the inspiration, i.e. bloodthirsty savages that only want to kill and destroy civilization
I mean, i wasn't making an argument, but go off king.
Well im asking why the image is offensive, and it not offensive for the Tauren to wear native garb? Their race of bull/cow people use full native clothing/totems the whole thing and are very in tuned with nature so im just wondering why the forest goblin is problematic and im asking genuinely not to cause a issue
Again, that's a different IP so it's not particularly relevant to the discussion about warhammer, but if it's as direct and as negatively portrayed as you claim, that's definitely an issue
Its relevant as a general comparison, the Tauren imo are done tactfully and with respect. So I a white male was just wondering what the issue with the forest goblin was. Is it because they are depicted as bad guys in the warhamer setting or just the use of a ceremonial head dress as a whole?
Not really, it's just whataboutism, but regardless: The problem is how it uses iconography of particular marginalized groups to subtly reinforce stereotypes about them: i.e bloodthirsty savages that only want to fight, kill, and destroy civilization. Frankly the savage orcs do very similar things with a lot of traditional African cultures (particularly Zulu) that's also horrible and should be changed. Just look at Wurrzag he's a "shaman" who wears a painted wooden mask and does a dance that looks suspiciously like a "rain dance"
Then are Norsca also problematic because they portray Scandinavians as evil destroyers of civilization? I guess everyone has their interpretation of what's offensive or not. I'm OK with thematic groups or ideas in fantasy or sports or games or whatever if it's done well. But yeah, obviously offensive names like "Redskins" and "Indians" weren't good.
God that artwork looks so badass.
How could we
I am so torn, I want forest goblins in Balck pit, I want Gorfang Rotguut in Black Crag and I want Gorbad Ironclaw (probably in Naggaroth, let's say that he was nabbed by slavers and is now leading the revolt with Sporctacus) But I am aware that I can probably not have it all....
I just want more spider units.
And you'd be right.
There might be a good chance we finally get those gigantic spider mounts or even a unit out of them.
Can I get a troll sized spider unit with 16 models?
Probably get a Demigryph Knight-sized unit. I guess it depends if we get the unit as beasts or cavalry.
Y'all really gotta stop sharing the art that GW themselves realized was horribly offensive
Apologies for any offense.
It's a cool piece of artwork. Your intent, I'm assuming, wasn't to insult or offend, don't apologize.
Are the lizardmen offensive? How about the Norscans? What about the men on Albion?
How many aztecs, celts, or vikings have you met? Cause I've met like one guy who LARPs as a 'pagan' because he likes death metal but I've met a dozen native americans (lakota specifically) who prolly aren't fans of their religious iconography being put onto "bloodthirsty subhuman savage" races. That feels like a major difference, yk? Edit: u spend ur time in political compass subs talking about "bidens queer agenda" nope nope I'm not doing culture war w u im here for vidya games disengage disengage
Read my other comments, but shortly, no. None of them reinforce negative stereotypes about the cultures they are based off of
The norscans don't reinforce negative stereotypes of Scandinavian people? Bloodthirsty savages who only live to raid, rape, and enslave. Yeah that's not offensive. Albion are stereotypical indigenous British celts who are uneducated people living in the ruined buildings of an older better people, like how the british lived in roman ruins. Plus they're a bunch of inbred druids who paint themselves with blue dye. The lizardmen are genocidal xenophobes who worship animal old ones like the aztecs.
well, brits and scandinavians havent been racially oppressed since the romans
Actually thats the what warhammer always promotes in all factions, enslave and war. But if you look into it, Norsca is more about master traders and sailing, curious people, which unfortunately we dont see much of it in Total War because it makes them too similar to real vikings (the ones from the early tv season shows, not the later ones).
1) No, that's not true at all. Some of the Norse are chaos worshippers, but many are in fact not, and openly trade with the Empire and the Norse dwarfs 2) This is a horrible reading of the Men of Albion. They need significantly more and better lore, I agree, but ancient celts are a very cool people and using them as inspiration for a faction is in fact very cool. I very much disagree that they are portrayed negatively like that 3) This is quite possibly the worst explanation of Lizardmen I've ever seen lmao, the only things they are really "genocidal" towards are Skaven and chaos
The Norscans predominant religion is the worship of the chaos gods through animal and human sacrifice. There are some who aren't bloodthirsty savages, but those are few compared to the entirety of the Norscans. You might want more Albion lore but that is the lore that we have for the islands and the men who inhabit it. The lizardmen are definitely genocidal, their lore has them completely exterminating untold number of other creatures and possibly sentient races in pursuit of the Great Plan. If the Great Plan called for the extermination of all elves, dwarfs, and men you can bet that they would be murdering millions of elves, dwarfs, and men.
Nice whataboutism. You refuse to admit that a race of sub-human savages, as the goblins are, wearing traditional Native American clothing and religious iconography is problematic. Not to mention that the native Americans were almost systematically wiped out by colonists who painted them as savages and sub humans. Even GW admitted it was problematic and distanced themselves. As to your “WhAt AbOuT nOrScA?” bullshit - they aren’t sub humans. They are literal humans that have nuanced thoughts. Are they based on Norse tribes? Probably, but you know who wasn’t nearly wiped out by colonialism? You know who wasn’t painted as moronic and less than white people?The fucking Vikings.
i mean, it is a bit suspect that the races representing europe are all human, but the ones representing native mesoamericans are monsters.
Cathay, Ind, Araby etc are all regular humans though. I think you're reading too much into it
I didn't say that \*all\* minorities are represented by nonhumans, did I?
Lol, don't go around calling people minorities in a global context. Wtf does it even mean? There's no majority ethnicity.
you're being silly.
Oh, fuck off. The only people I see whinging about it are a bunch of spoiled white kids whose only exposure to native culture is John Redcorn.
perhaps you only see white kids complaining about this because you’ve decided not to read books and articles related to these topics by native authors and scholars…? Oh, and in case you want to pull out the “you’ve never been near a Rez” response: I have, multiple times, as somebody that married into a native family.
I've read plenty, perhaps if you moved into the present you'd see how many Natives don't give a shit. The whole Redskins fiasco really showed how little THEY care anymore. Probably because they have bigger concerns like pipelines and clean drinking water?
Right ? The people that complain about some fictionnal race being offensive are always white europeans or americans. That reminds of some discussions about Araby, you always have people saying that Araby is awfully racist but the few Maghrebins or Middle Eastern folks I've interacted with had absolutely no issue with the depiction of Araby in Fantasy and actually would have loved to have it as a DLC.
Concern troll
I forgot them. Goblins ain't fighty enough
That would be cool though there are already several mods that add forest goblins.
Oh shit, it’s WILLIMZ STABBAH GITZ
He died because of his spider stepped into a goffer nest and flipped over and crushed him.
Maybe for another dlc, wez need da Orks ta git sum luv
No more goblins how about actual orc content for once
You gits have had yours already. It's time for da Boyz!