I don't know if TW has anything in the way of rank bonus, but I think you're looking at (or playing) overly simplistically if you think it's "all about making damage with as much models as you can".
No, I'm talking about the visual aspect of the game. When you deploy your units in formation on the board, the gameplay has directly an influence about how it looks, since you will use formations that give you an advantage in game. That's why I'm talking about the formations with deep ranks and a smaller front as much as possible.
I'm not denying the tactical value of using these formations, far from it - I used them as well in my days playing WFB, especially on the competitive scene -, but it really looks poorly on the table when you abuse even a little. It doesn't look like massive battles like in Total War Warhammer, especially when the units begin to charge massively into each other - you can clearly see the ranks quickly disappearing and becoming a huge anarchic melee blob...just like in AoS.
And yes, it was even worse in earlier versions when a rank of 4 soldiers was enough to gain the bonus in combat resolution...so instead of 5x4 formations, you had 4x4...or even deeper than that. It resulted in weird squares of units that didn't give a feeling of massive formations at all (which is why they changed it to ranks of 5 needed to gain the bonuses instead in later editions).
Like I said, I'm not letting nostalgy blinds my eyes and say WFB was all pink and nice. It wasn't. The visuals are actually something that really bothered me, and I will be saying that Total War Warhammer is the best representation of massive battles in the WFB universe, especially visually. It's a good thing that while inspired from WFB, it's not working like WFB at all. And I'm saying it again - it looks more like an AoS game, in terms of visuals.
Because let's be clear : you can use formations and ranks in AoS as well. It even has some tactical advantages. It's just that it's not dictated by some artificial bonuses you gain in combat resolution, like in WFB. To me, the visual of AoS hordes clashing into each others are way more accurate of a true mass battle than WFB would ever be. Fact is, regimental formations like in WFB are so rigid that you can easily abuse game mechanic to have silly situations like a lone cat right in the middle of the way of a huge 40 soldiers unit effectively blocking their advance and even getting hard to kill because just a few models will be able to attack, even though they outnumber it widely.
I think in the end just agree to disagree on that, because I much preferred the WHFB aesthetic of densely packed units in formation smashing up against other densely packed units in formation over the loose individual models of AoS.
That's not nostalgia, that's why I played the game, it's not like we didn't have other loose formation games around at the same time.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think in the end just agree to disagree on that, because I much preferred the WHFB aesthetic of densely packed units in formation smashing up against other densely packed units in formation over the loose individual models of AoS.
That's not nostalgia, that's why I played the game, it's not like we didn't have other loose formation games around at the same time.
Both game mechanics are different and have different results visually, indeed. There is nothing wrong saying you'd prefer one over the other. I'm just explaining you my point of view after your previous answer.
If the Old World really is a mass battle game system, I sure hope they won't simply copy and paste WFB last rules, because to me it will just bring back all the problems from before - it will certainly be pleasing the old players who never wanted to change, but I'm not sure it will be that appealing to the others. I don't especially want to live another WFB's slow and unavoidable decline again.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think in the end just agree to disagree on that, because I much preferred the WHFB aesthetic of densely packed units in formation smashing up against other densely packed units in formation over the loose individual models of AoS.
That's not nostalgia, that's why I played the game, it's not like we didn't have other loose formation games around at the same time.
Both game mechanics are different and have different results visually, indeed. There is nothing wrong saying you'd prefer one over the other. I'm just explaining you my point of view after your previous answer.
If the Old World really is a mass battle game system, I sure hope they won't simply copy and paste WFB last rules, because to me it will just bring back all the problems from before - it will certainly be pleasing the old players who never wanted to change, but I'm not sure it will be that appealing to the others. I don't especially want to live another WFB's slow and unavoidable decline again.
I can agree with that. More than anything I want it to do well, the same way I want any other game to do well, but especially since it's a game I used to enjoy.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think in the end just agree to disagree on that, because I much preferred the WHFB aesthetic of densely packed units in formation smashing up against other densely packed units in formation over the loose individual models of AoS.
That's not nostalgia, that's why I played the game, it's not like we didn't have other loose formation games around at the same time.
Both game mechanics are different and have different results visually, indeed. There is nothing wrong saying you'd prefer one over the other. I'm just explaining you my point of view after your previous answer.
If the Old World really is a mass battle game system, I sure hope they won't simply copy and paste WFB last rules, because to me it will just bring back all the problems from before - it will certainly be pleasing the old players who never wanted to change, but I'm not sure it will be that appealing to the others. I don't especially want to live another WFB's slow and unavoidable decline again.
I can agree with that. More than anything I want it to do well, the same way I want any other game to do well, but especially since it's a game I used to enjoy.
Won't they want to sell new stuff to old players as well as new so it will need at least cosmetic changes - same with the models themselves?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think in the end just agree to disagree on that, because I much preferred the WHFB aesthetic of densely packed units in formation smashing up against other densely packed units in formation over the loose individual models of AoS.
That's not nostalgia, that's why I played the game, it's not like we didn't have other loose formation games around at the same time.
Both game mechanics are different and have different results visually, indeed. There is nothing wrong saying you'd prefer one over the other. I'm just explaining you my point of view after your previous answer.
If the Old World really is a mass battle game system, I sure hope they won't simply copy and paste WFB last rules, because to me it will just bring back all the problems from before - it will certainly be pleasing the old players who never wanted to change, but I'm not sure it will be that appealing to the others. I don't especially want to live another WFB's slow and unavoidable decline again.
I can agree with that. More than anything I want it to do well, the same way I want any other game to do well, but especially since it's a game I used to enjoy.
Won't they want to sell new stuff to old players as well as new so it will need at least cosmetic changes - same with the models themselves?
Because nobody ever owned a second army. Or a third. Or... well, you get the point.
Second, do you mind sharing one of your last army lists from WHFB that you used? I don´t mean exactly the points, just what units and from which edition? That might be a better representation of what some of the people in this thread expect to find in the new game.
Played Chaos throughout 6th/7th and a small Wood Elf army in 6th, but mostly Chaos Mortals either Undivided or Mark of Khorne.
Army was often some variation of:
2-3 blocks of warriors, a block of foot Chosen, a big block of Marauders w/hand weapon &Shield would form the main line. Chaos Lord on horse leading Knights on one side, sometimes Chosen Knights, sometimes Chosen Knights of Khorne if I wanted to be mean, especially in 7th when Frenzy wasn't as crippling. Usually a couple chariots, 2-4 Spawn, unit of Furies to go after warmachines and some Beastmen to flank. Everything ellse was a sometimes-take: Sometimes take a demon prince, sometimes a Hellcannon. Loved my Archaon model but never did actually get to use him. I'd try out various Demon units or Beasts units, had a Shaggoth that I loved but could rarely afford, always wanted Dragon Ogres but hated the metal models, the plastics were amazing but came out too late
Wood elves were an eclectic mix of stuff I got secondhand: old plastic archers and plastic Blood Bowl "wardancers", a high elf lord on dragon painted in greens and browns, a treeman and some dryads and waywatchers. Nothing cohesive, it was only used for funsies games.
That sounds rather decent and about very similar to what I was playing, though I mostly tended to not use more than one block of warriors in favour of more knights. I faced to many cannons and mortars for that as my primary opponents played dwarves, imperium and skaven...
I know that Kings of War exists, but I know no one playing it. There actually is a Warhammer Armies Project group nearby, but that still is not the same as the "proper" GW game with all its support. And seeking the models on ebay is sometimes rather exhaustive.
It will be interesting how GW incorporates the existing players and models into the new game. Whether they try to invalidate old armies, or rather keep a big part of the models and units they already have for AoS that could easily be ported to WTOW or start something completely new.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think in the end just agree to disagree on that, because I much preferred the WHFB aesthetic of densely packed units in formation smashing up against other densely packed units in formation over the loose individual models of AoS.
That's not nostalgia, that's why I played the game, it's not like we didn't have other loose formation games around at the same time.
Both game mechanics are different and have different results visually, indeed. There is nothing wrong saying you'd prefer one over the other. I'm just explaining you my point of view after your previous answer.
If the Old World really is a mass battle game system, I sure hope they won't simply copy and paste WFB last rules, because to me it will just bring back all the problems from before - it will certainly be pleasing the old players who never wanted to change, but I'm not sure it will be that appealing to the others. I don't especially want to live another WFB's slow and unavoidable decline again.
I can agree with that. More than anything I want it to do well, the same way I want any other game to do well, but especially since it's a game I used to enjoy.
Won't they want to sell new stuff to old players as well as new so it will need at least cosmetic changes - same with the models themselves?
Because nobody ever owned a second army. Or a third. Or... well, you get the point.
Don't forget all the armies in the closet they have bought that they will paint one day.....
Not like wargamers show restraints when it comes to purchases. As long as the game is fun and the factions are interesting people just buy and buy. That fantasy died because people were content with what they already had don't match up with many people I have met in this hobby. Most are planning their third or fourth army before they have completely assembled their first.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think in the end just agree to disagree on that, because I much preferred the WHFB aesthetic of densely packed units in formation smashing up against other densely packed units in formation over the loose individual models of AoS.
That's not nostalgia, that's why I played the game, it's not like we didn't have other loose formation games around at the same time.
Both game mechanics are different and have different results visually, indeed. There is nothing wrong saying you'd prefer one over the other. I'm just explaining you my point of view after your previous answer.
If the Old World really is a mass battle game system, I sure hope they won't simply copy and paste WFB last rules, because to me it will just bring back all the problems from before - it will certainly be pleasing the old players who never wanted to change, but I'm not sure it will be that appealing to the others. I don't especially want to live another WFB's slow and unavoidable decline again.
I can agree with that. More than anything I want it to do well, the same way I want any other game to do well, but especially since it's a game I used to enjoy.
Won't they want to sell new stuff to old players as well as new so it will need at least cosmetic changes - same with the models themselves?
Because nobody ever owned a second army. Or a third. Or... well, you get the point.
JWBS wrote: Shaggoth was one of the best minis they ever made imo.
Just a shame that when beasts got their update, the same sculptor wasn’t handed the task of making Kholek and the brass bull.
Would have loved to have had models for them along the same aesthetic line.
Still hoping we see a Kholek model in one system or another.
Like I said, I'm not letting nostalgy blinds my eyes and say WFB was all pink and nice. It wasn't. The visuals are actually something that really bothered me, and I will be saying that Total War Warhammer is the best representation of massive battles in the WFB universe, especially visually. It's a good thing that while inspired from WFB, it's not working like WFB at all. And I'm saying it again - it looks more like an AoS game, in terms of visuals.
Out of curiosity. Why would old world mass battles be so different than what medieval wars were? Our world melee between 2 enemy forces wasn't chaotic mess but organized lines facing each other. And there was good reasons for that...
Are you interested in seeing how battle would REALLY look like or how fantasy chaos that has nothing to do with actual combat looks like?
Like I said, I'm not letting nostalgy blinds my eyes and say WFB was all pink and nice. It wasn't. The visuals are actually something that really bothered me, and I will be saying that Total War Warhammer is the best representation of massive battles in the WFB universe, especially visually. It's a good thing that while inspired from WFB, it's not working like WFB at all. And I'm saying it again - it looks more like an AoS game, in terms of visuals.
Out of curiosity. Why would old world mass battles be so different than what medieval wars were? Our world melee between 2 enemy forces wasn't chaotic mess but organized lines facing each other. And there was good reasons for that...
It often started like that but often disolved into chaos - control over forces was always difficult and even now is not perfect by any stretch. A good general could command effectively but a poor would quickly loose any control he had and unexpected events could throw even the best battle plans and generals into chaos.
Throw in strange war machines, magic as well as terrifying and often flying monsters and its likely a more fluid, confusing and dangerous affair!
Going to reopen this for when some more news appears. As a reminder, this thread is for the the news and rumours of the return of the Old World. It is not a place to debate whether GW screwed up by blowing it up the first time or if AOS sucks etc. Further antagonistic posts of that nature will earn their creator a holiday from this site.
Be polite.
Stay on topic.
Do not spam.
You will all need a very large grain of salt for this one, but I think it might be worth posting here.
The Total War Warhammer series is gearing up to enter the third and final game, in fact Creative Assembly have started teasing for the trailer-release this week. A piece of artwork has surfaced that cannot be sourced anywhere, feel free to have a crack at finding it yourselves. The artwork features Daemons of Khorne and Kislev, both highly anticipated as being key factions in the third game. The reason I'm posting this specifically here is because the Kislev bears are identical to the artwork GW previewed last year, and CA/GW have an exceptionally close working relationship when it comes to art direction.
tl;dr this is likely Total War: Warhammer III artwork and potentially references upcoming the Old World reboot.
Yeah. It makes sense that Creative Assembly would make stuff like elite ice archers for their "small faction remake" for Kislev. More sense than GW doing it for The Old World. But I expect that how Kislev looks in TW:W is how they are gonna look in miniature form.
I don’t see that this confirms that personally.
Designs could have been done for either and then taken for the other.
(Also the acronym should have a little t and big O if you’re only capitalising some letters. tOW
Or just TOW.
A little O is generally for “of” and “or”
It reads like “THE old WORLD” otherwise Tongue in cheek, Just sayin’ )
Sarouan wrote: Fact is, regimental formations like in WFB are so rigid that you can easily abuse game mechanic to have silly situations like a lone cat right in the middle of the way of a huge 40 soldiers unit effectively blocking their advance and even getting hard to kill because just a few models will be able to attack, even though they outnumber it widely.
Ah, the fond memories of parking quick, disposable units in front of major enemy blocks at weird angles.
It was technically a sound strategy, but always felt incredibly gamey, no matter the imaginary justification for how it worked.
Sarouan wrote: Fact is, regimental formations like in WFB are so rigid that you can easily abuse game mechanic to have silly situations like a lone cat right in the middle of the way of a huge 40 soldiers unit effectively blocking their advance and even getting hard to kill because just a few models will be able to attack, even though they outnumber it widely.
Ah, the fond memories of parking quick, disposable units in front of major enemy blocks at weird angles.
It was technically a sound strategy, but always felt incredibly gamey, no matter the imaginary justification for how it worked.
TBH it was 80% of the actual gameplay of warhammer fantasy. Using roadblocks to divert the enemy units and make them unable to charge your own. it looked ugly as feth and I never liked playing like that but it was how you had to play to win.
I've read a lot of really interesting points here, and I'm honestly surprised that there seem to be so many WHFB fans that successfully and happily migrated over to AoS. That's very cool!
My cousin posed a very interesting question to me yesterday. He asked me what I would do if ToW came out with shiny new models but kept the current GW pricing guidelines.
Now, my opinion here so please don't take it as me preaching gospel, but I personally believe that the vocally negative internet had a LOT to do with the decline in sales of WHFB. People constantly bemoaned the price of a fantasy army, usually without even bothering to purchase and build a fantasy army. I once read a 40K tournament player's post commenting on how stupid the prices for WHFB were, apparently without that person realizing the irony of their 40K army costing roughly $200 more than the 'equivalent' fantasy army.
With that being said, I don't see how ToW can be successful in the modern market if they choose to follow the current GW pricing strategy for new 40K or AoS models. If people were complaining (however erroneously IMO) about price in 2012, how much worse will that be if they update the prices to modern equivalents? Not only does a true mass battle game require more models, but if you priced basic troops models at $50 - $60/ 10, elite models at $60/ 5, and monsters for anywhere between $110 to $150, the game is 100% dead on arrival. No one but the most wealthy of WHFB fans would be able to afford to build an army. Even with FW likely to be handling ToW and trying to pass it off as a niche title in the market, I don't think people are going to be thrilled to pay 30K costs for their armies either.
Add that to the fact that there is honestly more exciting things happening in the rank 'n file world now than there was in the past with games like Kings of War, the 9th Age, and Conquest (my personal favorite) all stepping in to fill the giant rank 'n file hole at a much lower price point than WHFB was even before it's decline, and I'm not so sure how excited I am for a return to the Old World.
Don't get me wrong, I love WHFB, and I love the Old World, but I'm tempering my expectations with the idea that GW simply won't know how to price the game. Hopefully I'm wrong, though. Consider my fingers crossed!
Nobody knows the prices GW is gonna put into The Old World stuff.
They released in the span of 6 months a unit like Morterk guard, 20 infantry for 45€ and Lumineth spearmen with 10 for 45€. Two very similar kits, where the first and cheaper one even has more options!
Other units like kairic acolytes, etc... are also 20 for 40€, so 10 for 20€, not a bad price. But only GW and Sigmar knows what kind of cocaine GW executives will be consuming when they decide the prices of the new boxes.
Galas wrote: TBH it was 80% of the actual gameplay of warhammer fantasy. Using roadblocks to divert the enemy units and make them unable to charge your own. it looked ugly as feth and I never liked playing like that but it was how you had to play to win.
One thing to consider is that GW has always had far more concept art than we ever get as models. IT's very likely that CA has teams who have seen a lot of that art and used it for new units in the game that they've made. Eg High Elves never had lion units without a chariot, but they feature in the game itself now. Might well be on a some design table in GW there were plans for such a unit that just never made it to production.
So yep the Kisleve stuff might well be from new concept art or it might have been stuff that was planned or dreamed up in the Old World days in the past and just never made it to the table for various reasons. Heck some new designs might just be newly realised designs based on old concepts that weren't practical/liked or possible in the past.
I really don't see where this "Kislev concepts were done for TW:W3 rather than Old World" idea comes from. The concept art for Kislev stuff was revealed a year ago almost, there's been plenty of time for CA to use that concept art rather than it having been made for them in the first place.
I think its more that CA did some specific art pieces themselves based on TOW redesigns. TW3 is going to hit first, before TOW, so they're at a later stage of art asset requirements.
The video teaser for Kislev in TW3 just went up today, by the way. Nothing major, just a star sign and 'will the children of the bear god be our salvation?' kind of thing. But they're going to need finished art pieces for blogs and advertising, which is probably what Eirikr posted.
One strange thing about that art is the bear cavalry. The initial concept art reveal implied they'd be some entirely new special unit, but then that art appears to just have a Winged Lancers on one of them, so they're just a different mount type for Winged Lancers rather than a more completely unique thing?
Mentlegen324 wrote: I really don't see where this "Kislev concepts were done for TW:W3 rather than Old World" idea comes from. The concept art for Kislev stuff was revealed a year ago almost, there's been plenty of time for CA to use that concept art rather than it having been made for them in the first place.
This.
GW has historically been extremely protective of it's IP and not allowing things to 'slip out'. It's more likely that CA and GW worked together on this, or at least, GW allowed them to utilise the future Kislev designs for TW3. It takes a lot less time to whip up a unit for a video game than it would the four year cycle on the actual models.
Mentlegen324 wrote: One strange thing about that art is the bear cavalry. The initial concept art reveal implied they'd be some entirely new special unit, but then that art appears to just have a Winged Lancers on one of them, so they're just a different mount type for Winged Lancers rather than a more completely unique thing?
The Winged Lancers are probably retconned to all ride bears now instead of horses, since you can probably find historical Hussar models without much difficulty and GW won't want people buying those instead of their new 'original' designs.
Arbitrator wrote: The Winged Lancers are probably retconned to all ride bears now instead of horses, since you can probably find historical Hussar models without much difficulty and GW won't want people buying those instead of their new 'original' designs.
As was discussed a few weeks ago in this thread, the idea of "GW want to make everything unique" does not make any sense and there's no reason to think that's something that's actually happening, that's not what the result of the Chapterhouse stuff was at all and the more unique factions in AoS appear to be down to AoS just being a different style. There's nothing to support the idea, even more so when the Winged Lancers on horses are also seen in that TW:W3 art right next to the bear.
kodos wrote:this more or less confirms that the stuff we have seen was not made for ToW but for Total War and GW just used it to tease
same as the map GW showed was the Total War map (a reason why there is a more detailed/different Norsca) with new Icons on it
Looking closely at the Norsca coastline, its peninsulas, islands and bays, the revealed map and the map used in Total War are not actually that similar, and certainly different. Albion even more.
Lord Damocles wrote:Imagine being that chump who turned up with a horse, when everybody else is riding armoured polar bears and daemon bulls made of metal...
The Lumineth have guys rocking up on horses while others ride not-kangaroos, cow-lion hybrids or are themselves foxy wind spirits, so, yeah, sure.
kodos wrote:this more or less confirms that the stuff we have seen was not made for ToW but for Total War and GW just used it to tease
same as the map GW showed was the Total War map (a reason why there is a more detailed/different Norsca) with new Icons on it
Looking closely at the Norsca coastline, its peninsulas, islands and bays, the revealed map and the map used in Total War are not actually that similar, and certainly different. Albion even more.
Lord Damocles wrote:Imagine being that chump who turned up with a horse, when everybody else is riding armoured polar bears and daemon bulls made of metal...
The Lumineth have guys rocking up on horses while others ride not-kangaroos, cow-lion hybrids or are themselves foxy wind spirits, so, yeah, sure.
But I feel like the Lumineth on horses are more haughty than the kung-aroos. Sure, I imagine the treestriders have special bonds with their mounts (since they have that old mustache look to them), but the horse guys can be like "look at us, we're what Teclis intended. We ride on the same mounts as our elven ancestors. Jealous?"
I've read a lot of really interesting points here, and I'm honestly surprised that there seem to be so many WHFB fans that successfully and happily migrated over to AoS. That's very cool!
My cousin posed a very interesting question to me yesterday. He asked me what I would do if ToW came out with shiny new models but kept the current GW pricing guidelines.
Now, my opinion here so please don't take it as me preaching gospel, but I personally believe that the vocally negative internet had a LOT to do with the decline in sales of WHFB. People constantly bemoaned the price of a fantasy army, usually without even bothering to purchase and build a fantasy army. I once read a 40K tournament player's post commenting on how stupid the prices for WHFB were, apparently without that person realizing the irony of their 40K army costing roughly $200 more than the 'equivalent' fantasy army.
With that being said, I don't see how ToW can be successful in the modern market if they choose to follow the current GW pricing strategy for new 40K or AoS models. If people were complaining (however erroneously IMO) about price in 2012, how much worse will that be if they update the prices to modern equivalents? Not only does a true mass battle game require more models, but if you priced basic troops models at $50 - $60/ 10, elite models at $60/ 5, and monsters for anywhere between $110 to $150, the game is 100% dead on arrival. No one but the most wealthy of WHFB fans would be able to afford to build an army. Even with FW likely to be handling ToW and trying to pass it off as a niche title in the market, I don't think people are going to be thrilled to pay 30K costs for their armies either.
Add that to the fact that there is honestly more exciting things happening in the rank 'n file world now than there was in the past with games like Kings of War, the 9th Age, and Conquest (my personal favorite) all stepping in to fill the giant rank 'n file hole at a much lower price point than WHFB was even before it's decline, and I'm not so sure how excited I am for a return to the Old World.
Don't get me wrong, I love WHFB, and I love the Old World, but I'm tempering my expectations with the idea that GW simply won't know how to price the game. Hopefully I'm wrong, though. Consider my fingers crossed!
Here's the thing about price complaints - people complain about the prices, but then, if the models and the game are good enough, they buy the models anyway. Hence the success of AoS which, while being stupidly expensive, seems to be doing alright.
Prices may have had some of the blame for the death of WHFB, because there were cheaper alternatives available from other companies for many of the factions and so some people bought those instead, but I couldn't say whether there was enough of that to have a serious impact on GW's bottom line.
But going by the complaints that I saw online over the last few editions, the rules were by far a bigger contributor to the game's decline than the price of the models. If GW can put out AoS-quality models suitable for rank-and-file play, and can work up a ruleset that people want to play again, the price of the models will be no more a barrier than it is for AoS.
Argive wrote: The real question for me is if WTW3 will have cathay.. I always wanted to have not-samurais in table top as an option
Araby has the most chance since they did have a warmaster army.
Cathay, Araby, Nippon, etc.... could happen, but I'd see them as being akin to the Vampire Pirates in that they'd be a "once we've done the rest" kind of release at the very end if sales are really good. The CA team are certainly fans of Warhammer and clearly want to do the game and have put a lot into it. So there's every chance that if they can find the excess money to invest and if their is projected good profits and time to develop they might well step outside and do a few exotics that never got armies or only got limited releases and such.
On the subject of price it is a barrier, but at the same time in a wargame I think the key isn't so much the total price of the hobby, but rather the price to reach engagement. Old Worlds rules didn't work great at 500 point matches and below 1K were still somewhat limited. With a gaming population that was increasingly losing beginners and being left with experienced players you had a steady shift toward more and more big games at the 2K point level. Which meant newbies had a BIG wall to overcome. The low point games weren't as fun and they had a long long way to reach a full army. Many burned out along the way.
GW seems to really recognise that and that's why we have underworld, warcry, killteam, meeting engagements etc... Many of which not just as included in the core book, but with their own separate game and marketing. So newbies are aware of those small point value games as are experienced players. It creates hype and because the rules are built around them they also work. Warcy works with a single box of models as does Underworlds. Sure best armies might use more, and there in lies the temptation. By creating staged expansion points players reach 500 and 1K points of models before they know it. Suddenly that jump to 2K isn't all that bad.
Yup, they absolutely need to ensure that the game works at small points levels, but I think that's a lesson that they've well and truly learnt with their other games by now.
The other caveat I think would be that units need to be functional at smaller sizes, as well. Once upon a time, units of 10-12 models were perfectly viable, but over time units got bigger and bigger. That looks impressive on the table, but really limits peoples' choices when they are building armies. Larger units should have a payoff, but shouldn't be essential.
The rules and the pricing issues WHFB had in its final edition were related. Due to how certain rules worked, it was ideal for many armies to be running multiple blocks of infantry with 40+ models often in a 5-wide, many-deep formation that looked silly but played effectively while also being frustrating to experience from the other side. And actually building out those units got very expensive very quickly even with cheap kits. Not to mention the practicality expense of physically building, transporting, and playing with those models.
This also took place in the height of the Kirby era; GW was a model company that proudly did no market research and believed buyers were generally collectors who played the games on the side if at all. There was little to no support for armies unless they were getting a new book, which no one knew was coming until two weeks before, and were expected to last for an indeterminate amount of time regardless of how good or bad they were. There was a general hopelessness that manifested in the community, that things simply were not going to get better and would quite likely continue to get worse.
Argive wrote: The real question for me is if WTW3 will have cathay.. I always wanted to have not-samurais in table top as an option
Araby has the most chance since they did have a warmaster army.
Cathay, Araby, Nippon, etc.... could happen, but I'd see them as being akin to the Vampire Pirates in that they'd be a "once we've done the rest" kind of release at the very end if sales are really good. The CA team are certainly fans of Warhammer and clearly want to do the game and have put a lot into it. So there's every chance that if they can find the excess money to invest and if their is projected good profits and time to develop they might well step outside and do a few exotics that never got armies or only got limited releases and such.
On the subject of price it is a barrier, but at the same time in a wargame I think the key isn't so much the total price of the hobby, but rather the price to reach engagement. Old Worlds rules didn't work great at 500 point matches and below 1K were still somewhat limited. With a gaming population that was increasingly losing beginners and being left with experienced players you had a steady shift toward more and more big games at the 2K point level. Which meant newbies had a BIG wall to overcome. The low point games weren't as fun and they had a long long way to reach a full army. Many burned out along the way.
GW seems to really recognise that and that's why we have underworld, warcry, killteam, meeting engagements etc... Many of which not just as included in the core book, but with their own separate game and marketing. So newbies are aware of those small point value games as are experienced players. It creates hype and because the rules are built around them they also work. Warcy works with a single box of models as does Underworlds. Sure best armies might use more, and there in lies the temptation. By creating staged expansion points players reach 500 and 1K points of models before they know it. Suddenly that jump to 2K isn't all that bad.
I fully expect them have a similar set up to 40k in terms of pointage and game size.
Perhaps a KT/ RPG veriant for small individual infantry model - I remember in 6E WHFB there was a skirmish version. Never played it but looked fun.
Then a small 500-1500pts game and then full scale for 2k +
However as this is a FW project. What is 30k like currently in terms of game size design? Chances are it will follow that route.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carlovonsexron wrote: I wonder if the new Total war game and the old world game will release alongside each other.
Ot feels like a missed opportunity to anything else.
What do you mean ?
TWWH2 works with conjunction with the first game. As in whatever races you have in the first game you can play them in WH2 too. Just not in the game 2 specific vortex campaign.
I fully expect WH3 to work in much similiar way.
I think its incredibly intelligent game design as it gives so much life to the game and you don't mind paying DLC coz new stuff keeps getting added to the game.
The WH2 engine and the game itself runs perfectly when compared to Troy or 3K IMO. In terms of how it takes into account physics, mass etc. (there are a lot of stupid things dont get me wrong... but its darn good game)
Overread wrote: Araby has the most chance since they did have a warmaster army.
I wish, I wish, I wish.
Unlike Cathay, Nippon or Ind, which are way over to the east, Araby is kinda right smack bang in the middle of everything once you have a map that covers Naggarond through to the Chaos Dwarf areas. To not include them seems like a really bad thing, as their absence is conspicuous (moreso when you consider all the locations in Araby that you can move through/conquer without there being an Araby nation to defend them!).
It'd be like having a map that included various regions of Lothern, but specifically excluded the Wood Elves.
November 2019 wrote:You get the idea – this is a long way off. Years. More than two. Like three or more. Definitely not soon.
TW3, on the other hand is ramping up for release this year (notably there are no other TW games on the radar, just DLC for Troy and Three Kingdoms, and CA has at least three separate TW teams). The current week of teasers is either for the very last DLC of TW2, the preorder bonus for TW3 or TW3 itself. Its been in development quite a bit longer and at the very worst is going to hit the beginning of next year (barring extraordinary delays)
I have to admit I'm saddened by that, but not so much for me (though I am keen to see what minis come out, and I'm hopeful that the earlier setting means less renaissance pools and puffs on the soldiers) but for the hobby as a whole- there's gonna be people who want in on the table top game if they had the option, for sure.
Nostromodamus wrote:I just want TW3 to have demons. fething sucks to play Chaos and not have Chaos entities.
That's all but guaranteed. Might be more info today I think.
Carlovonsexron wrote:I wonder if the new Total war game and the old world game will release alongside each other.
Ot feels like a missed opportunity to anything else.
Highly unlikely - Old World is way off; the last Total War due soon. Everything about TW has been a missed opportunity; the first instalment came out when Warhammer Fantasy was thrown out, the last will be released before GW brings it back. Theoretically some future DLCs could coincide, but not counting on it too much. Wonder if GW has some info on popularity of factions via CA, though that may be difficult to accurately interpret (with e.g. Bretonnia being a free addition, Norsca both sold and given for free as a pre-order bonus, etc, while playtime says more about faction rules and playstyles than aesthetics and relevant playstyles on the tabletop).
There are an awful lot of "Normal dudes in furs" plus Winged Lancers in there, which makes me happy for the whole "Kislev will still have normal stuff" possibility.
There are an awful lot of "Normal dudes in furs" plus Winged Lancers in there, which makes me happy for the whole "Kislev will still have normal stuff" possibility.
Yep. They're still the same style of the Kislev the setting already had, just with a few extra new unit additions. Settles the whole "They're gonna change the historical WHFB factions to make them more unique!" thing I think.
Re: Concept art, from the WarCom article about TWW3:
Regular readers of Warhammer Community will know that the Games Workshop creative studio is hard at work on Warhammer The Old World, a project that will see the return of the world-that-was to the tabletop, and their designs have fed directly into the development of Total War: Warhammer III. Check out this exclusive piece of concept art for the Kislevite Gryphon Legion for a taste of what they’ve been working on.
If its the former, isn't AOS like super popular and successful for GW? Even if you're an old world fan, like myself, if nothing else, a lot of the new armies are really cool.
Cathay reveal is super cool, and it's funny that these factions that were footnotes in WHFB are finally getting fleshed out.
I'm really hoping that this means Ogres will be in it too, since the Ogre Strongholds are along the Silk Road to Cathay and they feature prominently as mercenaries escorting the caravans.
catbarf wrote: Cathay reveal is super cool, and it's funny that these factions that were footnotes in WHFB are finally getting fleshed out.
Wondering if GW will use the Old World to develop some of the more 'alternate history' human armies like Kislev, Cathay etc. while they can use Chaos kits in both systems (or even all three, like the Daemons). I mean, is there anything from the new Slaanesh release that wouldn't fit into the old world? Compared to the minis obviously developed for the AoS setting, like the new Luminälfs or Warcry chaos bands.
I am still not convinced that choosing armies that hardly existed as posterboys for game based on nostalgy values is a good idea but I hope it goes well.
jullevi wrote: I am still not convinced that choosing armies that hardly existed as posterboys for game based on nostalgy values is a good idea but I hope it goes well.
TW: Three Kingdoms sold stupid well in China, they're probably banking on that momentum. Model wise it might be GW's attempt to get a foot into that market.
Actual Cathay, as actual models, I'm actually stunned. Actually.
Okay so that must surely confirm that TOW is going to be a full-on third "main game" then, right? If they're actually developing a complete Cathay army from scratch that's a huge commitment, even moreso than "just" fleshing out Kislev. Jesus, this opens up so much possibility - they could do Araby. They could do bloody Ind.
Assuming, of course, it's not so hideously expensive to collect an army that it flops
jullevi wrote: I am still not convinced that choosing armies that hardly existed as posterboys for game based on nostalgy values is a good idea but I hope it goes well.
It's almost as if they succeeded and got all the nostalgia out with the first dozen races from 1 & 2...
jullevi wrote: I am still not convinced that choosing armies that hardly existed as posterboys for game based on nostalgy values is a good idea but I hope it goes well.
It's almost as if they succeeded and got all the nostalgia out with the first dozen races from 1 & 2...
Yeah, it's worth remembering these 'sequels' are more like standalone expansion packs than truly new games.
Yodhrin wrote: Actual Cathay, as actual models, I'm actually stunned. Actually.
Okay so that must surely confirm that TOW is going to be a full-on third "main game" then, right? If they're actually developing a complete Cathay army from scratch that's a huge commitment, even moreso than "just" fleshing out Kislev. Jesus, this opens up so much possibility - they could do Araby. They could do bloody Ind.
Assuming, of course, it's not so hideously expensive to collect an army that it flops
They haven’t confirmed Cathay for TOW tabletop game though.
Yodhrin wrote: Actual Cathay, as actual models, I'm actually stunned. Actually.
Okay so that must surely confirm that TOW is going to be a full-on third "main game" then, right? If they're actually developing a complete Cathay army from scratch that's a huge commitment, even moreso than "just" fleshing out Kislev. Jesus, this opens up so much possibility - they could do Araby. They could do bloody Ind.
Assuming, of course, it's not so hideously expensive to collect an army that it flops
They haven’t confirmed Cathay for TOW tabletop game though.
If they’re doing all the design work though, it seems pretty likely.
Nice to see that the Money Bags with their hidebound corporate truisms have been proven wrong. That the world of Warhammer Fantasy itself is still a viable intellectual product, and that it was their greed that killed it.
Guess the old farts at GeeDubs central didn't think some silly vidya game could appeal so many people.
I'd really be into a re-imagined old world with a stronger focus on dark fantasy quasi-historical factions ... the Empire vs. Ruinous Powers etc. always felt like the most distinct WHFB thing, and honestly I'm much more into Cow Elves & Steampunk Sky Dwarves now than the rather tame WHFB Tolkien ripoffs. Well, we'll see, but I think there's enough potential in WH Fantasy for two settings.
Yodhrin wrote: Actual Cathay, as actual models, I'm actually stunned. Actually.
Okay so that must surely confirm that TOW is going to be a full-on third "main game" then, right? If they're actually developing a complete Cathay army from scratch that's a huge commitment, even moreso than "just" fleshing out Kislev. Jesus, this opens up so much possibility - they could do Araby. They could do bloody Ind.
Assuming, of course, it's not so hideously expensive to collect an army that it flops
My knowledge of WHFB lore is quite limited, but aren't Cathay outside of "The Old World"?
Lots of people here have been speculating that it'll just be something that focuses on "The Old World" part of the setting because that's the name and it would mean a smaller scope, even though GW has used that term to refer to the WHFB setting as a whole. So having a faction that we have only had brief mentions of now turned into a full army, a faction that's also outside of "The Old World" part of the setting and doesn't even appear on the map they've shown us for the project, sort of goes against that idea doesn't it? It can't be a project that'll be - in terms of faction options compared to WHFB - a relatively small thing that will stay within those bounds of just one part of the setting, otherwise we wouldn't be getting an army that's outside of that location and entirely new. If it is]a relatively small project like some have suggested then choosing them over one of the iconic factions would be a very strange choice.
I can't actually see anything in that article that outright says Cathay will be part of TOW rather than just TW:W3 so maybe that's not the case though - but it's the GW studio who have done the concepts and such, so it would be odd if it was just for TW:W3.
I can't find it now, but I swear there was some cool lore about Cathay during the End Times. Something like jade dragon/tiger statues coming to life, lots of gunpowder weapons, etc.
Also, doesn't Cathay more or less worship Tzeentch, but they're not like super Chaos-y?
Yodhrin wrote: Actual Cathay, as actual models, I'm actually stunned. Actually.
Okay so that must surely confirm that TOW is going to be a full-on third "main game" then, right? If they're actually developing a complete Cathay army from scratch that's a huge commitment, even moreso than "just" fleshing out Kislev. Jesus, this opens up so much possibility - they could do Araby. They could do bloody Ind.
Assuming, of course, it's not so hideously expensive to collect an army that it flops
My knowledge of WHFB lore is quite limited, but aren't Cathay outside of "The Old World"?
Lots of people here have been speculating that it'll just be something that focuses on "The Old World" part of the setting because that's the name and it would mean a smaller scope, even though GW has used that term to refer to the WHFB setting as a whole. So having a faction that we have only had brief mentions of now turned into a full army, a faction that's also outside of "The Old World" part of the setting and doesn't even appear on the map they've shown us for the project, sort of goes against that idea doesn't it? It can't be a project that'll be - in terms of faction options compared to WHFB - a relatively small thing that will stay within those bounds of just one part of the setting, otherwise we wouldn't be getting an army that's outside of that location and entirely new. If it is]a relatively small project like some have suggested then choosing them over one of the iconic factions would be a very strange choice.
I can't actually see anything in that article that outright says Cathay will be part of TOW rather than just TW:W3 so maybe that's not the case though.
I think the name refers to the whole World-That-Was, as in the AOS is the current world and this is the old one. It just sound better than The-World-We-Fools-Blew-Up-But-Ups-The-Games-Make-Moolah-So-Here-It-Is-Again.
Have they shown any art or fluff developed for Cathay ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GaroRobe wrote: I can't find it now, but I swear there was some cool lore about Cathay during the End Times. Something like jade dragon/tiger statues coming to life, lots of gunpowder weapons, etc.
Also, doesn't Cathay more or less worship Tzeentch, but they're not like super Chaos-y?
In some novels, Cathay has a Dragon King. In some, a Monkey King. I thought the idea that Cathay worshipped Tzeentch came from a Tzeentch cultist, and was likely a lie.
I’d be pretty disappointed if the whole kingdom of Cathay were ineffectual chaos worshippers.
There has been bits and pieces of Cathay lore drip fed to us - great to see more
* They sold gunpowder weapons to Lahmia before Neferata became queen, Neferata went there later with her favourite handmaiden and they had to flee.
* They had magic based on the five elements (including wood),
* Geneiveve went there and learnt some magic and martial arts
* They explored much of the world in large fleets
* Several worshippers of Tzeentch came from there - he is known as (IIRC) Tsein-Tsien.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: Nice to see that the Money Bags with their hidebound corporate truisms have been proven wrong. That the world of Warhammer Fantasy itself is still a viable intellectual product, and that it was their greed that killed it.
Guess the old farts at GeeDubs central didn't think some silly vidya game could appeal so many people.
They're getting royalties with minimum work on their own side...
What was that about total war not being enough of a draw to warrant the old world being a full tabletop system and being skirmish only that was endlessly bandied about in this thread a few pages ago?
I think the name refers to the whole World-That-Was, as in the AOS is the current world and this is the old one. It just sound better than The-World-We-Fools-Blew-Up-But-Ups-The-Games-Make-Moolah-So-Here-It-Is-Again.
It does not refer to "the whole World That Was".
"The World That Was" is the narrative reference within The Mortal Realms to the entirety of the old Warhammer setting. The Old World is a specific chunk of that setting, like how The New World contained Lustria and Naggaroth and was basically an analogue for the Americas.
So far we have seen nothing actually pointing towards leaving that setting of The Old World.
Yodhrin wrote: Actual Cathay, as actual models, I'm actually stunned. Actually.
Okay so that must surely confirm that TOW is going to be a full-on third "main game" then, right? If they're actually developing a complete Cathay army from scratch that's a huge commitment, even moreso than "just" fleshing out Kislev. Jesus, this opens up so much possibility - they could do Araby. They could do bloody Ind.
Assuming, of course, it's not so hideously expensive to collect an army that it flops
They haven’t confirmed Cathay for TOW tabletop game though.
I'm fairly certain they wouldn't post a video with Andy Hoare and Mark Bedford discussing how the concept development pipeline for TOW feeds directly into what we'll see in TWWH3 that explicitly mentioned Cathay unless they intended to indicate they were developing Cathay for TOW in the same way they have Kislev. That would be a huge PR own-goal, as evidenced by the amount of people getting hype for Cathay models.
Olthannon wrote: What was that about total war not being enough of a draw to warrant the old world being a full tabletop system and being skirmish only that was endlessly bandied about in this thread a few pages ago?
Make some quotes, because most of the posts have been saying it would be a Specialist Game--i.e. Horus Heresy, Adeptus Titanicus, Necromunda, or Blood Bowl.
Two of those(Adeptus Titanicus and Horus Heresy) are far from "skirmish only".
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’d be pretty disappointed if the whole kingdom of Cathay were ineffectual chaos worshippers.
I don't think they necessarily would have to be ineffectual. An advanced, functional culture influenced by the Chaos Gods would be an interesting contrast to the Empire.
Not that there's any chance of Cathay being portrayed as anything but the most obvious good guys.
I'm fairly certain they wouldn't post a video with Andy Hoare and Mark Bedford discussing how the concept development pipeline for TOW feeds directly into what we'll see in TWWH3 that explicitly mentioned Cathay unless they intended to indicate they were developing Cathay for TOW in the same way they have Kislev. That would be a huge PR own-goal, as evidenced by the amount of people getting hype for Cathay models.
Cool, so when do Wanderers get Great Stag Knights?
Concepts being made in conjunction with TWWH3 does not mean that models are guaranteed.
Esmer wrote: The choice of Kislev and Cathay basically also confirms Ogres, representing the Eurasian inbetween.
I agree, but the real question is whether they'll be playable on release or if they'll just be an NPC faction until a DLC makes them playable.
I also wonder what CA's plans are for Chaos Dwarfs, seeing as they also occupy the East and are one of the few WHFB factions remaining that hasn't been realized in a TW. I hope they're not just gone forever.
I'm fairly certain they wouldn't post a video with Andy Hoare and Mark Bedford discussing how the concept development pipeline for TOW feeds directly into what we'll see in TWWH3 that explicitly mentioned Cathay unless they intended to indicate they were developing Cathay for TOW in the same way they have Kislev. That would be a huge PR own-goal, as evidenced by the amount of people getting hype for Cathay models.
Cool, so when do Wanderers get Great Stag Knights?
Concepts being made in conjunction with TWWH3 does not mean that models are guaranteed.
I get your point, but when has ANYTHING from Total Warhammer been given to AOS? They've clearly stated that the upcoming Old World art/models inspired TWWH3. There's a huge difference, given that it's two entirely different settings. It's like looking at the Vampire Coast stuff and asking "Where are all the giant crabs in Legions of Nagash?"
This thread is for Warhammer the Old World, not the computer game Total War. Take the chatter about TTW3 to its own thread where it belongs.
question:
What about discussion relating to the fact that the two are closely linked. Namely the fact that most of the units shown for kislev in the trailer are things we have seen in concept art for W:TOW? and permutations of such relating to potential miniature releases for Cathay, for instance?
I'm fairly certain they wouldn't post a video with Andy Hoare and Mark Bedford discussing how the concept development pipeline for TOW feeds directly into what we'll see in TWWH3 that explicitly mentioned Cathay unless they intended to indicate they were developing Cathay for TOW in the same way they have Kislev. That would be a huge PR own-goal, as evidenced by the amount of people getting hype for Cathay models.
Cool, so when do Wanderers get Great Stag Knights?
Concepts being made in conjunction with TWWH3 does not mean that models are guaranteed.
As far as we know, the arrangement with the prior Total Warhammer games was the same as it always has been with licensed GW projects - they come up with concepts, they send them to GW for approval, changes, or denial, and they work with whatever that process allows them to work with.
The whole point of the video, it seems to me, is to indicate that for TWWH3 that process has been somewhat turned on its head, and instead GW themselves are directly generating concepts as part of their work on TOW which are then being passed on to Creative Assembly to make use of. Said video makes no distinction between Kislev and Cathay in relation to that process. Hoare didn't literally turn dead-on to the camera and say "Miniatures for Cathay will be coming on September 4th 2023, or I'll be on the dole." but what other reason is there - except being complete numpties - to discuss Cathay alongside Kislev in the extra video that's explicitly about the TOW development process feeding into TWWH3, if not to indicate they're developing Cathay for TOW as well?
This thread is for Warhammer the Old World, not the computer game Total War. Take the chatter about TTW3 to its own thread where it belongs.
question:
What about discussion relating to the fact that the two are closely linked. Namely the fact that most of the units shown for kislev in the trailer are things we have seen in concept art for W:TOW? and permutations of such relating to potential miniature releases for Cathay, for instance?
With respect this is also relevant from WC site
Regular readers of Warhammer Community will know that the Games Workshop creative studio is hard at work on Warhammer The Old World, a project that will see the return of the world-that-was to the tabletop, and their designs have fed directly into the development of Total War: Warhammer III.
I think the potential for gathering up some knowledge from Total warhammer 3 is viable though given they have said they're feeding stuff there.
I really hope for an Araby army, it was in warmaster and I always found it strange at the time that they never released a full army. There is plenty of awesome fantasy that comes from that part of the world so I hope something comes from it in the far future.
This thread is for Warhammer the Old World, not the computer game Total War. Take the chatter about TTW3 to its own thread where it belongs.
question:
What about discussion relating to the fact that the two are closely linked. Namely the fact that most of the units shown for kislev in the trailer are things we have seen in concept art for W:TOW? and permutations of such relating to potential miniature releases for Cathay, for instance?
Where it is relevant to both then that is okay, where it is just about TT3 then it is not.
I think the name refers to the whole World-That-Was, as in the AOS is the current world and this is the old one. It just sound better than The-World-We-Fools-Blew-Up-But-Ups-The-Games-Make-Moolah-So-Here-It-Is-Again.
It does not refer to "the whole World That Was".
"The World That Was" is the narrative reference within The Mortal Realms to the entirety of the old Warhammer setting. The Old World is a specific chunk of that setting, like how The New World contained Lustria and Naggaroth and was basically an analogue for the Americas.
So far we have seen nothing actually pointing towards leaving that setting of The Old World.
GW seem to use the term in situations that are not just referring to just The Old World part of the setting specifically, though.
I think we all expected Kislev was coming and that it was likely to be heavily linked to the Kislev work that is ongoing for TOW - it was obvious as soon as Kislev concept art was the first thing to be released about TOW.
.....Cathay though. That's a whole different level, honestly can't believe they've done it. Never thought I'd see the day.
Also mono-god factions on release day, another race as pre-order DLC (Araby, Chaos Dwarves, Ogre Kingdom, Dogs of War?).
Today is a good day for fans of Warhammer Fantasy in general. Almost making up for all the crap that fans had to deal with during the AOS launch.
But going by the complaints that I saw online over the last few editions, the rules were by far a bigger contributor to the game's decline than the price of the models. If GW can put out AoS-quality models suitable for rank-and-file play, and can work up a ruleset that people want to play again, the price of the models will be no more a barrier than it is for AoS.
Between buying some dirt cheap high elves, and having tons of time due to lack of gaming/socializing, I've been digging back to 6th edition WFB, which I played a tiny bit back in the day. I gotta say, while I lvoe the look of the models, and the lore, and even the ease of painitng rank and file models, the more I look at rules or read battle reports, the more I remember why I never really loved WFB. Compared to Kings of War, its incredibly fiddly and tries to present itself as a game about combat resolution, when it's really about movement KOW at least abstracts out the combat aspects, and allows the charge/countercharge game to occur more seamlessly.
I’m really hoping the Cathay minis have a heavy dose of fantasy mixed with historical designs. If they look at least as blingy as the armor from that Matt Damon movie about The Great Wall, I’m in.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m really hoping the Cathay minis have a heavy dose of fantasy mixed with historical designs. If they look at least as blingy as the armor from that Matt Damon movie about The Great Wall, I’m in.
Yodhrin wrote: As far as we know, the arrangement with the prior Total Warhammer games was the same as it always has been with licensed GW projects - they come up with concepts, they send them to GW for approval, changes, or denial, and they work with whatever that process allows them to work with.
I can say that GW would have been the driving force on the Kislev and Cathay designs, not the other way around.
GW doesn't let license holders define the stuff that GW invented. I know this first hand.
I think that Cathay stands a good chance of being part of The Old World, as they likely designed them along side the Kislev stuff for the new game, whenever GW/Specialist get around to releasing it. It allows them to back to Warhammer fantasy but from a different angle, expanding on things we don't know much about rather than just going back to Empire/High Elves/Dwarfs/Orcs.
Yodhrin wrote: As far as we know, the arrangement with the prior Total Warhammer games was the same as it always has been with licensed GW projects - they come up with concepts, they send them to GW for approval, changes, or denial, and they work with whatever that process allows them to work with.
I can say that GW would have been the driving force on the Kislev and Cathay designs, not the other way around.
basically confirms GW have been the driving force in the design of Kislev/Cathay and have been working with CA to translate them into TWW3. Wouldn't be surprised if CA had some minor element of influence though, as discussions between the two developed, such as riffing off the GW designs and GW goes 'oh that's cool - we'll integrate that' but it seems very clear that GW are in the driving seat, as you'd expect from the IP owner.
I mean it makes sense GW would go in that direction. I mean beyond a couple of Asian themed models in the 80's Cathay hasn't been really fleshed out. As a result if GW is making a new game they would want to work on stuff that has no equivalent that can be found on the secondary market.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: I mean it makes sense GW would go in that direction. I mean beyond a couple of Asian themed models in the 80's Cathay hasn't been really fleshed out. As a result if GW is making a new game they would want to work on stuff that has no equivalent that can be found on the secondary market.
It’s also stuff no established Warhammer player has in their existing collection.
Between buying some dirt cheap high elves, and having tons of time due to lack of gaming/socializing, I've been digging back to 6th edition WFB, which I played a tiny bit back in the day. I gotta say, while I lvoe the look of the models, and the lore, and even the ease of painitng rank and file models, the more I look at rules or read battle reports, the more I remember why I never really loved WFB. Compared to Kings of War, its incredibly fiddly and tries to present itself as a game about combat resolution, when it's really about movement KOW at least abstracts out the combat aspects, and allows the charge/countercharge game to occur more seamlessly.
I enjoyed the hell out of 5th edition. Didn't like the changes to magic in 6th edition, and was fairly lazy about keeping up with the changes after that as a result. Still have my fifth ed lizardmen downstairs somewhere.
KoW just didn't appeal. Although admittedly that's mostly down to a single issue - not removing casualties. Not sure why that's such a sticking point, but it is a very large fly in the ointment for me.
Mr Morden wrote: Interesting regions on the map - Gunpowder Road, Warpstone desert - need to check if these are new
I have a Warhammer World map from the late-90s/early-00s on my wall (IIRC it came free in a WD around that time). The Great Bastion, the Warpstone Desert and the city of Nan-Gau are all on it. No Gunpowder Road though.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: I mean it makes sense GW would go in that direction. I mean beyond a couple of Asian themed models in the 80's Cathay hasn't been really fleshed out. As a result if GW is making a new game they would want to work on stuff that has no equivalent that can be found on the secondary market.
It’s also stuff no established Warhammer player has in their existing collection.
Then again, if they want to create new factions... well, they don't need Warhammer Fantasy back for that. That was pretty much the point of AoS after all. A new faction with new designs and new lore (there isn't exactly a great amount of material for Cathay as far as I'm aware) would be as much a draw in AoS as it is in W:TOW.
I'm also not 100% yet on how much to read into this on whether Cathay will in fact feature in W:TOW (doesn't geographically fit into the context of what we know so far, and if people thought a range revamp of X factions was unlikely before, making X+1 factions is obviously an even higher obstacle). It certainly increases the chances of seeing them "at some point" however.
As for Kislev, the trailer and new concepts certainly don't reveal too much that's new.
Ice Queen looks not unlike her previous model, now guarded by the ice-magic-weapon wielding bodyguard as we had become acquainted with before. The Tzarina herself seen only on foot, will presumably have a horse option - no idea whether her sleigh from Warmaster is making a return.
Some basic infantry with bows and swords (not bows and large axes that the old kossars had, though those might still exist - TW typically has various weapon variants).
Bear cavalry were already confirmed and expected, and they're basically Winged Lancers on a bear.
Actual Winged Lancers on actual horses. No magic weapons (lance tips look a bit odd with side barbs, but if those were models that's easily modified). No clearly painted horses, but that obviously would be irrelevant to miniatures. Helmets look a bit more Norse, which is more noticeable for the close-up of the heavily armoured infantryman fighting the bloodletters later.
Said infantry appears to have two variants; a two-handed mace and sword with a teardrop-shaped shield. Possibly Bokha/Kreml Guard, more likely something new (the aforementioned guard had berdiches/axes/halberds, and these might be more generic heavy infantry).
The Gryphon Legion (sketches) have the more traditional helmets, now may have double wings (which would be funny, as I modelled by 10mm Gryphon Legion as double-winged to make them stand out more), and their lances seem rather short and more exotic/magical than those of the winged lancers.
No signs of gunpowder units yet, which they did have in previous incarnations, but we'll see.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is a ~300+ year difference in time period between TWW3 and The Old World. I would expect there to be some stylistic changes between Cathay in the video game and Cathay on the tabletop, if an when those minis come around. I think its reasonable to expect Cathay in some form in The Old World, I doubt GW invested the time and resources into developing it without an intent to try to capitalize on it - the question is really more how they integrate them and what that means for the scope of the game. If we accept that TOW will be a Specialist/Forgeworld studio game ala Horus Heresy (best info available indicates this is the case), then I think its hard to realistically expect Cathay to show up for a few years after release unless GW really ramps up specialist support.
If Cathay is for TOW as well as TW:W3, and assuming they have gunpowder and such, then wouldn't those TW:W3 units be out of place with the TOW setting due to the hundreds of years between them? I've read that the Empire and Dwarves gunpowder units wouldn't really fit too well because of when those were invented, but I can't really see the team designing both an earlier and a later period version of units, but designing presumably large parts of the army just for TW:W3 would also be a bit strange.
Likewise, I'm pretty sure the Empires own development/use of gunpowder predates The Old Worlds setting, unless GW changes things up the Engineering school in Nuln and the Steam Tanks were constructed some few hundred years before the timeframe of the game.
The Dwarfs started using gunpowder around -420 [[IC]] - not sure when the Empire first used them but they had them prior to 2000 as they are used in Mordheim including sppecialist weapons such as the Hochland Long Rifle and warships on the river have batteries of cannons and swivel guns.
Mentlegen324 wrote: If Cathay is for TOW as well as TW:W3, and assuming they have gunpowder and such, then wouldn't those TW:W3 units be out of place with the TOW setting due to the hundreds of years between them? I've read that the Empire and Dwarves gunpowder units wouldn't really fit too well because of when those were invented, but I can't really see the team designing both an earlier and a later period version of units, but designing presumably large parts of the army just for TW:W3 would also be a bit strange.
The Imperial College of Engineering has been around for 500 years (according to the 6th or 7th edition Empire army book) and that army book pegged the 'current year' at 2522. Presumably guns were in play even before the college was founded.
Based on the Bretonnian map, the TOW estimate is 2200s (Louen Orc Slayer helps narrow things down- his errantry war against orcs started 2201 by the Imperial Calander).
So maybe not steam tanks or Helstorms, but cannons and handgunners seem absolutely fine.
Around Mordheim era the Empire were already using matchlock guns they made themselves, and no doubt Dwarf-made mechanisms were available if you had the dosh. By the time of TOW they're probably along to snaplocks.
In game terms, that's sufficient justification for "handguns" as we saw them in the time of Karl Franz, since Warhammer games don't have anywhere near the level of granularity required to represent the differences between various generations of muzzle-loaded firearms.
My understanding is that TOW is set during the great war against chaos, which was in 2301.
And the end times was what? 2527? That's only ~220 year difference. Teclis was at the great war and founded the colleges of magic (so they're only 200 years old themselves).
Most elf and dwarf characters would still be around back then - Thorgrim for example.
Yodhrin wrote: Around Mordheim era the Empire were already using matchlock guns they made themselves, and no doubt Dwarf-made mechanisms were available if you had the dosh. By the time of TOW they're probably along to snaplocks.
In game terms, that's sufficient justification for "handguns" as we saw them in the time of Karl Franz, since Warhammer games don't have anywhere near the level of granularity required to represent the differences between various generations of muzzle-loaded firearms.
There were also artisan produced duelling pistols, which suggests whilst perhaps not industrialised as yet, The Empire had some folk with real experience of making black powder weapons.
Hellebore wrote: The most detailed version of the map ever produced is this one afaik:
Mine is similar to that one, but it also has the major trade roads marked, as well as a few other things like the Ruined Giant City (a little way west into the mountains from the Warpstone Desert, on the main trade road to and from Cathay) and the city of Weijin being noted as the "Seat of the Dragon Throne" rather than just a generic city. It has a lot more locations in the Dark Lands, and the territories of the major Chaos Marauder tribes are marked (Hung, Kurgan etc).
I just noticed the copyright date on my map is 2004, which is a little later than I'd thought it was.
Mentlegen324 wrote: If Cathay is for TOW as well as TW:W3, and assuming they have gunpowder and such, then wouldn't those TW:W3 units be out of place with the TOW setting due to the hundreds of years between them? I've read that the Empire and Dwarves gunpowder units wouldn't really fit too well because of when those were invented, but I can't really see the team designing both an earlier and a later period version of units, but designing presumably large parts of the army just for TW:W3 would also be a bit strange.
Honestly, the level of overall technology in W:TOW I imagine is going to depend more on which old models they want to reuse (if any), or indeed to what extent they want to stop players with existing collections to use those for the new game, than whether the technology would logically be very different.
As said, Mordheim is set several centuries before the "present" of WHFB (conflicts would take place between the comet in 1999 and the cleansing in 2302). The game did have optional rules to make the "modern" blackpowder weapons of the time less reliable, but effectively the pistols and handguns were as you would see them on the tabletop in WHFB. There were already some anachronisms there actually, with Kislev warbands having streltsi for example (armed with halberds and handguns), while handguns were only introduced into the Kislevite armies in 2359 according to the one source I'm aware of.
Of course, many armies will be unaffected anyway: Elves don't exactly have much regression possible, nor Undead, nor Greenskins, nor Lizardmen, nor... well, most factions really. Given that we don't know what Cathay used to have (although they certainly used blackpowder early), I'm not sure if chronological consistency between the video game and the new tabletop game is too important, same as with Kislev by the way. After all, nobody seems to bat an eyelid at the fact that all those miniatures that were ported over from WHFB to AoS, where countless years are supposed to have passed when godlike creatures were fighting and civilisations rose and fell, have just casually arrived at exactly the same levels of technology, as well as general military structure and indeed fashion etcetera, as in the before times. So as above, I imagine the decisions will be based more on what they want to produce or reuse, and what they want players to buy and not reuse, than it will on any in-universe logic, though the latter will no doubt be used to defend their commercial decisions.
Hellebore wrote: My understanding is that TOW is set during the great war against chaos, which was in 2301.
No its set farther back then that. The only character we know/have a hard date for (barring a major retcon on GWs end) so far is King Louen Orc-Slayer, who was kicking around in 2201 (so about 100 years prior to the great war against chaos). The problem is the other 4 Empire characters that they have announced are all tied to the Age of Three Emperors, but for the most part weren't contemporaries and cover a period of history of about 500 years - Magirtta of Marienburg for example was born in 1979, Ludwig and Wilhelm were kicking around about 100 years later in 2051, and Sigismund was kicking around in 1745 - so either GW is recycling names (easy enough to do, just change the number after their name) or retconning history a bit to condense the timeline.
After all, nobody seems to bat an eyelid at the fact that all those miniatures that were ported over from WHFB to AoS, where countless years are supposed to have passed when godlike creatures were fighting and civilisations rose and fell, have just casually arrived at exactly the same levels of technology, as well as general military structure and indeed fashion etcetera, as in the before times.
I mean, most people are of the opinion that those legacy minis are going to be gradually phased out, and in any case the Age of Sigmar setting is big and wide open enough to allow for black powder renaissance types to be contemporaries with Neolithic barbarians with stone-tipped spears, whereas there was a general sense of greater technological parity amongst the factions of the World-That-Was (for the most part, those who didn't use black powder weapons chose not to, as was the case with the Bretonnians who considered it unchivalrous, and the Lizardmen who considered it primitive compared to their magic, etc.).
With Magic in the mix, the need for greater technological innovation is somewhat stymied.
Real gates for example provide instantaneous long distance travel. And whichever Age, those major and or stable had cities grow up around them.
In the real world, a lot of innovation is driven by war, typically war between parties of roughly equal technological ability. That’s not something we really see in Warhammer as noted.
Orks and Beastmen (to use two relatable examples) largely eschew technology beyond hand to hand combat weapons.
With them not being a position to “one-up” their foes in that regard, the same pressures just aren’t there.
It’d also a typical Fantasy trope. LotR for instance barely has Black Powder, and even then it’s only Saruman making use of it. And that’s despite many hundreds of years.
With Magic in the mix, the need for greater technological innovation is somewhat stymied.
Real gates for example provide instantaneous long distance travel. And whichever Age, those major and or stable had cities grow up around them.
In the real world, a lot of innovation is driven by war, typically war between parties of roughly equal technological ability. That’s not something we really see in Warhammer as noted.
Orks and Beastmen (to use two relatable examples) largely eschew technology beyond hand to hand combat weapons.
With them not being a position to “one-up” their foes in that regard, the same pressures just aren’t there.
It’d also a typical Fantasy trope. LotR for instance barely has Black Powder, and even then it’s only Saruman making use of it. And that’s despite many hundreds of years.
Sorry but no
technological advancement is present and key in several factions
* The Empire as they move from the "standard" medievil world to the Renaisance
* The Skaven - who are always trying new stuff out,
* The Chaos Dwarfs - similar but safer and mixing more Daemons than warpstone.
* Dwarfs slow and steady advancement.
The High Elves do usually use magic but their ships are state of the art sailing ships having the equivalent of fast large Schooners
The Skaven and Chaos Dwarfs keep an wary but acquisitive eye on the each others advances.
Because the presence of a map with fairly clear territorial breakdowns under specific groups of leadership implies the requirement for a fairly rigidly fixed timeframe.
Esmer wrote: The choice of Kislev and Cathay basically also confirms Ogres, representing the Eurasian inbetween.
I agree, but the real question is whether they'll be playable on release or if they'll just be an NPC faction until a DLC makes them playable.
I also wonder what CA's plans are for Chaos Dwarfs, seeing as they also occupy the East and are one of the few WHFB factions remaining that hasn't been realized in a TW. I hope they're not just gone forever.
I see one big issue with Chaos Dwarfs: You'd have a camp who wants them to have their iconic "big hats, big noses, Babylonian beards" look, and another camp who want them to have a more up-dated and organic "Hordes of Chaos" look.
Picking one aesthetic would inevitably alienate the other camp.
Great thing about the legion of azgorh was they combined both. The infantry had a concealed heavily armored look not all that different from a chaos warrior. But the sorcerers and some leaders had the hats and flamboyant headwear. It's a terrible shame to see that line of models discontinued. And I doubt they could make another line as aesthetically pleasing in plastic.
I personally liked the look of the old hellcannon crew. And on the other hand I find both the warcry chorfs (the spire tyrant and iron golem ones) to be kinda lame.
Carlovonsexron wrote: I suspect that any new Chorfs will be taking design cues from the warcry dwarves.
The Warcry ones are very much in the style of the warbands they’re with, so I don’t think they’re particularly indicative of what Chaos Dwaves as their own faction would look like.
There's no reason they can't do both, as Thargrim said that's the whole point of the Legion of Azgorh; to provide a place for the non-bighat style without having to *replace* the bighat style.
I very much hope CA(and GW) will do both, but if they don't I'm no longer worried, 3D printing will come to the rescue.
By fluff the Legion of Azgorh are a special penal legion, thats why they have those helmets.
Chaos Dwarves don't have a ton of units so I don't doubt we'll see both types of styles, probably the legion for more elite heavy units and the hats for basic chorf warriors , characters, etc...
Galas wrote: By fluff the Legion of Azgorh are a special penal legion, thats why they have those helmets.
Chaos Dwarves don't have a ton of units so I don't doubt we'll see both types of styles, probably the legion for more elite heavy units and the hats for basic chorf warriors , characters, etc...
Maybe that's something they can fix this time around. Give some more actual Chaos Dwarf units, not more slave units. Hell, I'd love to see a frenzied two hand weapon unit myself.
Mr Morden wrote: There has been bits and pieces of Cathay lore drip fed to us - great to see more
* They sold gunpowder weapons to Lahmia before Neferata became queen, Neferata went there later with her favourite handmaiden and they had to flee.
* They had magic based on the five elements (including wood),
* Geneiveve went there and learnt some magic and martial arts
* They explored much of the world in large fleets
* Several worshippers of Tzeentch came from there - he is known as (IIRC) Tsein-Tsien.
1st edition WFRP -- so around late 3rd edtion WFB gave us :
which one suspects may well be a tip o' the hat to twoflower of Discworld fame.
FWIW Josh reynolds did an AMA about the fate of Cathay, Ind etc in the End Times saga -- obviously it's all speculation ad not official as such : see :
A few new things shown with the Total War Warhammer 3 gameplay reveal:
Little Grom
Spoiler:
Elemental bear
Spoiler:
And a map of Kislev as it it at the time of TOW
Spoiler:
Along with confirmation that the new Kislev stuff is for TOW rather than being made for TW:W3:
As you’ll have gathered by now, the Kislev units appearing in Total War: Warhammer III are being designed for Warhammer The Old World by our very own creative team.
Interesting that the map has a Kislev faction east of the World's Edge Mountain. A nod to the old Wheatlands fluff maybe? Although the location seems to be a little too northerly for that and oddly right by where the Chaos Dwarves have their big port. Looks like there are five Kislev settlements in that region, including one right on the borderlands of the Hobgobla Khan. Looks like Kislev controls both the northerly routes through the Dark Lands.
Makes sense from a TWW/tabbletop perspective as it gives the Kislevites a reason to fight Chaos Dwarves and Hobgoblins, as well as Chaos, Empire, Orcs and Dwarves.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also worth noting the article credits Little Grom to the design studio, rather than the game devs.
Seems a solid chance we’ll see it in WHFB TOW too.
They outright say that, they're units designed by the GW design studio specifically for TOW project. They're then been used in TW:W3 as well, not the other way around like some were suggesting a while back.
That's...uh...lovely. Seems the game moves ever more into RTS territory with insta-defenses and reliance on abilities. I'm sure it'll be wildly popular!
Cronch wrote: That's...uh...lovely. Seems the game moves ever more into RTS territory with insta-defenses and reliance on abilities. I'm sure it'll be wildly popular!
From what youtubers who have played the mission have said (though CA didn't make it clear), battles like this are linked to story points in the campaign. So this isn't going to be your typical battle, rather it's likely going to be the final battle vs Khorne in the campaign, and there'll be a similar one vs the other chaos gods.
That doesn't make it any better, it just means the campaign ends on a sour note. Then again, I hated both TW:WHs as complete joke of what TW series used to be, so I'm really not the target audience. The goofy ice-sled and bog bear really don't help it's case.
Cronch wrote: That doesn't make it any better, it just means the campaign ends on a sour note. Then again, I hated both TW:WHs as complete joke of what TW series used to be, so I'm really not the target audience. The goofy ice-sled and bog bear really don't help it's case.
The creation of those new units doesn't have anything to do with TW:WH specifically though, they're new units designed for The Old World project that have then been put into TW:WH.
That is a great Kislev map. Makes them a much bigger country than the "3-city" state I felt they were in middlehammer. Very cool that Kislev goes all the way to Norsca and also beyond the worlds edge mountains. Lots of opportunity for building a story around match-ups. I can also envision cool units built around the northernmost and easternmost parts of the Kislev Empire.
Extremely excited about that gigantic cannon, looks like a great centerpiece model. Makes me think of those huge bombards the turks used. Fits the kislev theme extremely well.
I hope they are going to firm up a few more things about the game soon. But I suspect we'll be waiting a while..
Cronch wrote: That doesn't make it any better, it just means the campaign ends on a sour note. Then again, I hated both TW:WHs as complete joke of what TW series used to be, so I'm really not the target audience. The goofy ice-sled and bog bear really don't help it's case.
I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
GaroRobe wrote: I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
Olthannon wrote: Extremely excited about that gigantic cannon, looks like a great centerpiece model. Makes me think of those huge bombards the turks used. Fits the kislev theme extremely well.
I hope they are going to firm up a few more things about the game soon. But I suspect we'll be waiting a while..
"sir there's some ogres on the door. They say they want their cannon back"
GaroRobe wrote: I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
And if that's the case, it will be DOA for me.
It doesn’t look any bigger than a Dread Saurian which existing pre-AoS.
WHFB has had big monsters for as long as I’ve played it, they just used to be the uncommon centrepieces.
In terms of total war, it already biases toward single entity units, it’s more a flaw in the game than the setting.
GaroRobe wrote: I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
And if that's the case, it will be DOA for me.
Why would it be DOA if it had the option for armies to have large centre piece models? The ice bear is awesome and great Kislev equiv of DE Hydra, my beloved Tomb King sphinxs, empire steam tank/gryphons and the like... 5 different lizardmen dinosaur monsters (God I love Lizardmen).
WHFB has always had these elements, big stompy monsters or giant mechanical war machines and I'm happy that it exists in WHFB.
yes but the monsters were rarieties. The rank and file aspect was more important, even if you went with the troll king the biggest thing you'd see in that army was limited.
Rank and file aspect may have been important to many fans of the old game but it was also a turn-off for many others. Old game tried to emphasize rank-and-file in its last edition but combined with price increases it killed the game for good. Age of Sigmar approach with big centerpiece models seems to work much better. Big models appear to wider audience, sell like hotcakes and when they sell for 100+ dollars apiece, it makes the game profitable. 50 dollars for half a unit of infantry does not.
EDIT: I fail to see where FW gets resources to produce big plastic kits, or any plastic kits for that matter. The amount of kits needed to launch new game is huge, more than all other Specialist games combined. This is the biggest mystery regarding Old World in my opinion.
Cronch wrote: That doesn't make it any better, it just means the campaign ends on a sour note. Then again, I hated both TW:WHs as complete joke of what TW series used to be, so I'm really not the target audience. The goofy ice-sled and bog bear really don't help it's case.
jullevi wrote: Rank and file aspect may have been important to many fans of the old game but it was also a turn-off for many others. Old game tried to emphasize rank-and-file in its last edition but combined with price increases it killed the game for good. Age of Sigmar approach with big centerpiece models seems to work much better. Big models appear to wider audience, sell like hotcakes and when they sell for 100+ dollars apiece, it makes the game profitable. 50 dollars for half a unit of infantry does not.
Correction, GW's greed killed the game off. Not the focus on game mechanics. Least of which rank and file.
It's irrelevant wheter you wanted to go monster bash, big centerpiece or rank and file, the cost associated with doing any of these things was just frankly unstomachable, combined with large games beeing community standard and it was the perfect storm.
AoS works better because it is as of now, still more affordable than to field a 3000pts army of WHFB which was the norm over here.
GaroRobe wrote: I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
And if that's the case, it will be DOA for me.
It doesn’t look any bigger than a Dread Saurian which existing pre-AoS.
WHFB has had big monsters for as long as I’ve played it, they just used to be the uncommon centrepieces.
In terms of total war, it already biases toward single entity units, it’s more a flaw in the game than the setting.
GaroRobe wrote: I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
And if that's the case, it will be DOA for me.
Why would it be DOA if it had the option for armies to have large centre piece models? The ice bear is awesome and great Kislev equiv of DE Hydra, my beloved Tomb King sphinxs, empire steam tank/gryphons and the like... 5 different lizardmen dinosaur monsters (God I love Lizardmen).
WHFB has always had these elements, big stompy monsters or giant mechanical war machines and I'm happy that it exists in WHFB.
When an army consists of 12 models and most are monstrous "Center pieces", I won't play the game. I don't like that style of play, and I won't suddenly like it if it's on square bases.
GaroRobe wrote: I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
And if that's the case, it will be DOA for me.
It doesn’t look any bigger than a Dread Saurian which existing pre-AoS.
WHFB has had big monsters for as long as I’ve played it, they just used to be the uncommon centrepieces.
In terms of total war, it already biases toward single entity units, it’s more a flaw in the game than the setting.
I mean, yeah, I can't argue with the fact that the Dread Saurian "existed", but a massive FW piece most players have never seen and even most Lizardmen players wouldn't have isn't exactly typical of WHFB, and the question is whether it should be. There certainly was (and still is) a trend towards more and larger centrepiece models, where even a formerly little Elf wizard has to be accompanied by a massive monster just to show how big and powerful he is, and Archaon needs a big chimerathing because a demonic horse just isn't impressive enough.
jullevi wrote:Rank and file aspect may have been important to many fans of the old game but it was also a turn-off for many others. Old game tried to emphasize rank-and-file in its last edition but combined with price increases it killed the game for good. Age of Sigmar approach with big centerpiece models seems to work much better. Big models appear to wider audience, sell like hotcakes and when they sell for 100+ dollars apiece, it makes the game profitable. 50 dollars for half a unit of infantry does not.
EDIT: I fail to see where FW gets resources to produce big plastic kits, or any plastic kits for that matter. The amount of kits needed to launch new game is huge, more than all other Specialist games combined. This is the biggest mystery regarding Old World in my opinion.
If having units in ranks is a turn-off, there's AoS. If a player is disappointed there's no option for more monsters instead of units of little soldiers, there's AoS. If those are the things that were problematic with WHFB, AoS "fixed" them, and if they are to be emulated in newWHFB, what's the point of bringing it "back" in the first place? The new game precisely needs to have the things people liked about WHFB and are absent from AoS.
And I'd very much argue it wasn't the existence of rank-and-file units that was the problem, it's the fact that a unit of rank-and-file figures suddenly had to contain many tens of models to be worth anything. When it becomes normal to field a unit of 40 Witch Elves and 80-100 Skaven Slaves, something has gone very wrong in sensible game design. I'm currently working on some 10mm figures, and even then 40 is the maximum I'll have in a single group, and that's a unit that only cost me like... 6 pounds. But there's only so much painting I want to do, and from a gameplay point of view I'd rather have several units of 40 than 1 big blob of 200 figures.
jullevi wrote:Rank and file aspect may have been important to many fans of the old game but it was also a turn-off for many others. Old game tried to emphasize rank-and-file in its last edition but combined with price increases it killed the game for good.
If having units in ranks is a turn-off, there's AoS. If a player is disappointed there's no option for more monsters instead of units of little soldiers, there's AoS. If those are the things that were problematic with WHFB, AoS "fixed" them, and if they are to be emulated in newWHFB, what's the point of bringing it "back" in the first place? The new game precisely needs to have the things people liked about WHFB and are absent from AoS.
And I'd very much argue it wasn't the existence of rank-and-file units that was the problem, it's the fact that a unit of rank-and-file figures suddenly had to contain many tens of models to be worth anything. When it becomes normal to field a unit of 40 Witch Elves and 80-100 Skaven Slaves, something has gone very wrong in sensible game design. I'm currently working on some 10mm figures, and even then 40 is the maximum I'll have in a single group, and that's a unit that only cost me like... 6 pounds. But there's only so much painting I want to do, and from a gameplay point of view I'd rather have several units of 40 than 1 big blob of 200 figures.
I didn't mean to imply that existence of rank-and-file was the doom of WHFB but it kept away the players who didn't want to spend tens of hours painting expensive wound tokens that played no part in the game. In fact, I agree with you that pushing large unit sizes that required multiple purchases was the mistake. If new game features rank-and-file infantry (and I see no reason why it shouldn't), they need to sell the miniatures in unit sizes that are usable straight from the box.
However, I still believe that Old World is developing towards increased amount of big centerpiece models as they appeal to larger audience. An optimal ruleset would be one that allows different kinds of armies with none being more obvious than the others.
GaroRobe wrote: I mean, is the ice sled really that bad? The ogres had/have something that's pretty similar in nature. A wonky big cannon pulled by a big animal.
And WF had lion chariots, chariots pulled by lizards, etc. It doesn't seem like anything too abnormal or weird. Though since the big ice bear was designed by TOW team, I guess that game will be like AOS/40k and have really, really big centerpiece models.
And if that's the case, it will be DOA for me.
It doesn’t look any bigger than a Dread Saurian which existing pre-AoS.
WHFB has had big monsters for as long as I’ve played it, they just used to be the uncommon centrepieces.
In terms of total war, it already biases toward single entity units, it’s more a flaw in the game than the setting.
I mean, yeah, I can't argue with the fact that the Dread Saurian "existed", but a massive FW piece most players have never seen and even most Lizardmen players wouldn't have isn't exactly typical of WHFB, and the question is whether it should be. There certainly was (and still is) a trend towards more and larger centrepiece models, where even a formerly little Elf wizard has to be accompanied by a massive monster just to show how big and powerful he is, and Archaon needs a big chimerathing because a demonic horse just isn't impressive enough.
jullevi wrote:Rank and file aspect may have been important to many fans of the old game but it was also a turn-off for many others. Old game tried to emphasize rank-and-file in its last edition but combined with price increases it killed the game for good. Age of Sigmar approach with big centerpiece models seems to work much better. Big models appear to wider audience, sell like hotcakes and when they sell for 100+ dollars apiece, it makes the game profitable. 50 dollars for half a unit of infantry does not.
EDIT: I fail to see where FW gets resources to produce big plastic kits, or any plastic kits for that matter. The amount of kits needed to launch new game is huge, more than all other Specialist games combined. This is the biggest mystery regarding Old World in my opinion.
If having units in ranks is a turn-off, there's AoS. If a player is disappointed there's no option for more monsters instead of units of little soldiers, there's AoS. If those are the things that were problematic with WHFB, AoS "fixed" them, and if they are to be emulated in newWHFB, what's the point of bringing it "back" in the first place? The new game precisely needs to have the things people liked about WHFB and are absent from AoS.
And I'd very much argue it wasn't the existence of rank-and-file units that was the problem, it's the fact that a unit of rank-and-file figures suddenly had to contain many tens of models to be worth anything. When it becomes normal to field a unit of 40 Witch Elves and 80-100 Skaven Slaves, something has gone very wrong in sensible game design. I'm currently working on some 10mm figures, and even then 40 is the maximum I'll have in a single group, and that's a unit that only cost me like... 6 pounds. But there's only so much painting I want to do, and from a gameplay point of view I'd rather have several units of 40 than 1 big blob of 200 figures.
Exactly.
A Slaan in a unit of Temple Guard, Carnosaur, or the occasional Dragon/Greater Daemon, was about as far as "centerpieces" went for most of WHFBs existence. And of course special characters. They turned Lizardmen and Beastmen into monster zoo armies to sell big kits. 8th edition bloated the unit count to sell more models. It was painfully obvious during the "End Times" GW was trying to move excess stock. 8th Ed was released in 2010 and five years later AoS dropped with Sigmarines. That doesn't happen over night.
They neglected Fantasy for years and suddenly started raining down monster kits from the heavens, while asking people to buy units in 40-100 man blocks, as the prices increased.
GW milked the whales to jump start AoS.
If they have no intention of returning to a more grounded, unit focused game with ranks, then why bother?
Hrm. Guess I'm just confused about people's recollection of WFB and perception of AoS.
Aside from the early days when they didn't have the plastic tech to do big centerpiece models, Warhammer had them. It definitely wasn't strictly a late 8th phenomen.
And just because they don't rank up, doesn't mean that AoS is exclusively or heavily focused on big models rather than model count.
Giant ice bears aside, the Kislev stuff that TW3 is showing off is very infantry focused, very traditional units for the region with the usual warhammer touches.
streetsamurai wrote: The elemental bear bothers me a lot more than the cannon-sled. Really seems like the OW will be as much high fantasy as AOS
Ice magic has been part of the Kislev lore for a long time though, while a giant magical ice bear is a bit different, they had stuff like an enchanted Ice Palace already.
Voss wrote: Hrm. Guess I'm just confused about people's recollection of WFB and perception of AoS.
Aside from the early days when they didn't have the plastic tech to do big centerpiece models, Warhammer had them. It definitely wasn't strictly a late 8th phenomen.
And just because they don't rank up, doesn't mean that AoS is exclusively or heavily focused on big models rather than model count.
Giant ice bears aside, the Kislev stuff that TW3 is showing off is very infantry focused, very traditional units for the region with the usual warhammer touches.
Even the "big" centerpieces were a lot smaller than AoS centerpieces like Teclis or Stardrake. It was very much 2010s when the big plastic kits started rolling in.
However I do agree that GW always wanted to do big centerpiece models, they just had to keep them small. Problem is, TOW is a game marketed to the 'veteran" players who want to relieve their nostalgia, so making "modern size" centerpieces clashes with their desire.
Voss wrote: Hrm. Guess I'm just confused about people's recollection of WFB and perception of AoS.
Aside from the early days when they didn't have the plastic tech to do big centerpiece models, Warhammer had them. It definitely wasn't strictly a late 8th phenomen.
And just because they don't rank up, doesn't mean that AoS is exclusively or heavily focused on big models rather than model count.
Giant ice bears aside, the Kislev stuff that TW3 is showing off is very infantry focused, very traditional units for the region with the usual warhammer touches.
Even the "big" centerpieces were a lot smaller than AoS centerpieces like Teclis or Stardrake. It was very much 2010s when the big plastic kits started rolling in.
However I do agree that GW always wanted to do big centerpiece models, they just had to keep them small. Problem is, TOW is a game marketed to the 'veteran" players who want to relieve their nostalgia, so making "modern size" centerpieces clashes with their desire.
As a "Veteran player" enjoying my nostalga I enjoy Total War and also the big models - as you say they made them as soon as they could, often suggesting ways of converting diosaurs and the like to eneble big monsters to be used. There is a huge misconception that Warhammer was low magic with a bit of magic and occassional monsters when WFB was always high fantasy full of powerful magic and monsters.
Also Total War battles look more like large scale clashes where such large entities would make sense. For me at least.
I guess? I'm not sure how much nostalgia is a factor given they're doing new stuff for a neglected pamphlet faction out of the gate.
And I definitely don't think veteran players are all of the same universal mindset. it's a clash for some.
I started in 3rd edition- a giant ice bear is pretty neutral to me. It's potentially neat as a model, but GWs rules approach to big stuff generally makes them pretty crappy and underwhelming.
Agreed - Kislev, Cathay, Cahos Dwarfs and anyone else in the Far East have alot of potential freedom for CA to suggest things to GW - as we saw with Vampire Coast.
Still wish that they had done VC models for the new Soulblight - plenty of room for Vampire pirates and they are already mentioned in the AOS lore.
Goose LeChance wrote: Those stupid boat tree-men with cannons are exactly what I fear will happen to TOW
Vampire pirates with Necrofex Colossus (the wrecked remains of a ship necromantically risen alongside the dead crew) would be AWESOME and something I'd love to see in TOW.
its dark, grim and sparks exactly something a insane vampire with an abundance of dead corpses and dead wood would do.
When you have football hooligan Orcs with goblin obsessed squigs who fling hang glider goblins at people and trolls vomitting on everything ever and everyone except the stunties have war mages, WHFB was always full of big spectacular things to spice up the rank and file and thats what makes it such a good place from a lot of peoples view point, and I'd be very glad if TOW kept that magic.
It was just the balance (lolsixdicepurplesun) and poor marketing/monetary requirement to play which killed WHFB.
Goose LeChance wrote: Those stupid boat tree-men with cannons are exactly what I fear will happen to TOW
That's something that's been part of the setting since at least 2012, it's not a new thing made for TW:WH. It's already the sort of thing that could appear in TOW as it has been part of WHFB for years.
No no no, Vampirates are WHFB thing, only the Old World can do justice to the concept of a vampirate. AoS would never dare infringe on the best army to ever grace White dwarf pages once in 200something.
Goose LeChance wrote: Was that also when the Empire started producing mecha horses? 8th edition sucked in many ways. It also failed.
TOW is set in an even earlier time period anyway.
If this turns out to be AoS on square trays... RIP.
What's the problem with them having a Clockwork Horse? The Empire already had Landships, a Steam Tank and various other high-fantasy things like Griffons. The Horse wasn't some big departure from the already established elements of the setting, especially when things like Dwarf Gyrocopters were around since 4th edition. While something specific like the Mechanical horse is unlikely to appear in TOW, it isn't going to be some huge change from the amount of high-fantasy elements when compared to WHFB because of that earlier time period.
8th edition didn't fail because of it's lore. It failed from being poorly managed regarding the amount of attention it received.
Goose LeChance wrote: Was that also when the Empire started producing mecha horses? 8th edition sucked in many ways. It also failed.
TOW is set in an even earlier time period anyway.
If this turns out to be AoS on square trays... RIP.
What's the problem with them having a Clockwork Horse? The Empire already had Landships, a Steam Tank and various other high-fantasy things like Griffons. The Horse wasn't some big departure from the already established elements of the setting, especially when things like Dwarf Gyrocopters were around since 4th edition. While something specific like the Mechanical horse is unlikely to appear in TOW, it isn't going to be some huge change from the amount of high-fantasy elements when compared to WHFB because of that earlier time period.
8th edition didn't fail because of it's lore. It failed from being poorly managed regarding the amount of attention it received.
There were 8(?) steam tanks in the world. They couldn't be reproduced, yet somehow the Empire had engineered mecha horses.
Just because something has high-fantasy elements, it shouldn't mean anything goes. There are orks and magic in 40K too, what's the point, is that high fantasy?
In the end I don't care, just hoping they give me some Empire models that aren't standing on a bunch of junk while posing for a photo shoot.
Goose LeChance wrote: Was that also when the Empire started producing mecha horses? 8th edition sucked in many ways. It also failed.
TOW is set in an even earlier time period anyway.
If this turns out to be AoS on square trays... RIP.
What's the problem with them having a Clockwork Horse? The Empire already had Landships, a Steam Tank and various other high-fantasy things like Griffons. The Horse wasn't some big departure from the already established elements of the setting, especially when things like Dwarf Gyrocopters were around since 4th edition. While something specific like the Mechanical horse is unlikely to appear in TOW, it isn't going to be some huge change from the amount of high-fantasy elements when compared to WHFB because of that earlier time period.
8th edition didn't fail because of it's lore. It failed from being poorly managed regarding the amount of attention it received.
There were 8(?) steam tanks in the world. They couldn't be reproduced, yet somehow the Empire had engineered mecha horses.
Just because something has high-fantasy elements, it shouldn't mean anything goes. There are orks and magic in 40K too, what's the point, is that high fantasy?
In the end I don't care, just hoping they give me some Empire models that aren't standing on a bunch of junk while posing for a photo shoot.
I just want a Freeguild hero/general mounted on a horse. Is that so much to ask for?
streetsamurai wrote: The elemental bear bothers me a lot more than the cannon-sled. Really seems like the OW will be as much high fantasy as AOS
Ice magic has been part of the Kislev lore for a long time though, while a giant magical ice bear is a bit different, they had stuff like an enchanted Ice Palace already.
Of course it was, but when you look at the old kislev range, it wasn't nearly as present as it seems it will be in the new range
Goose LeChance wrote: There are orks and magic in 40K too, what's the point, is that high fantasy?
.
Um... yes? or did you think the wizards casting spells powerful enough to mind control entire systems, sword-wielding daemons of blood and wrath, etc were science?
streetsamurai wrote: The elemental bear bothers me a lot more than the cannon-sled. Really seems like the OW will be as much high fantasy as AOS
Ice magic has been part of the Kislev lore for a long time though, while a giant magical ice bear is a bit different, they had stuff like an enchanted Ice Palace already.
Of course it was, but when you look at the old kislev range, it wasn't nearly as present as it seems it will be in the new range
Warhammer is a curious beast.
The original tabletop game gave, at least to me and many others, a very "low magic" feel to itself. Yes you had wizards and spells, but by and large most units were sword and shield, bow and arrow. Even for the fantasy races that populated the world. The dragons were thin serpents and it had an "old" magic kind of appearance to it.
However if you read the lore and stories those wizards were casting huge spells; there were huge dragons; skyships; vast sea fleets; huge battles; living battering rams and siege towers powered by the forces of Chaos being torn into by an indominable dwarf and his godlike axe. The lore was very much high fantasy.
There was also a big lull in Old World models for a long while,but steadily they were getting more and more high fantasty. We got dancing aelves for the witch aelves; we got serpent riding skeletons.
I think simply that both the ability to create big models and the creative desires, skills, inspirations and materials have changed. Old World was a product of its time and its materials. It advanced and had AoS not appeared I think we'd still be seeing the same kind of models appearing. Some of it new dieas like endless spells; others being things that have been there for ages, but which were just never practical to create. like chunky thick dragons and huge warbeasts and monsters. Heck Greater Demons were nearly always towering monstrosities in the lore and yet on tabletop were quite modest.
Again AoS feels different but part of that is the simple fact that plastic and market and technology and the style have all changed over the years
Voss wrote: Hrm. Guess I'm just confused about people's recollection of WFB and perception of AoS.
Aside from the early days when they didn't have the plastic tech to do big centerpiece models, Warhammer had them. It definitely wasn't strictly a late 8th phenomen.
And just because they don't rank up, doesn't mean that AoS is exclusively or heavily focused on big models rather than model count.
Giant ice bears aside, the Kislev stuff that TW3 is showing off is very infantry focused, very traditional units for the region with the usual warhammer touches.
Even the "big" centerpieces were a lot smaller than AoS centerpieces like Teclis or Stardrake. It was very much 2010s when the big plastic kits started rolling in.
However I do agree that GW always wanted to do big centerpiece models, they just had to keep them small. Problem is, TOW is a game marketed to the 'veteran" players who want to relieve their nostalgia, so making "modern size" centerpieces clashes with their desire.
As a "Veteran player" enjoying my nostalga I enjoy Total War and also the big models - as you say they made them as soon as they could, often suggesting ways of converting diosaurs and the like to eneble big monsters to be used. There is a huge misconception that Warhammer was low magic with a bit of magic and occassional monsters when WFB was always high fantasy full of powerful magic and monsters.
Also Total War battles look more like large scale clashes where such large entities would make sense. For me at least.
It's indeed kind of interesting how the move to plastic (which largely allowed for the larger pieces in a more accessible way - no Chicken Dragons or hugely expensive FW kits for special occasions) changed this field. The first plastic Giant being significantly bigger than the one before. But would they have made one the size of those new "Mega Gargants" from the Sons of Behemat at the time if the could? The move to plastic not only made it possible, but it has also simply allowed increasingly large kits with increasingly large pricetags, not necessarily in proportion to their size. Simultaneously, big figures kind of had to become more normal in game terms to pay off the mould costs compared to the cheaper metal figures of the past I suppose. Though I guess it won't have mattered if people didn't like them, and as someone who started WHFB with Lizardmen I won't say I don't like big dinos too. But my old metal Steggie feels quite large enough compared to the Skinks it's walking next to, and suitably impressive pricely because nothing was incredibly huge. (Plus it has a pleasant weight; big chonk of metal that it is!)
Goose LeChance wrote: Was that also when the Empire started producing mecha horses? 8th edition sucked in many ways. It also failed.
TOW is set in an even earlier time period anyway.
If this turns out to be AoS on square trays... RIP.
What's the problem with them having a Clockwork Horse? The Empire already had Landships, a Steam Tank and various other high-fantasy things like Griffons. The Horse wasn't some big departure from the already established elements of the setting, especially when things like Dwarf Gyrocopters were around since 4th edition. While something specific like the Mechanical horse is unlikely to appear in TOW, it isn't going to be some huge change from the amount of high-fantasy elements when compared to WHFB because of that earlier time period.
8th edition didn't fail because of it's lore. It failed from being poorly managed regarding the amount of attention it received.
There were 8(?) steam tanks in the world. They couldn't be reproduced, yet somehow the Empire had engineered mecha horses.
Just because something has high-fantasy elements, it shouldn't mean anything goes. There are orks and magic in 40K too, what's the point, is that high fantasy?
In the end I don't care, just hoping they give me some Empire models that aren't standing on a bunch of junk while posing for a photo shoot.
In addition, an actually functional robot horse seems... pretty advanced? The running motion of a 4-legged animal is incredibly complex, and while robots with such motions can be made now (apparently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEcqzGigbg ), it seems very out of place within the overall level of technology in the Empire. Had it been the shell of what looked like a barded horse but with wheels coming out of it, I'd have been all for it as a weird and not particularly useful thing some wacky engineer put together. It feels more AoS or even AdMech than WHFB Empire, especially for something that's truly mechanical (given that other mechanical feats I can think of tend to incorporate some magic along the way).
The problem of warhammer fantasy is the hard on so many people has with the fething Empire, the most boring faction of the setting.
In all my games with my friends, without any "I would have liked to be playing historicals but I have no one to play with" empire player, the game never felt low fantasy.
But thats what happens when you have lizardmen riding giant dinosaurs with solar-lasers on their backs agaisnt frankestein rats with miniguns and giant abominations with energy-cannons.
Now I'll say: It would be better for factions to remain as people expect them to look but anyone that expects that stuff made in 2021 by 2021's GW to be just as they were 20 years ago is gonna be dissapointed.
The mechanical horse was an ugly model and it sticked like a sore thumb. The concept art with a steam horse with wheels was much better. Now, Skullcrushers have always been sci-fi. If you look behind the armor, they have cables and connections but they never looked off because the "scifi" parts were hidden under the armor and they are for the demonic faction. But the Soulgrinder? That looks like ass in middle of a Fantasy battle. Too scifi.
One of my earliest Whfb memories was a cover of short story anthologies that had a chaos warrior, and a HUGE siege demon engine behind. It had to date to early/mid 90s, and the first story in it had a bretonnian peasant having his consciousness implanted into a dead slann by a wizard, later going to norsca to make a magic-rune covered da vinci tank, hiring a half-werewolf to go see the old one's warp portal. So yeah, anyone who thinks Old World wasn't high fantasy from the start clearly missed out on some clues.
The problem is that 6th and 7th edition fantasy is basically a different universe.
You have 1-3rd edition fantasy, where the universe was barely his own thing.
Then you have the crazy high fantasy period, that would be 4th, 5th and 8th fantasy edition. 8th was a reversion to pre-6th fantasy. I remember the rulebooks of those days, full of colour and cartoon like drawings and a ton of more subrealist john blanche art.
We then have the dark age of grimdarkness , 6th and 7th (And the most obvious way to look at the contrast is to compare 5th Bretonnia to 6th bretonnia). For most people, that was the peak of warhammer, the golden age. Personally it is my favourite, and I love karl kopinski style, my favourite warhammer artist, but I'm sick of people pretending it is the only true warhammer and everything else is crap.
Fantasy battle was always high fantasy, just, most of the time they tried to balance the rules so you could not field an army of multiple dragons. ("Hero-hammer" neither mentioned nor forgotten)
So, yeah, bring on the high fantasy, just make some basic armybuilding restrictions like GW had for both Fantasy and 40k not to many years ago.
If you think about it, the thing most people dislike about "modern gameplay" (ie AoS) is the crazy "anything goes" army building policy, not the centerpiece models themself.
Goose LeChance wrote: If they have no intention of returning to a more grounded, unit focused game with ranks, then why bother?
The fact is, we don't know what's going to happen. It's absurd to judge a table top game that exists only in fluff by a unit released for a video game of the same IP.
Maybe TOW will be a horrible monster mash, maybe it won't, but a couple of big units in a game made by CA is hardly proof one way or the other. WHFB has never been about the absence of big monsters, even when I started collecting back in the mid 90's I think every major army except Dwarfs had a big single entity option. Even though they might not have been physically large (probably due more to practical limitations of metal minis than anything else) they were often a big chunk of an army's total cost.
I want TOW to be unit focused rather than monster focused, but lets at least wait until we get more info before we start crying.
Galas wrote: The problem is that 6th and 7th edition fantasy is basically a different universe.
You have 1-3rd edition fantasy, where the universe was barely his own thing.
Then you have the crazy high fantasy period, that would be 4th, 5th and 8th fantasy edition. 8th was a reversion to pre-6th fantasy. I remember the rulebooks of those days, full of colour and cartoon like drawings and a ton of more subrealist john blanche art.
We then have the dark age of grimdarkness , 6th and 7th (And the most obvious way to look at the contrast is to compare 5th Bretonnia to 6th bretonnia). For most people, that was the peak of warhammer, the golden age. Personally it is my favourite, and I love karl kopinski style, my favourite warhammer artist, but I'm sick of people pretending it is the only true warhammer and everything else is crap.
Yup, the super grimdark low fantasy days of 7th that introduced multi-dragon High Elves, Bat monsters, self-driving Khorne cannon chariots, Soulgrinders on square bases, etc and GW wrote a 5 page White Dwarf article on how Warhammer was every type of Fantasy depending on what you as the player chose to include or not include in your games.. 7th wasn't as low fantasy as people like to think they remember.
I never said 6th and 7th were low fantasy. I said they were much darker and the focus was more centralized around the empire and their murder hobbos armies.
The only truth about warhammer is that... the big fantastic stuff always existed. GW just lacked the technology to make it. I remember when the mumakil was the largest plastic kit ever made!
Lets look at Kislev for example. What stuff is really that much more magical than your average fantasy stuff?
-The bear cannon uses ice instead of wheels. A little strange, maybe is done that way because is easier to animate for TW:W we cannot know.
-The elite ice witches that compose the honour guard of the tsarina. They are in comparison to the empire, more magical, thats true. But not compared with other humans factions: Bot Norscans and Bretonnians had magic-wielding elite warriors from the dawn of time.
-The giant ice bear. Ok thats very magical, but not that much different than a rogue idol for orks.
So in a full remake faction of humans fighting with bows and riding horses (and bears) with spears and axes and rifles, in this day and age where GW only makes superheroes fight superheroes if you believe what you read here, you have:
-One artillery piece that uses some kind of magic for movement
-A elite honor guard unit that uses magic weapons
-A giant monster (That most factions had)
Seems pretty reasonable to me. I expect cathay to have much more magic stuff. But thats expected, just like Araby, not all human factions have the same "magical" or technological level.
It really wasn't centered on the Empire. The core rulebook for 6th ed did have that old timey orc vs empire decoration motif going on, but...if you weren't into empire, you still had the whole rest of the game. Lizardmen army book wasn't ALL about empire not-conquistadors raiding temples, there was also stuff about dark elves and chaos and skaven. Likewise DE book was mostly about their feud with the HE cousins. The one time it was about the Empire was during the Drizzle of Chaos campaign.
So the basic rulebook of the game was literally from the point of view of an Empire Scholar and the big global campaing they ran in that period was all about the chaos invasion to the empire.
One campaign in a time period spanning...i think nearly a decade, and the main rulebook. The other global campaign, Albion, had all sides competing equally, and Lustria campaign book was all about skaven and lizards (and I think vampires? bit fuzzy on that one). And the Lustria one had a massive snake-god eat their way through an underground tunnel buffet back to Southlands.
As it was said- if someone thinks that Warhammer, even 6-7th ed was all about low fantasy and Empirecentric, all it means is that they were focusing on Empire and not really engaging with the rest of the factions' lore, not that the game was.
Cronch wrote: One campaign in a time period spanning...i think nearly a decade, and the main rulebook. The other global campaign, Albion, had all sides competing equally, and Lustria campaign book was all about skaven and lizards (and I think vampires? bit fuzzy on that one). And the Lustria one had a massive snake-god eat their way through an underground tunnel buffet back to Southlands.
As it was said- if someone thinks that Warhammer, even 6-7th ed was all about low fantasy and Empirecentric, all it means is that they were focusing on Empire and not really engaging with the rest of the factions' lore, not that the game was.
That was my point. In my playgroup we didn't had any empire player and for me the empire was always this boring faction for historical repressed players. And the game didn't felt any kind of low magic when playing regularly with lizardmen, skavens, tomb kings, chaos and high elves.
I feel like GW jumped the shark a bit with the volume of bears in the kislev unit line-up. There was originally that bear mounted special character, so moving to bear cavalry kind of works. But why have that sled mounted cannon pulled by bears? Isn't it enough that it's always sliding on magical ice?
GW needs to learn the classic design principle of less is more.
Galas wrote: -The bear cannon uses ice instead of wheels. A little strange, maybe is done that way because is easier to animate for TW:W we cannot know.
I think we can rule out an inability to animate wheels or sleds without moving parts. It's not 1972 anymore.
More likely GW is doing its favorite thing, gets crazy about what they consider a defining feature of an army and slap it on everything. Every. Last. Thing.
Cronch wrote: One campaign in a time period spanning...i think nearly a decade, and the main rulebook. The other global campaign, Albion, had all sides competing equally, and Lustria campaign book was all about skaven and lizards (and I think vampires? bit fuzzy on that one). And the Lustria one had a massive snake-god eat their way through an underground tunnel buffet back to Southlands.
As it was said- if someone thinks that Warhammer, even 6-7th ed was all about low fantasy and Empirecentric, all it means is that they were focusing on Empire and not really engaging with the rest of the factions' lore, not that the game was.
That was my point. In my playgroup we didn't had any empire player and for me the empire was always this boring faction for historical repressed players. And the game didn't felt any kind of low magic when playing regularly with lizardmen, skavens, tomb kings, chaos and high elves.
I don't know. Once we accept that we're talking about an army of animated skeletons, my Tomb Kings army was largely about stabbing things until they stopped moving. Magic was in the background. Technically everywhere, but rarely at the core of how the army fought and won battles. Felt pretty low magic to me.
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: I feel like GW jumped the shark a bit with the volume of bears in the kislev unit line-up. There was originally that bear mounted special character, so moving to bear cavalry kind of works. But why have that sled mounted cannon pulled by bears? Isn't it enough that it's always sliding on magical ice?
GW needs to learn the classic design principle of less is more.
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Shame, too. You could actually see some of that with the latest vampire/Cursed City models.
Cronch wrote: One campaign in a time period spanning...i think nearly a decade, and the main rulebook. The other global campaign, Albion, had all sides competing equally, and Lustria campaign book was all about skaven and lizards (and I think vampires? bit fuzzy on that one). And the Lustria one had a massive snake-god eat their way through an underground tunnel buffet back to Southlands.
As it was said- if someone thinks that Warhammer, even 6-7th ed was all about low fantasy and Empirecentric, all it means is that they were focusing on Empire and not really engaging with the rest of the factions' lore, not that the game was.
That was my point. In my playgroup we didn't had any empire player and for me the empire was always this boring faction for historical repressed players. And the game didn't felt any kind of low magic when playing regularly with lizardmen, skavens, tomb kings, chaos and high elves.
I don't know. Once we accept that we're talking about an army of animated skeletons, my Tomb Kings army was largely about stabbing things until they stopped moving. Magic was in the background. Technically everywhere, but rarely at the core of how the army fought and won battles. Felt pretty low magic to me.
I don't want to disrespect you but Tomb Kings , on the tabletop were all about their magic, their priest, and their curses and buffs. Without that they were even more awfull thant what they allready were. The difference is that in those days, magic was in our imagination, rarely modeled on the miniatures (Or animated in a videogame)
And lets not talk about mummies, casket of souls, ushabti, bone constructs, bone giants, catapults shooting screaming magical skulls, etc...
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: I feel like GW jumped the shark a bit with the volume of bears in the kislev unit line-up. There was originally that bear mounted special character, so moving to bear cavalry kind of works. But why have that sled mounted cannon pulled by bears? Isn't it enough that it's always sliding on magical ice?
GW needs to learn the classic design principle of less is more.
I think the bears look fine for the bombard, is the sliding ice what looks off and is the last drop that breaks the inmersion of the unit. Why bears and no horses? Because big bears are stronger than horses and they can move it where horses cannot, for example.
The big giant bear of ice , I believe, is more too obvious. A giant ice elemental? Ok. They are the ice faction. But for it to have the form of a bear? A little too much flanderization.
It's a presentation thing. There's a difference between Teclis throwing fireballs around, the magical equivalent of full frontal, and undead, where the magic remains in the background.
That's ignoring the fact that undead in general are so ingrained in many cultural backgrounds, they barely count as magic in the context of most fantasy settings.
GW puts the focus on the big, cool stuff just like they are putting a bloodthirster front and center in all TW:W3 trailers.
Because an article named "Lets look at the life of a kislevite kossar: This is Boris, he ate smashed potatoes this morning and a chaos hound ate his friend this evening. He also caught lice because he sleeps with his horse." is not as exciting or makes for great marketing.
And I say this as somebody that has Riders of Death by Dan Abnett and A Murder in Mariemburg by David Bishop as his two favourite warhammer fantasy books.
Galas wrote: I think the bears look fine for the bombard, is the sliding ice what looks off and is the last drop that breaks the inmersion of the unit. Why bears and no horses? Because big bears are stronger than horses and they can move it where horses cannot, for example.
The big giant bear of ice , I believe, is more too obvious. A giant ice elemental? Ok. They are the ice faction. But for it to have the form of a bear? A little too much flanderization.
Funny how I can rationalize the ice elemental taking the form favoured by Ursun better than a mortar being pulled by a bear.
But I would prefer if the ice bear was an animated human made construct - a huge wood and wicker statue the ice witches imbue with the power of their magic. That could be a cool project for when Kislev comes out.
It's a presentation thing. There's a difference between Teclis throwing fireballs around, the magical equivalent of full frontal, and undead, where the magic remains in the background.
That's ignoring the fact that undead in general are so ingrained in many cultural backgrounds, they barely count as magic in the context of most fantasy settings.
well, by that logic dragons are so ingrained in many cultural backgrounds they barely count as magic too. Witches and wizards are in almost all cultures too, so fireballs aren't magical either.
Cronch wrote: One campaign in a time period spanning...i think nearly a decade, and the main rulebook. The other global campaign, Albion, had all sides competing equally, and Lustria campaign book was all about skaven and lizards (and I think vampires? bit fuzzy on that one). And the Lustria one had a massive snake-god eat their way through an underground tunnel buffet back to Southlands.
As it was said- if someone thinks that Warhammer, even 6-7th ed was all about low fantasy and Empirecentric, all it means is that they were focusing on Empire and not really engaging with the rest of the factions' lore, not that the game was.
That was my point. In my playgroup we didn't had any empire player and for me the empire was always this boring faction for historical repressed players. And the game didn't felt any kind of low magic when playing regularly with lizardmen, skavens, tomb kings, chaos and high elves.
I don't know. Once we accept that we're talking about an army of animated skeletons, my Tomb Kings army was largely about stabbing things until they stopped moving. Magic was in the background. Technically everywhere, but rarely at the core of how the army fought and won battles. Felt pretty low magic to me.
I don't want to disrespect you but Tomb Kings , on the tabletop were all about their magic, their priest, and their curses and buffs. Without that they were even more awfull thant what they allready were. The difference is that in those days, magic was in our imagination, rarely modeled on the miniatures (Or animated in a videogame)
And lets not talk about mummies, casket of souls, ushabti, bone constructs, bone giants, catapults shooting screaming magical skulls, etc...
I don't think I can put this better than His Master's Voice already did, but I'll add my explanation regardless. There's a distinct difference between things that need magic to exist and things that are magical for their own sake. A skeleton warrior or mummy (the animated kind, anyway) cannot exist without magic, nor any of the war statuary of Nehekhara. If you want an undead army to exist, it needs to be permeated by magic. But when you look at how the army fights, it's just swords and spears, archers and chariots. It's very historical in its approach to warfare, with a little Indiana Jones and curse of the mummy thrown into the mix to get that fantasy feeling across that every army has.
There is nothing preventing a siege cannon from employing wheels or skids, even if the beast of burden pulling it is a bear. Replacing traditional means of motion with magical ice is a conscious choice from the designers to insert a fantastical element that is not motivated by necessity but something else, such as style, a fetish for magic ice, or the result of a roll on a random table.
The thing is, the magic ice carpet cannon could be a way of adding that little extra fantasy to an otherwise unassuming army, like a Casket of Souls. Or it could be just another extra magical building block in a army that is more magical than some people are used to in Warhammer Fantasy. We don't know yet, because we don't have the full context yet (unlike with Tomb Kings). All I'm saying is I can understand it if people find the revealed units over the top if every new unit has its special magical thing. At some point it stops being sprinkling for flavor and starts being a theme.
Daemons were also pretty grounded when you think about it. Other than being soulstorms from a hell dimension temporarily bound in monstrous form to the WHFB plane by terrible rituals, they just carried swords and flags and stuff.
well, by that logic dragons are so ingrained in many cultural backgrounds they barely count as magic too.
Why yes, a dragon can be a fitting element of both low and high fantasy. A Witcher style wild animal preying on a remote hamlet versus the gleaming godbeast slaying armies with its atomic breath.
well, by that logic dragons are so ingrained in many cultural backgrounds they barely count as magic too.
Why yes, a dragon can be a fitting element of both low and high fantasy. A Witcher style wild animal preying on a remote hamlet versus the gleaming godbeast slaying armies with its atomic breath.
Presentation.
Well Warhammer Dragons have always been immensely powerful and intelligent.
Now people enjoyed a small slice of Warhammer that was the dark fantasy element of a few humans fighting a few skaven in a sewer or chaos cults and such but it was always a little part of the world. And the same stories are told in Age of Sigmar.
I did and still enjoy those stories but I also enjoy Gotrek or the Sundering or the story of Nagash or Neferata - All are Warhammer.
At some point it stops being sprinkling for flavor and starts being a theme.
I can def agree with that - its happened and ruined (for me) varous Space Marine chapters.
I think the Elemental Bear works really well with the Kislev background of the Ice Witches raising the land to fight for them (or vice versa) but I am less keen on the bear gun, Bear cavlary though - awesome.
Now I want to say, I know we are all talking about the bear-cannon and the ice bear.
But damm those winged cavalrymen and that infantry and kislevite archers look great.
I specially like the ones with rifles and bardiches.
The more I grow disenchanted with age of sigmar the more hyped I'm for The Old World.
I know people theres a ton of other rank and file games dragon rampant kings of war this one with the big centaur-alien skeleton thing but I want my warhammer drug, I allready play infinity for non-warhammer wargaming.
I really hope for some cross compability with old armies. I would love to be able to use my ogre army in TOW, specially if they are clever enough and sell square movement trays for round base miniatures.
Galas wrote: Now I want to say, I know we are all talking about the bear-cannon and the ice bear.
But damm those winged cavalrymen and that infantry and kislevite archers look great.
I specially like the ones with rifles and bardiches.
The more I grow disenchanted with age of sigmar the more hyped I'm for The Old World.
I know people theres a ton of other rank and file games dragon rampant kings of war this one with the big centaur-alien skeleton thing but I want my warhammer drug, I allready play infinity for non-warhammer wargaming.
I really hope for some cross compability with old armies. I would love to be able to use my ogre army in TOW, specially if they are clever enough and sell square movement trays for round base miniatures.
I share in your enthusiasm, particularly for Kislev. Really like all of the new units/models they are showing. The Tzar infantry looks great, the horse and bear cavalry, The rifle/axe infantry. Love it all.
This video shows all of the units shown in the release video in greater and closer detail (more new units to come).
Well Warhammer Dragons have always been immensely powerful and intelligent.
Now people enjoyed a small slice of Warhammer that was the dark fantasy element of a few humans fighting a few skaven in a sewer or chaos cults and such but it was always a little part of the world. And the same stories are told in Age of Sigmar.
I did and still enjoy those stories but I also enjoy Gotrek or the Sundering or the story of Nagash or Neferata - All are Warhammer.
Yeah, Warhammer was always a wonderfully spacious setting - it had something for everyone. I admit I'm more of a 1st edition WFRP guy, but I never had any issues with the high fantasy elements of WFB.
If I complain about ice and bears with the new Kislev, it's not because it's magic, it's because I'd rather not see some very nice designs getting Spacewolved.
Warhammer pretty much tried to be all things to all people (at least all fantasy miniature wargamers) and have something for everyone. Maybe that's why people disagree about how to label/pigeon-hole it.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Warhammer pretty much tried to be all things to all people (at least all fantasy miniature wargamers) and have something for everyone. Maybe that's why people disagree about how to label/pigeon-hole it.
Didn’t have a lot for players who wanted Araby, Ind, Cathay, Nippon, Warhammer Africa (what was it called?), or women (except for a few character minis).
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The gameplay video implies that the magical ice-sled cannon is some form of special thing, at least in lore. It's said to be ancient and that all Kislev Warriors are inspired to be fighting alongside it, so it's seemingly not just some normal cannon they for some strange reason decided was better with a magic sled.
They do then call in 2 of them at once, but that could just be for gameplay reasons.
I think the level of fantasy argument in Warhammer largely comes from the way the level of fantasy varies from army to army and how it has varied over time and editions.
how much fantasy you think is normal in the setting comes from when you entered and what form novel/game/rpg you experienced it the most.
As someone who came in during sixth edition, to me there was a notably increase in "high fantasy" elements over time especially in 8th. I bet if you started in 7th or especially 8th these additions don't stand out so much.
His Master's Voice wrote: A Witcher style wild animal preying on a remote hamlet versus the gleaming godbeast slaying armies with its atomic breath.
A "wild animal"? Is that from some gak fanfiction (aka cd projekt game)? Because in Witcher books, the whole point of the story dealing with dragons was that they are NOT animals and Witcher outright refused to hunt intelligent, beautiful magical creature even when begged by his love...
lurch wrote: I think the level of fantasy argument in Warhammer largely comes from the way the level of fantasy varies from army to army and how it has varied over time and editions.
how much fantasy you think is normal in the setting comes from when you entered and what form novel/game/rpg you experienced it the most.
As someone who came in during sixth edition, to me there was a notably increase in "high fantasy" elements over time especially in 8th. I bet if you started in 7th or especially 8th these additions don't stand out so much.
You'd think that, but you can go back to the books published in 1989 and 1990 (Wolf Riders and Ignorant Armies) and find travelling carnivals with wyverns, mentions of demi-gryphs, intelligent bug colonies wearing people suits as skins, Drachenfels (the origin point for both Nagash and Bel'akor), spaceships, tanks made out of mithril, etc, etc. The high fantasy elements were there from the beginning, they just weren't on the tables because of GW's model casting limitations. Early Warhammer was actually a lot crazier before it got nailed down and codified by copypasta background transcribed from army book to army book with only minor tweaks.
You came in at a point where things were getting toned down for no apparent reason. Slann were demoted to servants, and the Old Ones created out of nowhere. Slann were the original old ones, the crazy gardeners terraforming the planet and poking various species to see how they turned out, then falling to barbarism after their polar gateways collapsed. That changes the fundamental assumption of the setting a lot, and a lot of army lists became similarly less fantastical. Wizards just tossed a few fireballs and similar damage spells, rather than ripping open gateways for demonic incursions and creating terrain. The human armies became more historical and less weird, and the elven armies were still stuck on being copies of each other in large chunks. Someone at the studio was trying to move away from the fantasy aspects that had been everywhere in the setting and it really showed.
GaroRobe wrote: Didn't they retcon the retcon of Old Ones and Slann? Either during the End Times or after, it was revealed the lizardmen were Old ones.
Uh. No. That was never the case. The Lizardmen have always been servants of the Old Ones, with the Slann being old enough to remember them. There was never a retcon of them to be the Old Ones.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Warhammer pretty much tried to be all things to all people (at least all fantasy miniature wargamers) and have something for everyone. Maybe that's why people disagree about how to label/pigeon-hole it.
Didn’t have a lot for players who wanted Araby, Ind, Cathay, Nippon, Warhammer Africa (what was it called?), or women (except for a few character minis).
Elves for a long time have had a decent number of females mixed in, I think many of the Wood Elf sets were a pretty reasonable mix of male and female. Of course Elves are androgynous enough that "female" just meant alternative torso.
Was there even an Africa? There was Araby, which was quite a large land mass and the Land of the Dead (or whatever it was called, where Tomb Kings / Egypt came from), but then if you went south it was the Southlands, which is more Lizardmen. Don't know what it was in the pre-Lizardmen fluff.
I think with CA/GW expanding further east we're only going to get more crazy / silly fantastical elements.
Irbis wrote: A "wild animal"? Is that from some gak fanfiction (aka cd projekt game)? Because in Witcher books, the whole point of the story dealing with dragons was that they are NOT animals and Witcher outright refused to hunt intelligent, beautiful magical creature even when begged by his love...
The dragon being hunted in that story is a wild animal to everyone except Borch. And endangered animal perhaps, but an animal.
Which has nothing to do with the point I was illustrating.
Just saying, but Warhammer "low fantasy" was never that way constantly in the old times. In fact, at the very beginning, it was wildly high fantasy.
So this whole old debate of "not my Warhammer Fantasy" really depends when you started the game and what version you were really fond of.
But Warhammer Fantasy Battle was never meant to be "low fantasy". In Warhammer Fantasy RPG first edition, reason why it felt this way is because the main setting of the adventures was the Old World - and specifically, the Empire where magic is bad and severely controlled, with the common of people highly superstitious and xenophobe, and mutants hunted all the time. But that doesn't mean the whole world was low fantasy - far from it.
Castle Drachenfels adventure book was everything but low fantasy, for example. Or the legendary Something Rotten in Kislev, when the adventurers meet a specific character that is NOT low fantasy at all (and clearly here to show players some humility ).
I don't really see the problem here with Kislev. Actually, it was to be expected GW wish to bring more high fantasy like the Elemental Bears and canons on ice chariot pulled by bears. I mean, you saw the concept art for the Tzarina elite guard with magical ice weapons...
As for the units showed in the trailer, well obviously they wanted to give a good idea of most "awesome" Kislev units. In Total War Warhammer, players can make armies only made of dragons, demygryphs or Steam Tanks (hell even just heroes if they want), even if it doesn't make sense at all in the background. It's a strategic video game in which you can conquer the whole Warhammer map with just one faction. Of course you will see armies of bears just because one player thought it was fun to do so. It's stupid to criticize the game for that. It's clear you can also make a more "balanced" army if you wish it so (and besides, it's also obvious you won't start with only bears in your starting army and won't be able to recruit those that fast in the campaign).
I expect Cathay to be even wilder - and frankly ? I welcome it. It would be boring to just make a copy-paste of historical chinese armies.
Having read the last few pages with mild bemusement... when did it become common practice to say 'low/high fantasy' as a synonym for 'low/high magic'?
This isn't meant as a You're Doing It Wrong complaint. Everybody else here is clearly unbothered by it. I'm just having Fry from Futurama moment (whoa, I have been gone a long time). I've seen it used in reference to other settings too, like GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire, and it always makes me do a double-take.
(I'll stick my explanation/rant in a spoiler box because it's a little off-topic.)
Spoiler:
Back in my day ... 'high fantasy' had nothing to do with the amount of magic and crazy stuff in a setting. It meant something more like 'high matters of importance'. That is, fantasy about great world-shaking events, a potential apocalypse, the dawn of a new age... stuff like that.
Or sometimes it meant a setting or story that concerned itself with high and profound themes, like the nature of evil, if and how power corrupts, whether right and wrong still exist if the gods are destined to lose in the final battle at the end of time, and so on.
The Lord of the Rings, by those definitions, is as high as a hobbit on bad pipeweed. But it's very much a low magic setting. As GRR Martin said in an interview once, mostly Gandalf fights with his sword just like everyone else. Even the films (silly Saruman fireball aside) and the GW game are much lower magic than WFB. Heck, most of the 'spells' in LotR SBG are more like Jedi mind tricks to inspire courage or sap the enemy's willpower rather than chuck comets at each other.
By contrast, 'low fantasy' used to mean something like Sword and Sorcery. That is, Conanesque stuff where everyone is basically out to make a buck and stay alive, and the heroes are as self-serving as the bad guys. "Kick the monsters' doors down and nick their stuff! Uh oh, an evil wizard! Quick, call on your sinister god and cut a deal!" Or it meant something more interested in low themes--fights, bawdy humour, fart jokes and so on. Stuff for the cheap seats.
D&D's Planescape in its original form was theoretically high fantasy. Not because of the sheer high-concept weirdness or overdose of magic (entire worlds and planes were made of the stuff), but because it was supposed to be about Big Questions, like philosophical beliefs about how the universe worked. In practice, though, a lot of the actual adventures written for it--and probably a lot of the games played in it--appear to have resorted to 'kick the monster's door in and take their stuff' ... only you're kicking down a door of pure grief to steal a demon's secret love for kittens. Because that's what D&D was set up to do. It ended up being used for regular low fantasy thrills. Only the decor changed. On the other hand, the PC game Planescape: Torment really did go full high fantasy with its themes. You know, 'What can change the nature of a man?' and all that. Same crazier-than-AoS setting, but totally different approaches to the material.
Part of the appeal of WFB is that it's broad enough to encompass all those definitions, high and low. You've got your impending Chaotic apocalypse and great big world-shaking (literally) Slann and High Elf shenanigans, plus scope to explore some interesting themes if you want to... while at the low-fantasy end you've got things like Mordheim and Warhammer Quest (well, the original anyway) where the point is to grab the gold/warpstone/etc and stab the other guy without being stabbed yourself.
What WFB really is, is genre fantasy, or Fantasyland as Diana Wynn Jones called it. But that's fine. It's comfortable. It's fun.
Anyway, I'm of the contrarian opinion that 4th/5th ed WFB was more realistic and low-fantasy (argh, now I'm doing it too) than 6th ed. No, really.
It didn't look like it, because of the art change and the new sculpts and painting style. The aesthetics were all definitely more toned-down and realistic than the cartoonier mid-90s style.* But in terms of writing, there's a surprising amount of everyday detail in those 4th and 5th ed armybooks that feel like they were written by people who really knew their history. Info about how Lizardmen make writing tools and things like that. Likewise, a lot of the old Bill King flavour text dwells more on characters having introspective moments than fight scenes. It feels more grounded in the real world to me.
*except for the 5th ed Vampire Counts book, which easily out-horrors the 6th ed one in both art and lack of proofreading
6th ed seems to have pushed more in the direction of That's Nice, But We'd Like More Cool Violent Battles Please. And everything had to be grim and dark all the time. It gets a bit tiresome. (Yes, I prefer sunny and cheerful 5th ed Bretonnia. You need a few bright spots here and there. It makes the dark darker by contrast.)
On the off-chance that a Zelda comparison might make this clearer: 4th/5th ed WFB feels more like Majora's Mask, while 6th ed feels like Twilight Princess. The former is outwardly colourful and goofy and childish... but full of real, old and troubling things underneath, like the darkness of fairytales. The latter looks darker and grittier and cooler... but has an adolescent shallowness to it.
At least, that's my take after collecting and reading the books from 4th to 6th in the last few years--without having played WFB back in the day, and thus not feeling all that nostalgic for one edition or another.
If you don’t like how something is being handled in AoS/40k/whatever (such as prevalence of big models), it’s very unlikely to be any different in TOW.
@Zenithfleet: I think the word just evolved to mean low/high magic over time.
Anyway, what some empire-focused people miss out on is that the empire wasn't the norm in the old world. It was specifically the one place in the world that had magic controlled, technology replacing it slowly, and people living muddy, boring lives barring occasional beastman raid or chaos invasion. Even next town over in Bretonnia you had flying horses, immortal champions of the realm and prayers actually stopping cannon-balls from pulverizing knights. Go a bit further and you have an empire of undead ruled over by mummies. A bit further and you have the gleaming spires of ulthuan where dragons still roam (if in limited numbers!) and magic is still used commonly. Empire was the exception, not the norm.
Was there even an Africa? There was Araby, which was quite a large land mass and the Land of the Dead (or whatever it was called, where Tomb Kings / Egypt came from), but then if you went south it was the Southlands, which is more Lizardmen. Don't know what it was in the pre-Lizardmen fluff.
The pre-Lizardmen fluff for the Southlands was a lot of racist stereotyping like Pygmies. Turning it into Lustria 2: Jungle Boogaloo was probably the best thing they could do for it.
Cronch wrote: @Zenithfleet: I think the word just evolved to mean low/high magic over time.
Anyway, what some empire-focused people miss out on is that the empire wasn't the norm in the old world. It was specifically the one place in the world that had magic controlled, technology replacing it slowly, and people living muddy, boring lives barring occasional beastman raid or chaos invasion. Even next town over in Bretonnia you had flying horses, immortal champions of the realm and prayers actually stopping cannon-balls from pulverizing knights. Go a bit further and you have an empire of undead ruled over by mummies. A bit further and you have the gleaming spires of ulthuan where dragons still roam (if in limited numbers!) and magic is still used commonly. Empire was the exception, not the norm.
I think a lot of the impression of Warhammer being uniquely ‘Low Fantasy’ comes more from WFRP 1e and 2e than WFB itself tbh.
The war game has always had large monsters, showy magic, legions of daemons/undead etc; whereas WFRP’s ‘you’re a rat catcher, a bone picker, a charlatan and a mercenary who are all dirt poor, adventuring in marginally magical (esp in 2e) renaissance Germany, and are probably all going to go insane and then die’ is such a departure from other RPGs (esp D&D) that it makes rather the strong impression. This has then filtered across to WFB by pop culture osmosis across the fandom.
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The last range of Kislev miniatures featured one bear, Boris' and the rest were riding horses. I fully expected the flanderisation as soon as the unit of Bear Cavalry showed up since there was no way they were going to stop at one unit/maybe character. Warmaster did have a unit of them, sure, but I don't recall bear-artillery and a giant-bear elemental and I'm sure every other item/spell will be bear-themed.
what do you people thing gw would do if they did bring back to old world keep the army as they where, there would be no money to make.
and the bear artillery with his magical ice is there to move it on the no snow tables. )
It's not like the Gryphon Legion or the Winged Lancers are going to go away with these Bear Cavalry in their place. We clearly saw them in the trailers and gameplay footage.
I personally was neutral on Kislev until I read they play like Dwarfs, but with cavalry in place of artillery. That sounds like a cracking combination.
skeleton wrote: what do you people thing gw would do if they did bring back to old world keep the army as they where, there would be no money to make.
Given Kislev haven't existed as an army for a long time (and even then only as a compilation of White Dwarf articles) they probably could have released something reasonably similar to what came before and still made good money on it. There's going to be people who want Kislev that don't own any of the previous models.
skeleton wrote: what do you people thing gw would do if they did bring back to old world keep the army as they where, there would be no money to make.
Given Kislev haven't existed as an army for a long time (and even then only as a compilation of White Dwarf articles) they probably could have released something reasonably similar to what came before and still made good money on it. There's going to be people who want Kislev that don't own any of the previous models.
If people take the time to look at the Hussars, Ungols, Character on Bear, etc they'd realize the Kislev army _is_ very similar to what came before. People are apparently so stuck on the outliers that they're not bothering to look at the bulk of the army.
skeleton wrote: what do you people thing gw would do if they did bring back to old world keep the army as they where, there would be no money to make.
Given Kislev haven't existed as an army for a long time (and even then only as a compilation of White Dwarf articles) they probably could have released something reasonably similar to what came before and still made good money on it. There's going to be people who want Kislev that don't own any of the previous models.
If people take the time to look at the Hussars, Ungols, Character on Bear, etc they'd realize the Kislev army _is_ very similar to what came before. People are apparently so stuck on the outliers that they're not bothering to look at the bulk of the army.
Yeah, personally I'm not unhappy with what I've seen so far, other than the axe guns looking a bit silly.
I reckon Bear Cav was an inevitability for Kislev. If GW decided to redo Kislev any time in the past 15 years I think it would have had that Bear Cav, maybe it would have been a Rare choice.
The ice skating bothers me more just because it looks a bit silly, but meh, not a big deal.
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The last range of Kislev miniatures featured one bear, Boris' and the rest were riding horses. I fully expected the flanderisation as soon as the unit of Bear Cavalry showed up since there was no way they were going to stop at one unit/maybe character. Warmaster did have a unit of them, sure, but I don't recall bear-artillery and a giant-bear elemental and I'm sure every other item/spell will be bear-themed.
Is it really flanderization though? The established Kislev lore, at least from what I can see looking at the wiki, heavily involved bears in the first place. Bears are a huge part of their society, with them having a religion involving a God of Bears who is usually depicted as a bear, and becoming a priest involves taming a bear. Consisting that their religion involves a bear and they're tied to Kislev society heavily, a giant ice bear as a manefestation of the land doesn't seem out of place, and neither does an ancient canon being towed by bears. While there are obviously more units involving them now, I don't see much of a chance compared to their importance before.
skeleton wrote: what do you people thing gw would do if they did bring back to old world keep the army as they where, there would be no money to make.
Given Kislev haven't existed as an army for a long time (and even then only as a compilation of White Dwarf articles) they probably could have released something reasonably similar to what came before and still made good money on it. There's going to be people who want Kislev that don't own any of the previous models.
If people take the time to look at the Hussars, Ungols, Character on Bear, etc they'd realize the Kislev army _is_ very similar to what came before. People are apparently so stuck on the outliers that they're not bothering to look at the bulk of the army.
Yeah, personally I'm not unhappy with what I've seen so far, other than the axe guns looking a bit silly.
I reckon Bear Cav was an inevitability for Kislev. If GW decided to redo Kislev any time in the past 15 years I think it would have had that Bear Cav, maybe it would have been a Rare choice.
The ice skating bothers me more just because it looks a bit silly, but meh, not a big deal.
I think if you removed the ice and put some skis there it would look way better.
skeleton wrote: what do you people thing gw would do if they did bring back to old world keep the army as they where, there would be no money to make.
Given Kislev haven't existed as an army for a long time (and even then only as a compilation of White Dwarf articles) they probably could have released something reasonably similar to what came before and still made good money on it. There's going to be people who want Kislev that don't own any of the previous models.
If people take the time to look at the Hussars, Ungols, Character on Bear, etc they'd realize the Kislev army _is_ very similar to what came before. People are apparently so stuck on the outliers that they're not bothering to look at the bulk of the army.
Yeah, personally I'm not unhappy with what I've seen so far, other than the axe guns looking a bit silly.
I reckon Bear Cav was an inevitability for Kislev. If GW decided to redo Kislev any time in the past 15 years I think it would have had that Bear Cav, maybe it would have been a Rare choice.
The ice skating bothers me more just because it looks a bit silly, but meh, not a big deal.
I think if you removed the ice and put some skis there it would look way better.
Or even just a slab of ice, rather than the wierd non-flat thing they went for instead. The concept art of it looks better.
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The last range of Kislev miniatures featured one bear, Boris' and the rest were riding horses. I fully expected the flanderisation as soon as the unit of Bear Cavalry showed up since there was no way they were going to stop at one unit/maybe character. Warmaster did have a unit of them, sure, but I don't recall bear-artillery and a giant-bear elemental and I'm sure every other item/spell will be bear-themed.
Is it really flanderization though? The established Kislev lore, at least from what I can see looking at the wiki, heavily involved bears in the first place. Bears are a huge part of their society, with them having a religion involving a God of Bears who is usually depicted as a bear, and becoming a priest involves taming a bear. Consisting that their religion involves a bear and they're tied to Kislev society heavily, a giant ice bear as a manefestation of the land doesn't seem out of place, and neither does an ancient canon being towed by bears. While there are obviously more units involving them now, I don't see much of a chance compared to their importance before.
A bit, but it was so expected that it doesn't bother me too much. The canon could just have been a canon, or pulled by horses however. Bear imagery may be common, but in terms of its military, Kislev's most iconic units to date were dudes on horses with bows and dudes on horses with lances and wings on their backs - which I know are still in, but obviously overshadowed by big bear things. At least Kislev had the twin inspirations of "bears" and "ice", so that at least not everything is purely bear-based.
Speaking of big bear things though, the elemental bear is a bit much in my view - had expected a temporary spell effect that looks like a bear, but that thing is just enormous. It just made the Bloodthirster look like a Barbie doll. And that's exactly what adding extra bears and magic changes: not just the looks, but the balance of power, the odds of survival. When the armies of the Empire and Kislev largely consist of armed peasants who got a few hours of training before being handed a halberd or axe and told where to stand on the battlefield, their struggle against the forces of Chaos is heroic. When the Khornate demonic hell-machine monstrous cavalry are simply countered with units of monstrous bear cavalry, and the greater daemon of Khorne smashed to bits by a massive elemental bear... less so.
skeleton wrote: what do you people thing gw would do if they did bring back to old world keep the army as they where, there would be no money to make.
Given Kislev haven't existed as an army for a long time (and even then only as a compilation of White Dwarf articles) they probably could have released something reasonably similar to what came before and still made good money on it. There's going to be people who want Kislev that don't own any of the previous models.
If people take the time to look at the Hussars, Ungols, Character on Bear, etc they'd realize the Kislev army _is_ very similar to what came before. People are apparently so stuck on the outliers that they're not bothering to look at the bulk of the army.
Yeah, personally I'm not unhappy with what I've seen so far, other than the axe guns looking a bit silly.
I reckon Bear Cav was an inevitability for Kislev. If GW decided to redo Kislev any time in the past 15 years I think it would have had that Bear Cav, maybe it would have been a Rare choice.
The ice skating bothers me more just because it looks a bit silly, but meh, not a big deal.
Yeah, the axe-guns seem more like a Chaos Dwarf thing. That's basically what Firepikes are, right?
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The last range of Kislev miniatures featured one bear, Boris' and the rest were riding horses. I fully expected the flanderisation as soon as the unit of Bear Cavalry showed up since there was no way they were going to stop at one unit/maybe character. Warmaster did have a unit of them, sure, but I don't recall bear-artillery and a giant-bear elemental and I'm sure every other item/spell will be bear-themed.
Well, I have the Citadel Journal 15 right in my hands now. Let's see... Every character can ride a bear. The Sons of Ursa, a cavalry unit, do it anyway. Then there're the Sibyrian beast tamers. With wolves. Or... bears. I think a cannon drawn by bears and an elemental in the shape of a bear are.... bearable.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: Speaking of big bear things though, the elemental bear is a bit much in my view - had expected a temporary spell effect that looks like a bear, but that thing is just enormous. It just made the Bloodthirster look like a Barbie doll. And that's exactly what adding extra bears and magic changes: not just the looks, but the balance of power, the odds of survival. When the armies of the Empire and Kislev largely consist of armed peasants who got a few hours of training before being handed a halberd or axe and told where to stand on the battlefield, their struggle against the forces of Chaos is heroic. When the Khornate demonic hell-machine monstrous cavalry are simply countered with units of monstrous bear cavalry, and the greater daemon of Khorne smashed to bits by a massive elemental bear... less so.
I'm not expecting the big bear to be in TOW, at least not as big as it is here.
As you say, it's huge, it's hard to tell but maybe Dread Saurian sized. Which makes me think it'll be a FW model or it'll be shrunk somewhat if it's released by the main GW or maybe it won't make it into TOW at all.
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The last range of Kislev miniatures featured one bear, Boris' and the rest were riding horses. I fully expected the flanderisation as soon as the unit of Bear Cavalry showed up since there was no way they were going to stop at one unit/maybe character. Warmaster did have a unit of them, sure, but I don't recall bear-artillery and a giant-bear elemental and I'm sure every other item/spell will be bear-themed.
Well, I have the Citadel Journal 15 right in my hands now. Let's see... Every character can ride a bear. The Sons of Ursa, a cavalry unit, do it anyway. Then there're the Sibyrian beast tamers. With wolves. Or... bears. I think a cannon drawn by bears and an elemental in the shape of a bear are.... bearable.
Yep
An elemental Bear works for me as the whole point of the Ice Magic users is that they are directly linked to the land - so in extremis it manifesting itself is fine, also its not that far away from the huge ancestor spirits that were first mentioned in .....WFRP 1st ed, 2nd ed introudced more magical beings for Kislev in its own supplement
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The last range of Kislev miniatures featured one bear, Boris' and the rest were riding horses. I fully expected the flanderisation as soon as the unit of Bear Cavalry showed up since there was no way they were going to stop at one unit/maybe character. Warmaster did have a unit of them, sure, but I don't recall bear-artillery and a giant-bear elemental and I'm sure every other item/spell will be bear-themed.
Is it really flanderization though? The established Kislev lore, at least from what I can see looking at the wiki, heavily involved bears in the first place. Bears are a huge part of their society, with them having a religion involving a God of Bears who is usually depicted as a bear, and becoming a priest involves taming a bear. Consisting that their religion involves a bear and they're tied to Kislev society heavily, a giant ice bear as a manefestation of the land doesn't seem out of place, and neither does an ancient canon being towed by bears. While there are obviously more units involving them now, I don't see much of a chance compared to their importance before.
A bit, but it was so expected that it doesn't bother me too much. The canon could just have been a canon, or pulled by horses however. Bear imagery may be common, but in terms of its military, Kislev's most iconic units to date were dudes on horses with bows and dudes on horses with lances and wings on their backs - which I know are still in, but obviously overshadowed by big bear things. At least Kislev had the twin inspirations of "bears" and "ice", so that at least not everything is purely bear-based.
Speaking of big bear things though, the elemental bear is a bit much in my view - had expected a temporary spell effect that looks like a bear, but that thing is just enormous. It just made the Bloodthirster look like a Barbie doll. And that's exactly what adding extra bears and magic changes: not just the looks, but the balance of power, the odds of survival. When the armies of the Empire and Kislev largely consist of armed peasants who got a few hours of training before being handed a halberd or axe and told where to stand on the battlefield, their struggle against the forces of Chaos is heroic. When the Khornate demonic hell-machine monstrous cavalry are simply countered with units of monstrous bear cavalry, and the greater daemon of Khorne smashed to bits by a massive elemental bear... less so.
Could you not say the exact same thing about the Empire? Armies of the Empire that consist of ordinary mortal men is heroic....but then you get those monsterous calvary countered by elite soldiers on ferocious hippogrpyhs or greater daemons countered by Steam Tanks, Luminarks or massive Landships.
These are no doubt going to be the elite high-end units, pretty much every faction has some sort of powerful elite stuff consisting of either magical elements, highly skilled warriors with some extra-ordinary addition, or fantastical technology.
As soon as the Bear Cavalry were previewed back when I figured this'd be the result though, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There was Bear cavalry in Tuomas Pirinen's Kislev army list in Citadel Journal 15 (that was like 25 years ago), an old artwork of Boris Ursa riding a bear from John Blanche and more bears in Warmaster. Also the Tsar on bear model and background about a bear god worshipped by the Kislevites.You needed the Trailer to figure out that in an army of Kislev would be... bears?
The last range of Kislev miniatures featured one bear, Boris' and the rest were riding horses. I fully expected the flanderisation as soon as the unit of Bear Cavalry showed up since there was no way they were going to stop at one unit/maybe character. Warmaster did have a unit of them, sure, but I don't recall bear-artillery and a giant-bear elemental and I'm sure every other item/spell will be bear-themed.
Is it really flanderization though? The established Kislev lore, at least from what I can see looking at the wiki, heavily involved bears in the first place. Bears are a huge part of their society, with them having a religion involving a God of Bears who is usually depicted as a bear, and becoming a priest involves taming a bear. Consisting that their religion involves a bear and they're tied to Kislev society heavily, a giant ice bear as a manefestation of the land doesn't seem out of place, and neither does an ancient canon being towed by bears. While there are obviously more units involving them now, I don't see much of a chance compared to their importance before.
A bit, but it was so expected that it doesn't bother me too much. The canon could just have been a canon, or pulled by horses however. Bear imagery may be common, but in terms of its military, Kislev's most iconic units to date were dudes on horses with bows and dudes on horses with lances and wings on their backs - which I know are still in, but obviously overshadowed by big bear things. At least Kislev had the twin inspirations of "bears" and "ice", so that at least not everything is purely bear-based.
Speaking of big bear things though, the elemental bear is a bit much in my view - had expected a temporary spell effect that looks like a bear, but that thing is just enormous. It just made the Bloodthirster look like a Barbie doll. And that's exactly what adding extra bears and magic changes: not just the looks, but the balance of power, the odds of survival. When the armies of the Empire and Kislev largely consist of armed peasants who got a few hours of training before being handed a halberd or axe and told where to stand on the battlefield, their struggle against the forces of Chaos is heroic. When the Khornate demonic hell-machine monstrous cavalry are simply countered with units of monstrous bear cavalry, and the greater daemon of Khorne smashed to bits by a massive elemental bear... less so.
Could you not say the exact same thing about the Empire? Armies of the Empire that consist of ordinary mortal men is heroic....but then you get those monsterous calvary countered by elite soldiers on ferocious hippogrpyhs or greater daemons countered by Steam Tanks, Luminarks or massive Landships.
Absolutely. So guess what my thoughts were on 8th ed's Empire armybook? Steam Tanks of which there are only 8 still in working condition; good stuff. Griffons as unusual mounts for the highest nobility, love it. Elite infantry, meanwhile, are lads with big swords. The most unusual item available to a fairly common soldier being a particularly long rifle. The crème de la crème? Lads with as much armour as their horsies can carry armed with long pointy sticks.
In my day, you didn't recognize the greatest heroes of humanity because they had to ride the biggest creatures or be massive in size themselves. No, they had the most magnificent facial hair! If it was good enough for Kurt Helborg and Ludwig Schwarzhelm, it should be good enough for anyone!
Cronch wrote: @Zenithfleet: I think the word just evolved to mean low/high magic over time.
Anyway, what some empire-focused people miss out on is that the empire wasn't the norm in the old world. It was specifically the one place in the world that had magic controlled, technology replacing it slowly, and people living muddy, boring lives barring occasional beastman raid or chaos invasion. Even next town over in Bretonnia you had flying horses, immortal champions of the realm and prayers actually stopping cannon-balls from pulverizing knights. Go a bit further and you have an empire of undead ruled over by mummies. A bit further and you have the gleaming spires of ulthuan where dragons still roam (if in limited numbers!) and magic is still used commonly. Empire was the exception, not the norm.
Sure, there's all kinds of rainbow unicorn things in Bretonnia, but the fact that they're exclusively reserved for the rich i.e. nobility (including sainthood) makes it grimdark. Also, this is what makes it relatable and interesting, IMHO.
The most interaction an average Bretonnian would have with a Pegasus is clearing the dung off their hooves. As a highly polarized feudal sistem, Bretonnian regular joes have it much worse than in the Empire.
That said, I'd like to throw in a few thoughts on the general high-low discussion that's been going on. A lot of people tend to represent "low fantasy" as gratuitousmiseryporn as here it is probably the most evident (reasonably enough, nobody's a fan of that), but I'd argue that social realism (or coming close to it) is where it's at.
What I personally find lacking in what people generally agree to be "high" fantasy and abound in what we consider "low" fantasy is relatable and/or instinctively understandable cultural and sociological factors, specifics and problems, history and general foreign politics motivators.
I've already mentioned the Bretonnia thing. Empire of mummies? Great, I'm all for it actually, but they need to have an ostensible culture and raison-d'-etre (a society obsessed with eternal life and personality cults). Immortal, perfect high elves riding dragons? Amazing, but let them be crippled by their inner political backstabbing and superiority complex. Empire has it better than most humans in the world? Great, but it is also corrupt, colonizing, xenophobic and carelessly opportunistic on the whole.
Cronch wrote: @Zenithfleet: I think the word just evolved to mean low/high magic over time.
Anyway, what some empire-focused people miss out on is that the empire wasn't the norm in the old world. It was specifically the one place in the world that had magic controlled, technology replacing it slowly, and people living muddy, boring lives barring occasional beastman raid or chaos invasion. Even next town over in Bretonnia you had flying horses, immortal champions of the realm and prayers actually stopping cannon-balls from pulverizing knights. Go a bit further and you have an empire of undead ruled over by mummies. A bit further and you have the gleaming spires of ulthuan where dragons still roam (if in limited numbers!) and magic is still used commonly. Empire was the exception, not the norm.
Sure, there's all kinds of rainbow unicorn things in Bretonnia, but the fact that they're exclusively reserved for the rich i.e. nobility (including sainthood) makes it grimdark. Also, this is what makes it relatable and interesting, IMHO.
The most interaction an average Bretonnian would have with a Pegasus is clearing the dung off their hooves. As a highly polarized feudal sistem, Bretonnian regular joes have it much worse than in the Empire.
That said, I'd like to throw in a few thoughts on the general high-low discussion that's been going on. A lot of people tend to represent "low fantasy" as mundane miseryporn as here it is probably the most evident, but generally what I personally find lacking in what people generally agree to be "high" fantasy and abound in what we consider "low" fantasy is relatable and/or instinctively understandable cultural and sociological factors, specifics and problems, history and general foreign politics motivators.
I've already mentioned the Bretonnia thing. Empire of mummies? Great, I'm all for it actually, but they need to have an ostensible culture and raison-d'-etre (a society obsessed with eternal life and personality cults). Immortal, perfect high elves riding dragons? Amazing, but let them be crippled by their inner political backstabbing and superiority complex. Empire has it better than most humans in the world? Great, but it is also corrupt, colonizing, xenophobic and carelessly opportunistic on the whole.
You just reminded me of how much I fething hate the Bretonnian tonal shift from 5th to 6th Edition...
Cronch wrote: @Zenithfleet: I think the word just evolved to mean low/high magic over time.
Anyway, what some empire-focused people miss out on is that the empire wasn't the norm in the old world. It was specifically the one place in the world that had magic controlled, technology replacing it slowly, and people living muddy, boring lives barring occasional beastman raid or chaos invasion. Even next town over in Bretonnia you had flying horses, immortal champions of the realm and prayers actually stopping cannon-balls from pulverizing knights. Go a bit further and you have an empire of undead ruled over by mummies. A bit further and you have the gleaming spires of ulthuan where dragons still roam (if in limited numbers!) and magic is still used commonly. Empire was the exception, not the norm.
Sure, there's all kinds of rainbow unicorn things in Bretonnia, but the fact that they're exclusively reserved for the rich i.e. nobility (including sainthood) makes it grimdark. Also, this is what makes it relatable and interesting, IMHO.
The most interaction an average Bretonnian would have with a Pegasus is clearing the dung off their hooves. As a highly polarized feudal sistem, Bretonnian regular joes have it much worse than in the Empire.
That said, I'd like to throw in a few thoughts on the general high-low discussion that's been going on. A lot of people tend to represent "low fantasy" as mundane miseryporn as here it is probably the most evident, but generally what I personally find lacking in what people generally agree to be "high" fantasy and abound in what we consider "low" fantasy is relatable and/or instinctively understandable cultural and sociological factors, specifics and problems, history and general foreign politics motivators.
I've already mentioned the Bretonnia thing. Empire of mummies? Great, I'm all for it actually, but they need to have an ostensible culture and raison-d'-etre (a society obsessed with eternal life and personality cults). Immortal, perfect high elves riding dragons? Amazing, but let them be crippled by their inner political backstabbing and superiority complex. Empire has it better than most humans in the world? Great, but it is also corrupt, colonizing, xenophobic and carelessly opportunistic on the whole.
You just reminded me of how much I fething hate the Bretonnian tonal shift from 5th to 6th Edition...
I get what you mean, but honestly, those elements were never NOT there - you don't really get anything else with a polarized feudal society - they just weren't being shown directly.
And even during the post-6th paradigm shift, you could mostly grasp these from select art pieces and WFRP supplements.
Hell, these elements technically existed outside of what's shown even in the real life high medieval chansons de geste Brets were inspired by - or at least in cultures who wrote themselves into said pieces of literature.
Yeah, Streltsi were a kislevite unit that was basically just Streltsy. The change they have done is that instead of having bardiche+rifle they have an axe-rifle. It doesn't look as good in my opinion but is not horrible.
I love my chaosdwarven firepikes but the new Streltsi have it backwards, instead of a rifle with an axe bayonet the rifle is in the back end of the axe.
Cronch wrote: @Zenithfleet: I think the word just evolved to mean low/high magic over time.
Anyway, what some empire-focused people miss out on is that the empire wasn't the norm in the old world. It was specifically the one place in the world that had magic controlled, technology replacing it slowly, and people living muddy, boring lives barring occasional beastman raid or chaos invasion. Even next town over in Bretonnia you had flying horses, immortal champions of the realm and prayers actually stopping cannon-balls from pulverizing knights. Go a bit further and you have an empire of undead ruled over by mummies. A bit further and you have the gleaming spires of ulthuan where dragons still roam (if in limited numbers!) and magic is still used commonly. Empire was the exception, not the norm.
Sure, there's all kinds of rainbow unicorn things in Bretonnia, but the fact that they're exclusively reserved for the rich i.e. nobility (including sainthood) makes it grimdark. Also, this is what makes it relatable and interesting, IMHO.
The most interaction an average Bretonnian would have with a Pegasus is clearing the dung off their hooves. As a highly polarized feudal sistem, Bretonnian regular joes have it much worse than in the Empire.
That said, I'd like to throw in a few thoughts on the general high-low discussion that's been going on. A lot of people tend to represent "low fantasy" as mundane miseryporn as here it is probably the most evident, but generally what I personally find lacking in what people generally agree to be "high" fantasy and abound in what we consider "low" fantasy is relatable and/or instinctively understandable cultural and sociological factors, specifics and problems, history and general foreign politics motivators.
I've already mentioned the Bretonnia thing. Empire of mummies? Great, I'm all for it actually, but they need to have an ostensible culture and raison-d'-etre (a society obsessed with eternal life and personality cults). Immortal, perfect high elves riding dragons? Amazing, but let them be crippled by their inner political backstabbing and superiority complex. Empire has it better than most humans in the world? Great, but it is also corrupt, colonizing, xenophobic and carelessly opportunistic on the whole.
You just reminded me of how much I fething hate the Bretonnian tonal shift from 5th to 6th Edition...
I get what you mean, but honestly, those elements were never NOT there - you don't really get anything else with a polarized feudal society - they just weren't being shown directly.
And even during the post-6th paradigm shift, you could mostly grasp these from select art pieces and WFRP supplements.
Hell, these elements technically existed outside of what's shown even in the real life high medieval chansons de geste Brets were inspired by - or at least in cultures who wrote themselves into said pieces of literature.
I'm talking more the absolute Flanderized levels of it. Commoners vs. royalty is one thing, but the absolute destitution shown in the 6th Ed. book runs contrary to the ideals that the Code of Chivalry expouses.
What it all comes down to is some arm-cutting emo edgelord at GW decided that there can never ever ever be a completely "good" force. It's why they threw the whole mind control thing onto the Tau at roughly the same time.
Dryaktylus wrote: Well, I have the Citadel Journal 15 right in my hands now. Let's see... Every character can ride a bear. The Sons of Ursa, a cavalry unit, do it anyway. Then there're the Sibyrian beast tamers. With wolves. Or... bears. I think a cannon drawn by bears and an elemental in the shape of a bear are.... bearable.
I mean... that is true, but in the case of all characters, it's also a misrepresentation. All characters can ride a warhorse or a monster, and one of the monsters happens to be a great bear, but they can as easily all be riding great dragons, or manticores or pegasii, so as far as representation or flanderization goes, well...
As to the rest, that is also true, two units out of 16 on the army list can use bears in some capacity. But it is as much true that 7 units out of those same 16 can ride warhorses, and one of those is a knightly order... the brotherhood of the bear.
I mean... that is true, but in the case of all characters, it's also a misrepresentation. All characters can ride a warhorse or a monster, and one of the monsters happens to be a great bear, but they can as easily all be riding great dragons, or manticores or pegasii, so as far as representation or flanderization goes, well...
As to the rest, that is also true, two units out of 16 on the army list can use bears in some capacity. But it is as much true that 7 units out of those same 16 can ride warhorses, and one of those is a knightly order... the brotherhood of the bear.
The video showed horses are litterally still in. So why keep complaining about more bears for new units that are clearly quite special in themselves ? (Elemental Bear is, well, elemental and thus certainly involved with some kind of magic ritual, it just has the shape of a bear and is more a question of faith and belief - and the canon is just a piece of artillery, the bears are used to pull it. Since they're stronger than horses, it's not especially dumb to use them instead of horses, especially because Kislev can clearly tame bears for war).
I mean... that is true, but in the case of all characters, it's also a misrepresentation. All characters can ride a warhorse or a monster, and one of the monsters happens to be a great bear, but they can as easily all be riding great dragons, or manticores or pegasii, so as far as representation or flanderization goes, well...
As to the rest, that is also true, two units out of 16 on the army list can use bears in some capacity. But it is as much true that 7 units out of those same 16 can ride warhorses, and one of those is a knightly order... the brotherhood of the bear.
The video showed horses are litterally still in. So why keep complaining about more bears for new units that are clearly quite special in themselves ? (Elemental Bear is, well, elemental and thus certainly involved with some kind of magic ritual, it just has the shape of a bear and is more a question of faith and belief - and the canon is just a piece of artillery, the bears are used to pull it. Since they're stronger than horses, it's not especially dumb to use them instead of horses, especially because Kislev can clearly tame bears for war).
1) Because I wanted to comment. 2) Because I'm asleep while most posters are awake, on account on being on the other side of the planet. 3) Not complaining. Explaining.
I mean... that is true, but in the case of all characters, it's also a misrepresentation. All characters can ride a warhorse or a monster, and one of the monsters happens to be a great bear, but they can as easily all be riding great dragons, or manticores or pegasii, so as far as representation or flanderization goes, well...
As to the rest, that is also true, two units out of 16 on the army list can use bears in some capacity. But it is as much true that 7 units out of those same 16 can ride warhorses, and one of those is a knightly order... the brotherhood of the bear.
The video showed horses are litterally still in. So why keep complaining about more bears for new units that are clearly quite special in themselves ? (Elemental Bear is, well, elemental and thus certainly involved with some kind of magic ritual, it just has the shape of a bear and is more a question of faith and belief - and the canon is just a piece of artillery, the bears are used to pull it. Since they're stronger than horses, it's not especially dumb to use them instead of horses, especially because Kislev can clearly tame bears for war).
1) Because I wanted to comment.
2) Because I'm asleep while most posters are awake, on account on being on the other side of the planet.
3) Not complaining. Explaining.
Oh you're totally complaining - more specifically, trying to find a counter-argument to the facts presented in the Citadel Journal 15 so that you can keep complaining about more bears in new Kislev units. Talking about "misrepresentation" from a Total War gameplay video with a set army is plain stupid, 'cause the purpose of the video is to show the new units and have a general feeling on how the game looks and plays for the press.
It's not representative of the proportion of war bears / special units in the actual Kislevite army. It was never meant to be. Besides, we don't even know what are the mounts available for characters as they level up, if they use the same system than TW2 for that. Horses may very well still be available for most heroes anyway.
So your numbers here are worth nothing, because you're using as basis a video that was never meant to show the lore / proportion of how special the bears are in the army. It's not a Warhammer Fantasy Battle army book. For now, we still have the Old World project to show how they actually can be played / taken in a miniature wargame.
For Ursa's sake, the canon is clearly a unique unit with its own name - it's a Kislev Regiment of Renown. We have no proof all Kislevite canons are automatically pulled by bears and moved on a carpet of magical ice.
"Bretonnia was founded 1500 years ago, when Gilles Le Breton initiated the series of dynastic conquests that led to the unification of the many small feudal states lying west of the Grey Mountains and north of the river Brienne. At htat time Bretonnia was a troublesome backwater compared to The Empire. Soon, however, the Bretonnian Kings came to rival the power of the Emperor, and her cities became the model for modernity and fashion.
Since the accession of the current King's grandfather, Charles I (Charles L'enorm or Charles the Enormous), the Bretonnian Kingdom has degenerated considerably. The once proud cities and prosperous ports have fallen into ruin, a national apathy has set in that has given rise to widespread corruption, inefficiency and decay. The aristocracy looks to its own pleasures while the unruly mob starves amidst the worst squalor in the Old World.
The current King, Charles III (Charles Tete d'Or) is the least caring of all. His great palace of Oisillon is a glittering monument to decadence, where be-wigged nobles prance and chatter, where banquets and parties continue all through the night, and where the King hears only the council of sycophants and favourites. Aristocrats and King alike seem myopically ignorant of the true state of the realm, whilst those few genuinely caring nobles look to the defence of their own estates, shunning the madness that has gripped the court"
Now, a LOT of that has been retconned over the years. But right from early on, it's been clear that there are times when being a Bretonnian peasant is absolutely awful, but that this is something that isn't a permanent state of affairs. So during TOW, Brettonia might be at a high point before the decline, while the rise of Louen Leoncoeur may have been the start of another upswing. If, y'know, the world hadn't ended.
Both types of Brettonia are true, just wait a couple of centuries.
As someone who sees 6th ed background as the best, I think that:
1) Bear Cavalry are okay providing they are roughly equivalent to demigryphs, being only a rare choice and for characters.
2) Bear artillery... not a fan but if is it the equivalent of a steam tank, being very rare and there is more conventional artillery, then seems acceptable.
3) Bear spirit thing is crossing a line. Large monsters are fine (providing they are rare) but monstrous apparitions are walking gork orc rock thing kind of fantasy which does not interest me.
Dreamchild wrote: That said, I'd like to throw in a few thoughts on the general high-low discussion that's been going on. A lot of people tend to represent "low fantasy" as gratuitousmiseryporn as here it is probably the most evident (reasonably enough, nobody's a fan of that), but I'd argue that social realism (or coming close to it) is where it's at.
Completely agree here. What appealed to me was that human factions are largely inspired by historical realism except for the very elite of the society and the enemies they fight. High fantasy just does not have sufficient historical roots to interest me.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: In my day, you didn't recognize the greatest heroes of humanity because they had to ride the biggest creatures or be massive in size themselves. No, they had the most magnificent facial hair! If it was good enough for Kurt Helborg and Ludwig Schwarzhelm, it should be good enough for anyone!
I'm talking more the absolute Flanderized levels of it. Commoners vs. royalty is one thing, but the absolute destitution shown in the 6th Ed. book runs contrary to the ideals that the Code of Chivalry expouses.
I really liked that about the 6th ed book because of the fact it resembled the utter hypocrisy that was Chivalric Code, both real life and fantasy.They're ideals that literally no human can actually follow because they're human. Hell, Bretonnia is basically Arthurian fan fiction and all but one of the Knights of the Round Table failed to live up to the code fully in the end.
Graphite wrote: The current King, Charles III (Charles Tete d'Or) is the least caring of all. His great palace of Oisillon is a glittering monument to decadence, where be-wigged nobles prance and chatter, where banquets and parties continue all through the night, and where the King hears only the council of sycophants and favourites.
Did someone at GW ate memo Bretonnia was supposed to be a medieval state, not baroque one?
At the point that was written, Bretonnia wasn't really supposed to be any kind of state other then "the one next to the Empire, a little bit French". But certainly from some of the WFRP stuff about at the time, there was art of Bretonnian nobles who were obviously only a few decades away from the guillotine. It was before all of the Knights of the Round Table stuff.
Graphite wrote: The current King, Charles III (Charles Tete d'Or) is the least caring of all. His great palace of Oisillon is a glittering monument to decadence, where be-wigged nobles prance and chatter, where banquets and parties continue all through the night, and where the King hears only the council of sycophants and favourites.
Did someone at GW ate memo Bretonnia was supposed to be a medieval state, not baroque one?
Graphite wrote: The current King, Charles III (Charles Tete d'Or) is the least caring of all. His great palace of Oisillon is a glittering monument to decadence, where be-wigged nobles prance and chatter, where banquets and parties continue all through the night, and where the King hears only the council of sycophants and favourites.
Did someone at GW ate memo Bretonnia was supposed to be a medieval state, not baroque one?
this came much later, in the beginning, Bretonia was supposed to be like this
Graphite wrote: The current King, Charles III (Charles Tete d'Or) is the least caring of all. His great palace of Oisillon is a glittering monument to decadence, where be-wigged nobles prance and chatter, where banquets and parties continue all through the night, and where the King hears only the council of sycophants and favourites.
Did someone at GW ate memo Bretonnia was supposed to be a medieval state, not baroque one?
this came much later, in the beginning, Bretonia was supposed to be like this
Spoiler:
What era was this? I don't recognise the models.
I started right at the end of 4th and beginning of 5th edition, that was when Brets still had a "good" vibe to them, not the dirty downtrodden peasants of 6th edition.
I liked the 5th edition Brets better, especially the metals were a lot nicer looking than the plastics that came in 6th, some really nice work from the Perry twins, back when they were "bowmen" rather than "peasant bowmen".
I'm going to guess that photo comes from 3rd (by the Fanatic bases and models)
What I posted before was the entire background section on Bretonnia in 3rd edition rulebook - I got the date wrong, it originally came out in 1987. (My copy must be a later printing). That's it. Everything.
Warhammer Armies came out in 1988, and leaned a bit more into the "Knights" look. Unfortunately I don't have that book, but it certainly that looks like the list the army photographed came from. As you can see, they had crossbows, cannons, well armoured archers. There's a peasant rabble at the back, but that's to add flavour to a fairly standard renaissance army rather than WE ARE KNIGHTS AND PEASANTS AND NOTHING ELSE.
So, yes, Bretonnia was a bit of a hodge-podge of time periods from the very beginning, but so was everything else. But Peasant Life Is Rubbish was always there.
"Bretonnia was founded 1500 years ago, when Gilles Le Breton initiated the series of dynastic conquests that led to the unification of the many small feudal states lying west of the Grey Mountains and north of the river Brienne. At htat time Bretonnia was a troublesome backwater compared to The Empire. Soon, however, the Bretonnian Kings came to rival the power of the Emperor, and her cities became the model for modernity and fashion.
Since the accession of the current King's grandfather, Charles I (Charles L'enorm or Charles the Enormous), the Bretonnian Kingdom has degenerated considerably. The once proud cities and prosperous ports have fallen into ruin, a national apathy has set in that has given rise to widespread corruption, inefficiency and decay. The aristocracy looks to its own pleasures while the unruly mob starves amidst the worst squalor in the Old World.
The current King, Charles III (Charles Tete d'Or) is the least caring of all. His great palace of Oisillon is a glittering monument to decadence, where be-wigged nobles prance and chatter, where banquets and parties continue all through the night, and where the King hears only the council of sycophants and favourites. Aristocrats and King alike seem myopically ignorant of the true state of the realm, whilst those few genuinely caring nobles look to the defence of their own estates, shunning the madness that has gripped the court"
Now, a LOT of that has been retconned over the years. But right from early on, it's been clear that there are times when being a Bretonnian peasant is absolutely awful, but that this is something that isn't a permanent state of affairs. So during TOW, Brettonia might be at a high point before the decline, while the rise of Louen Leoncoeur may have been the start of another upswing. If, y'know, the world hadn't ended.
Both types of Brettonia are true, just wait a couple of centuries.
I miss the earlier portrayals of Bretonnia - in those days Bretonnia was less "feudal kingdom of medieval knights inspired by Arthurian myth" and more "late Age of Enlightenment steampunk on the eve of revolution".
Did someone at GW ate memo Bretonnia was supposed to be a medieval state, not baroque one?
Other way around, Bretonnia started out as being more baroque replete with powdered wigs, tricorne hats, and breeches - there was a great bit of fluff in one of the books about how Bretonnian nobles wore the powdered makeup and ornate clothing, etc. in order to hide the various (iirc chaos-induced) mutations and poxes which afflicted them and that the entirety of Bretonnian society had basically rotted from the inside-out and was ready to collase in a violent and spectacular fashion. It only turned into an Arthurian fairytale later. IIRC there were elements of the medieval knight stuff and medieval tech from the beginning but it was less pronounced and multi-layered, as the tech level of Bretonnia was comparable to the Empires and blackpowder weapons were present to some extent, etc.
Bretonnia makes more sense as a more baroque country than medieval anyway. The super medieval "no shooting" stuff was not interesting or realistic. They should have some gunpowder weaponry when they are surrounded by other cultures using firearms for hundreds of years.
Graphite wrote: The current King, Charles III (Charles Tete d'Or) is the least caring of all. His great palace of Oisillon is a glittering monument to decadence, where be-wigged nobles prance and chatter, where banquets and parties continue all through the night, and where the King hears only the council of sycophants and favourites.
Did someone at GW ate memo Bretonnia was supposed to be a medieval state, not baroque one?
this came much later, in the beginning, Bretonia was supposed to be like this
Spoiler:
What era was this? I don't recognise the models.
I started right at the end of 4th and beginning of 5th edition, that was when Brets still had a "good" vibe to them, not the dirty downtrodden peasants of 6th edition.
I liked the 5th edition Brets better, especially the metals were a lot nicer looking than the plastics that came in 6th, some really nice work from the Perry twins, back when they were "bowmen" rather than "peasant bowmen".
Illumini wrote: Bretonnia makes more sense as a more baroque country than medieval anyway. The super medieval "no shooting" stuff was not interesting or realistic. They should have some gunpowder weaponry when they are surrounded by other cultures using firearms for hundreds of years.
Not really. The only reason the Empire has guns is because they learned how to make and use them from the Dwarfs. There aren't as many Dwarf Holds in the Grey Mountains, and those that are there were only there for only a relatively short time before the Bretonni came. There are also less expatriate Dwarfs, as there are in the Empire.
The chivalry thing is also a pretense for keeping weapons that can pierce the armor of Knights out of the hands of the peasantry. This ties into the general state of Bretonnian society; there is no real middle class and no real industry. Firearms are thus prohibitively expensive. Crossbows are similarly illegal. As such, the "infantry revolution" that occurred in historical feudal Europe never happened in Bretonnia.
Illumini wrote: Bretonnia makes more sense as a more baroque country than medieval anyway. The super medieval "no shooting" stuff was not interesting or realistic. They should have some gunpowder weaponry when they are surrounded by other cultures using firearms for hundreds of years.
Not really. The only reason the Empire has guns is because they learned how to make and use them from the Dwarfs. There aren't as many Dwarf Holds in the Grey Mountains, and those that are there were only there for only a relatively short time before the Bretonni came. There are also less expatriate Dwarfs, as there are in the Empire.
The chivalry thing is also a pretense for keeping weapons that can pierce the armor of Knights out of the hands of the peasantry. This ties into the general state of Bretonnian society; there is no real middle class and no real industry. Firearms are thus prohibitively expensive. Crossbows are similarly illegal. As such, the "infantry revolution" that occurred in historical feudal Europe never happened in Bretonnia.
... 'high fantasy' had nothing to do with the amount of magic and crazy stuff in a setting. It meant something more like 'high matters of importance'. That is, fantasy about great world-shaking events, a potential apocalypse, the dawn of a new age... stuff like that.
