Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OgreChubbs wrote:
No one else shocked malekith is the pheonix king?

He always has been! You've been believing revisionist historians for too long...

Damn, this Khaine book really has huge consequences on the lore of WHFB. While I'm usually for changes, i'm wondering if they're not going a bit too far. I was excited with the changes that the Nagash book brought, but I'm not sure I like these ones, It seems like it will destroy a lot of the charm and character of the setting, with Ulthuan and Naggaroth annhilated and all the elves back together in Athel Loren. i mean, how come you can justify corsair in Athel Loren, since the're no seaport in there?

i guess we'll have to see what happens in the last 2 books, but I'm starting to get worried for the future of the game and setting.

pm713 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Once you get around to reading the book you will be made aware that Malekith was intended to be Phoenix King all along and his being burned, etc. was the result of a treacherous plot, which kind of justifies the civil war he started... also, Asuryan might be dead.

Please ignore this.

Or dont.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Damn, this Khaine book really has huge consequences on the lore of WHFB. While I'm usually for changes, i'm wondering if they're not going a bit too far. I was excited with the changes that the Nagash book brought, but I'm not sure I like these ones, It seems like it will destroy a lot of the charm and character of the setting, with Ulthuan and Naggaroth annhilated and all the elves back together in Athel Loren. i mean, how come you can justify corsair in Athel Loren, since the're no seaport in there?

i guess we'll have to see what happens in the last 2 books, but I'm starting to get worried for the future of the game and setting.

Raiders doesn't necessarily mean seafaring pirates.

those guys whole aesthetics are based on them being seafaring. Hell their banner is an octopus. Not exactly the kind of creature you find in a forest

 streetsamurai wrote:
those guys whole aesthetics are based on them being seafaring. Hell their banner is an octopus. Not exactly the kind of creature you find in a forest

Their aesthetic is that of reavers. The only reason they're seafaring is because their homeland is so far afield that they can only access it by oceans. As such, they're pirate-y. Their whole thing is that of reavers though.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
those guys whole aesthetics are based on them being seafaring. Hell their banner is an octopus. Not exactly the kind of creature you find in a forest

Their aesthetic is that of reavers. The only reason they're seafaring is because their homeland is so far afield that they can only access it by oceans. As such, they're pirate-y. Their whole thing is that of reavers though.

yeah maybe, but unless they remake the miniatures (and they won't), they look piratey-y.Same thing for lothern seaguard. Their aesthetics doesnt make sense if they dont leave near a sea or ocean, Or the Charybdis. Them looking like that and living in a forest doesn't make sense at all.

Don't reallt think it's something that's arguable

 streetsamurai wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
those guys whole aesthetics are based on them being seafaring. Hell their banner is an octopus. Not exactly the kind of creature you find in a forest

Their aesthetic is that of reavers. The only reason they're seafaring is because their homeland is so far afield that they can only access it by oceans. As such, they're pirate-y. Their whole thing is that of reavers though.

yeah maybe, but unless they remake the miniatures (and they won't), they look piratey-y.Same thing for lothern seaguard. Their aesthetics doesnt make sense if they dont leave near a sea or ocean, Or the Charybdis. Them looking like that and living in a forest doesn't make sense at all.

Don't reallt think it's something that's arguable

You're arguing aesthetics over purpose for the corsairs. In the past three editions, they've not been referred to as pirates, but as raiders. I can understand where you're coming from, but only one corsairish model has any parts that resemble pirates. That's the Fleetmaster.

sorry, but you're pretty much wrong on this. The corsair aquatic theme was always present. I have the one from the 4th edition and the codex from this era. They were always themed as pirate. They have sea dragon cloak, were sailing all over the world on black ark etc. hell, the reason at that time that I liked them was because they were pirate.

I'm not sure if i'm understanding your point clearly, cause right now, no offense, but i must admit that it don't really seem to make any sense.

 streetsamurai wrote:
sorry, but you're pretty much wrong on this. The corsair aquatic theme was always present. I have the one from the 4th edition and the codex from this era. They were always themed as pirate. They have sea dragon cloak, were sailing all over the world on black ark etc. hell, the reason at that time that I liked them was because they were pirate.

I'm not sure if i'm understanding your point clearly, cause right now, no offense, but i must admit that it don't really seem to make any sense.

You're claiming that corsairs were, and are, pirates. This isn't true. They have not been called such for at least two books. The sea dragon cloaks and black arcs are because of the fact that provided excellent defensive value, and they raided from naggaroth. They're just raiders. Or as the book calls them, reavers.

Guys, they have access to the worldroot now, its not so farfetched that theres an island with a fprest somewhere where they can establish a port.

As a sidenote, both raiders and reavers (as well as corsairs) are terms originally used to refer to pirates, arguing otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

Are the Black Arks not a thing now, then? Have they all been destroyed?

'cause, you know, the Corsairs are the Dark Elves who live and work on the Black Arks, so just because Malekith's chair is in Athel Loren now doesn't mean that that the Arks aren't still in need of crew. Naggarond was landlocked too, after all.

Well theres only one mentioned over the course of the entire book (that I recall), and by the end of the book that one is most definitely not a thing anymore.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
those guys whole aesthetics are based on them being seafaring. Hell their banner is an octopus. Not exactly the kind of creature you find in a forest

Their aesthetic is that of reavers. The only reason they're seafaring is because their homeland is so far afield that they can only access it by oceans. As such, they're pirate-y. Their whole thing is that of reavers though.

yeah maybe, but unless they remake the miniatures (and they won't), they look piratey-y.Same thing for lothern seaguard. Their aesthetics doesnt make sense if they dont leave near a sea or ocean, Or the Charybdis. Them looking like that and living in a forest doesn't make sense at all.

Don't reallt think it's something that's arguable

You're arguing aesthetics over purpose for the corsairs. In the past three editions, they've not been referred to as pirates, but as raiders. I can understand where you're coming from, but only one corsairish model has any parts that resemble pirates. That's the Fleetmaster.

I'm going to have to disagree. They're kind of explicitly pirates.

Corsair : noun
1.a fast ship used for piracy.
2.a pirate, especially formerly of the Barbary Coast.

The Wood Elf Realm of Tirsyth is not only where they nexus of the World Roots is but also on a large river as are several others -given the size of Old world rivers ocean going vessles may well be able to navigate these.....

Ocean going vessels are capable of navigating most rivers in the real world as well, its just a question of their being adequate port facilities for them.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
those guys whole aesthetics are based on them being seafaring. Hell their banner is an octopus. Not exactly the kind of creature you find in a forest

Their aesthetic is that of reavers. The only reason they're seafaring is because their homeland is so far afield that they can only access it by oceans. As such, they're pirate-y. Their whole thing is that of reavers though.

yeah maybe, but unless they remake the miniatures (and they won't), they look piratey-y.Same thing for lothern seaguard. Their aesthetics doesnt make sense if they dont leave near a sea or ocean, Or the Charybdis. Them looking like that and living in a forest doesn't make sense at all.

Don't reallt think it's something that's arguable

You're arguing aesthetics over purpose for the corsairs. In the past three editions, they've not been referred to as pirates, but as raiders. I can understand where you're coming from, but only one corsairish model has any parts that resemble pirates. That's the Fleetmaster.

I'm going to have to disagree. They're kind of explicitly pirates.

Corsair : noun
1.a fast ship used for piracy.
2.a pirate, especially formerly of the Barbary Coast.

You misunderstand he difference between a name and a descriptive term. The use of corsairs that you supplied is a term used to describe a boat or a type of pirate.

These are called corsairs. Nothing more. As for reaver. It's a noun of them reave. Which means to plunder/pillagers. That is at corsairs are. To say that they are anything other than reavers is makingup a unit.

Yeah man, I dont like facts or cohesive arguments either...

@TDA see definition 2.

name: Noun
1. A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others.
2. A word or group of words used to describe or evaluate, often disparagingly.

melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
No one else shocked malekith is the pheonix king?

He always has been! You've been believing revisionist historians for too long...

Here! Here! That's what I've been arguing with my HE friend for over a decade...glad to see my point has been validated after all this time!
Damned separatists!

chaos0xomega wrote:Ocean going vessels are capable of navigating most rivers in the real world as well, its just a question of their being adequate port facilities for them.

Regarding that...I wonder if the elves permanently relocated to Athel Loren, would there be any of those underworld waterways located in the mountain ranges near Athel Loren similar to the ones that the dark elves so frequently used in Naggaroth to launch surprise attacks from? You could still maintain a navy that way, without having to hold territory on a coastline.

Further to that speculation, in a post-End Times world where the elven remnant is less of a grand empire and more several lesser kingdoms and city-states scattered around the world, what would happen to the elven colonies? Which side would they join in the civil war? Do they even know what has happened to the homeland? Will they split off and form their own independent city-states?

I could see in that sort of world that old alliances collapse and new ones are formed, elves could very much become an insular, reclusive society (in the manner of the wood elves more broadly), but being more fickle and capricious...sometimes supporting the civilized world, sometimes making attacks of opportunity to raid and pillage supplies for their dwindling numbers...very much like how the Elder operate in 40k.

I thought the elven colonies were abandoned long ago save for athel loren which is the only one that survived (and became a separate entity)

chaos0xomega wrote:
I thought the elven colonies were abandoned long ago save for athel loren which is the only one that survived (and became a separate entity)

Reading the Lexicanium leads me to believe there were several HE colonies, although their sources are only as recent as 7th edition. Does anyone know if they are mentioned in 8th?

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Citadel_of_Dusk

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Fortress_of_Dawn

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Gates_of_Calith


It would be interesting if these were covered by more recent fluff.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I thought the elven colonies were abandoned long ago save for athel loren which is the only one that survived (and became a separate entity)

Various fortresses as noted in post above, plus there are Elves in the Drakwald

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
@TDA see definition 2.

name: Noun
1. A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others.
2. A word or group of words used to describe or evaluate, often disparagingly.

Which dictionary did you get that name from? Because, I'd hate to burst your bubble but an adjective is what we call descriptive terms in any level of English. A name is given to something to provide a definition of what it is.

Also, having checked every edition of the dark elf book I own, I've yet to find a reference for corsairs being anything other than reavers. So please. Provide all the effect you can to prove hat they're pirates.

As to the whole corsair/reaver thing...surely the corsairs are a means to an ends? Dark elven economics is almost purely based on raiding and pillaging - I recall seeing some statement to that effect in the DE Army book. Now Looking at Naggaroth, aside from the Chaos Wastes to the north (far too hazardous) and the Lizardmen to the south (Lustria is too long/difficult a journey overland) it would leave the elves with naval transport as the most efficient and viable means for movement around the world.

Without sounding too obvious, having a raiding/pillaging/bandit society and being geographically isolated by two oceans means ipso facto your raiders are of the nautical variety - aka pirates. If by some means, such as the End Times, that the dark elves found themselves no longer based on Naggaroth but say, Athel Loren, and they maintained their bandit society/economy, then you would no necessarily require your 'corsairs' to be sea-faring.


I've developed some fluff for a DE army that was based around Araby and the Southlands that was heavily into the land-sea banditry in a Bedouin style society - raiding and pillaging. If for some reason they were striking inland to raid a caravan route etc, my corsairs were now bandits...sea dragon cloaks can become 'sand' dragon cloaks, useful to shield ones' self from a desert storm as well as a sea storm.

Anyhow, to summarise, the corsairs are the equivalent of pirates yes, but they only adopt that as a means to an end - pillaging. If the dark elves were based in the Old World, their society may no longer require their raiders to be sea-borne. I would like to see where the DE are at (if indeed they continue to exist as a separate political/cultural entity) post End Times.

@ TDA

Hate to burst your bubble but dictionary.com & Meriam-Webster both agree with me. I think Meriam-Webster is more qualified than you to say whether or not a noun can be descriptive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A name is given to something to provide a definition of what it is.

Also I will accept this as you admiting to being wrong on the pirate debate.

IF a name provides a definition of what something is
AND Corsair is defined as pirate.
THEN the name of the unit defines them as being pirates.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
@ TDA

Hate to burst your bubble but dictionary.com & Meriam-Webster both agree with me. I think Meriam-Webster is more qualified than you to say whether or not a noun can be descriptive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A name is given to something to provide a definition of what it is.

Also I will accept this as you admiting to being wrong on the pirate debate.

IF a name provides a definition of what something is
AND Corsair is defined as pirate.
THEN the name of the unit defines them as being pirates.

Description and definition are two different things. They are defined as corsairs, but their actions aren't. You may claim that they're pirates. But in fact, it is merely a name given to them to reflect the fact that they're seafaring reavers. Which may be interpreted, albeit very loosely, as a pirate. You are mistaking the common name, of corsair, for the proper name, of Corsair. This is a fairly common mistake. The simplest way of explaining it is the indian ministry of home affairs. Whilst their ministry is called the ministry of home affairs, it's actual name is The Ministry of Home affairs. This makes it a unique entity. As does the the name of the Corsairs in the book.

But nowhere in at least 4 editions of books, have they been described, or defined, as pirates.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
@ TDA

Hate to burst your bubble but dictionary.com & Meriam-Webster both agree with me. I think Meriam-Webster is more qualified than you to say whether or not a noun can be descriptive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A name is given to something to provide a definition of what it is.

Also I will accept this as you admiting to being wrong on the pirate debate.

IF a name provides a definition of what something is
AND Corsair is defined as pirate.
THEN the name of the unit defines them as being pirates.

But nowhere in at least 4 editions of books, have they been described, or defined, as pirates.

Except you just admitted they were defined as pirates...

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
@ TDA

Hate to burst your bubble but dictionary.com & Meriam-Webster both agree with me. I think Meriam-Webster is more qualified than you to say whether or not a noun can be descriptive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A name is given to something to provide a definition of what it is.

Also I will accept this as you admiting to being wrong on the pirate debate.

IF a name provides a definition of what something is
AND Corsair is defined as pirate.
THEN the name of the unit defines them as being pirates.

But nowhere in at least 4 editions of books, have they been described, or defined, as pirates.

Except you just admitted they were defined as pirates...

No. They are defined by the proper name that GW gave them. Of Corsairs. The common name means pirates.

At the end after everyone's living in Athel Loren, theres a passage about how the dark elves keep themselves amused by raiding and pillaging the remains of Brettonia. I imagine this is the corsairs doing their corsair thing, but they're probably using chariots or something instead of boats


As an aside, the friendly plaguebearer is my favourite thing in the entire book.