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.

Right. So tell me then, why on earth is it somehow OK for AoS to leave Empire, Brett and Dark Elf players not knowing if their factions are even still around?

Why is it worse to have some 'generic' background out for each race than it is to have NO background for most of your races?

Regardless of the quality (which I won't go into here), KoW has enough fluff that a new person can pick up a book, flip to the pages for the faction that interests them, and get an idea of who the faction are and where they fit into the setting. Previous editions of WHFB and 40k had this too. It is a great way to get into the game, by offering some knowledge about the different races one might be interested in alongside the rules.

Why does AoS not have this and do you honestly think it isn't a barrier of entry?

I think most people would agree that leaving players of old factions in the dark as to the fate of their faction is a pretty bad idea. I'm sure to GW, it's no different than what they always do; keep new releases secret until they happen. But in this case, they could lose both customers and sales because people don't know if there's any point in buying X model or keep X army instead of selling it.

And for the record: The name "Mantica" is a large part of why I can't take KoW fluff seriously. I mean, they obviously can't, so why should I? It has nothing to do with my opinion of the name itself and everything to do with what it implies.

 Sarouan wrote:
Just look at the silly special rules for some "dead characters" in the army lists on the website. Some say it's an insult to gamers, I see the designers having fun like in the old times by writing this.

Of course it's an insult to gamers. Do you know how I can tell? Because it flat out tells you it's an insult to gamers:

Issue your opponent with a challenge of your own – you can be as mocking, rude or insulting as you dare;

@Sarouan

It has been noted by critics of AoS that battletome rules are not afflicted by the humor of the PDF lists. And in any case, it is one thing to stick in a joke here or there and quite another to label the setting at large with a joke.

I also like the idea that 40k and now AoS are "big enough" to include concepts dreamed up by the players. If anything, I wish some of the units were a bit more customizable along these lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
why on earth is it somehow OK for AoS to leave Empire, Brett and Dark Elf players not knowing if their factions are even still around?

Once again, I can do no better than to quote my learned friend:

 Mymearan wrote:
I'm sure to GW, it's no different than what they always do; keep new releases secret until they happen.

And I sympathize. (My favorite 40k army was my first, Sister of Battle.) As I posted earlier:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't want to get into defending GW's news blackout policy because frankly I don't understand it and it frustrates me.

I remember when wmh mk2 hit, we had the collated faction books (forces of war:[faction]) for every faction in just over a year. Cygnar, khador, retribution, protectorate, cryx, Mercenaries, trollbloods, circle, legion, skorne and minions. 11 factions (not including sub factions). Fluff, background. Logistics, organisation etc. Mammoth undertaking for the company to be fair. Especially considering their size It really brought it all to life. I wonder if a company with so many more resources to hand could have walked the same walk...

Has gw done something like this for all their factions in Aos? Genuine question.

Further point. Privateer press's line of rpg products. They have been slower to come out (core, five fingers, urban, unleashed, Kings nations and gods) and whether you are interested in RPGs or not, the lore is amazing and had done a stellar job of bringing it to life. But this is two to five years after the release of mk2.

Has gw done something like this (or could they) for their realms in Aos. Genuine question.

Vermis wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:
Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Yeah, not in the 4-page AoS rules though, but hidden behind ￡30 'battletomes'. They're not a standard weapon, with standard rules.

Good ol' Vermis. Moaning about something he knows nothing about lol.

No. The battletomes do not contain extra rules for spears. Nor do the sourcebooks. All weapon rules are on the free warscrolls - which apparently you can't read very well either.

The handmaiden is a hero, not a unit of troops. So, no bonus for a phalanx going on there obviously.

The 'Spear Phalanx' rule isn't for a single spearman. It's for any rolls of a 1, IF the unit doesn't move in the proceeding movement phase.

The Sea Guard Soldiery rule gives the reroll for a unit over 20, regardless of if they move or not - representing that discipline you mentioned as they can fight as a phalanx both offensively and defensively.

The militia rule is akin to old 'horde' rule and you will see a similar rule for most core units to encourage them to be taken in large sizes.

Aside from these unique special rules, spears are important simply by virtue of having that 2" range as it allows you to get 3 rows into combat... which is what they did in 8th.

jonolikespie wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

It doesn't teach the player anything he doesn't already know or make him feel anything he doesn't already feel.

I don't even...

Wait what?

I missed this, I'm seeing it out of context, but is this a thing that some people think a game should do?

Maybe it's you who should have the sheep avatar Jono. In my opinion you actually agree with Manchu's point when you state:

...they were still solidly crafted settings that were full of history, events, places and characters for you to identify with and latch onto which then inspired you to add your own touches. I'm not sure without that a setting will appeal to that many people.

Yep, inspiration is one of the most powerful things a good game will make you feel. And in this regard I 100% agree with you. AoS needs this to hold the interest of its players long term, and to do so the setting needs more depth and detail.

Manchu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
People quickly grow tired of superinvincibilies vs superinvincibilies.

The HH begs to differ..

I'm not sure the Horus Heresy is a good counter point. I haven't read the BL books, so point out if I am mistaken, (but having grown up with 40k I am familiar with the crux of the event), isn't the appeal of HH the drama and action between the primarch's and other lead characters, who despite having super human strength are very much human in their emotions and interactions with one another. Even Space Marine Primarchs seem to have that human latch we can fall back onto - they need to question the morality of their actions, fight the lure of corruption, deal with the betrayal of their brothers. These are all very human experiences. They are also all mortal.

At the moment AoS doesn't seem to have these human emotions present - it's just 'Super brave guys' vs 'badass dudes' and when they die they just go back to their respawn points.

For me, this is going to be the lynchpin on my enjoyment of AoS as it moves forward. If the setting continues to lack mortals, consequence and detail, I'm not sure how long my enjoyment will continue.

The fact that this may be a deliberate design choice has me worried. I think we'll have a better idea after the Slayers in January as this is the first strictly mortal faction to be introduced.

@Deadnight

I guess I don't understand your first question. AoS has only been out since July but you are asking about a project that by your own count took at least 13 months. Additionally, the background of the factions of the WM/H factions did not change, although there was some plot progression (quite a limited amount of each army book). I love the new IK books because of how much fluff they contain (I don't like the game itself very much) and have every book in the series plus the GM screen. GW does not make a similar product line.

An AoS RPG book through FFG would be exactly the kind of thing I'd want to see to actually detail the damn setting sufficiently.

As for the 'Forces of' equivalents, my understanding is we have one for the Sigmarines, on for the lizardmen, one for the specifically Khorne WoC, one for a fortress for some reason, and the next one is one for Archaon and his followers.. but still not a regular old WoC book.

@Bottle

The Primarchs are not people and they don't behave as if they have normal human emotions, although they certainly have motive among which are their emotional outlooks (for example Konrad's melancholy). They have a very close parallel in Greek gods. Each one has a one- or two-note personality. They are each the embodiment of a certain trait or insight. That is not to say that they lack any complexity. I would say that characters like Athena and Poseidon have some complexity and so too do characters like Leman Russ and Magnus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
An AoS RPG book through FFG would be exactly the kind of thing I'd want to see to actually detail the damn setting sufficiently.

Again, GW's licensing has not caught up with its in-house development. FFG has wrapped up both WFRP 3E and the WHFB-inspired LCG, Conquest. I would say that might mean AoS stuff was on the way but FFG just released Warhammer Quest (announced at GenCon) so who can tell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
one for a fortress for some reason

The reason is that (a) battletomes are not actually army books in the established sense and (b) terrain is active in AoS and can be taken as part of your army (another idea cribbed from prior developments in 40k).

Saying the HH is the same as AoS is a vast miss. There are 19 pseudo- invincible guys (well, there's really just - one - but... let me stretch that just for argument's sake) in the setting, and when it's all said and done, the ones that didn't turn into demons will be fething dead or gone feth knows where (and presumed dead) within a thousand years of the HH (iirc, ofc).

Contrast with ALL of the Stormcast being pretty much immortal unless they are really (really really reaallyyyy) unlucky, ALL of the Seraphon being MEMORIES (how do you kill a memory and keep it dead? With the magically forged Alzheimer blades?) etc etc...

 Manchu wrote:
@Bottle

The Primarchs are not people and they don't behave as if they have normal human emotions, although they certainly have motive among which are their emotional outlooks (for example Konrad's melancholy). They have a very close parallel in Greek gods. Each one has a one- or two-note personality. They are each the embodiment of a certain trait or insight. That is not to say that they lack any complexity. I would say that characters like Athena and Poseidon have some complexity and so too do characters like Leman Russ and Magnus.

See I'd say the best HH books are the ones like Prospero Burs, A Thousand Sonds, The First Heretic. Ones that show the more human elements of the marines and the primarchs. Then the more recent crap is just the usual old armies marching at each other that you find in any 40k book.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Bottle

The Primarchs are not people and they don't behave as if they have normal human emotions, although they certainly have motive among which are their emotional outlooks (for example Konrad's melancholy). They have a very close parallel in Greek gods. Each one has a one- or two-note personality. They are each the embodiment of a certain trait or insight. That is not to say that they lack any complexity. I would say that characters like Athena and Poseidon have some complexity and so too do characters like Leman Russ and Magnus.

See I'd say the best HH books are the ones like Prospero Burs, A Thousand Sonds, The First Heretic. Ones that show the more human elements of the marines and the primarchs. Then the more recent crap is just the usual old armies marching at each other that you find in any 40k book.

AoS is 40k's "eternal war" shtick turned up to eleven, and losing all pretenses of any seriousness, something that we are seeing coming back to 40/30k too. The latest HH are just that.

One nameless SM dies and is replaced by another. One nameless stormcast falls in battle and Sigmar remanufactures him. To me, the difference is entirely academic.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Saying the HH is the same as AoS is a vast miss. There are 19 pseudo- invincible guys (well, there's really just - one - but... let me stretch that just for argument's sake) in the setting, and when it's all said and done, the ones that didn't turn into demons will be fething dead or gone feth knows where (and presumed dead) within a thousand years of the HH (iirc, ofc).

Contrast with ALL of the Stormcast being pretty much immortal unless they are really (really really reaallyyyy) unlucky, ALL of the Seraphon being MEMORIES (how do you kill a memory and keep it dead? With the magically forged Alzheimer blades?) etc etc...

19 pseudo-invincible guys backed up by almost numberless superhuman warriors who are technically mortal but unless they sustain fatal trauma can be brought back, albeit likely 'lesser' than what they were? Who are easily a match for 10 times their number of 'normal' humans? Who exist purely to live or die at their leader's command? Yup, *totally* different to the Stormcast if you swap tech for magic.
The finite element of the Seraphon are the Slann, in the same way that necromancers are the finite element for undead. How do you kill something that's already dead and keep it dead? With death pun blades?

I get you don't care for the setting, but you could at least do it the courtesy of being a little more objective in your assessment of it, or at least less wilfully ignorant.

 Manchu wrote:
One nameless SM dies and is replaced by another. One nameless stormcast falls in battle and Sigmar remanufactures him. To me, the difference is entirely academic.

And the nameless Saurus memories? And the nameless Khornates? And the nameless Sylvaneth spirits? If you wanna generalise then we're all nameless so all games are the same gak, regardless of the company that makes them, the setting, etc, but... that's your escape route, isn't it?

However, it shouldn't be hard to take the hint for the new trend from the fact that the faction that was created on purpose to serve as poster child for AoS doesn't have - one - named character that you can play with. One. Yeah, you get the Prime but I personally see him as pretty much just the same as the rest of them but a tad bigger and with a fancy hammer - but YMMV. It's more of a title than anything else. So far all the Stormcasts are is an army of immortal anons, but with some ranked anons in between to give some kind of military hierarchy.

Also, out of curiosity, is there any new named character for the Khorne dudes?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Saying the HH is the same as AoS is a vast miss. There are 19 pseudo- invincible guys (well, there's really just - one - but... let me stretch that just for argument's sake) in the setting, and when it's all said and done, the ones that didn't turn into demons will be fething dead or gone feth knows where (and presumed dead) within a thousand years of the HH (iirc, ofc).

Contrast with ALL of the Stormcast being pretty much immortal unless they are really (really really reaallyyyy) unlucky, ALL of the Seraphon being MEMORIES (how do you kill a memory and keep it dead? With the magically forged Alzheimer blades?) etc etc...

19 pseudo-invincible guys backed up by almost numberless superhuman warriors who are technically mortal but unless they sustain fatal trauma can be brought back, albeit likely 'lesser' than what they were? Who are easily a match for 10 times their number of 'normal' humans? Who exist purely to live or die at their leader's command? Yup, *totally* different to the Stormcast if you swap tech for magic.
The finite element of the Seraphon are the Slann, in the same way that necromancers are the finite element for undead. How do you kill something that's already dead and keep it dead? With death pun blades?

I get you don't care for the setting, but you could at least do it the courtesy of being a little more objective in your assessment of it, or at least less wilfully ignorant.

30k Space Marines can and WILL die - how many died in the FIRST book alone? How many Eternals have you seen die so far?

I can grab Horus Rising and find more permanently dead Astartes in its first chapter than Eternals in the entire AoS fluff so far. Shall I bring out the dead primarch list for us to compare?

I get you really wanna whiteknight for GW and AoS, but you can:

a) know wtf you're talking about when answering to people who disagree with you;
b) not insult others.

kk?

When you're writing my lines, could you at least make them comprehensible? I think I prefer my own arguments to the words you put in my mouth, to be honest.

And somehow you have overlooked that there several named Stormcast: Vandus Hammerhand, Orius Adamantine, Ionus Cryptborn, Anactos Skyhelm, Thostos Bladestorm, etc, etc. Yet again, a criticism with no basis other than ignorance and spite.

And then the gall to lecture someone else thus:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
know wtf you're talking about when answering to people who disagree with you

And this right after calling him a whiteknight:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
not insult others

 Manchu wrote:
When you're writing my lines, could you at least make them comprehensible? I think I prefer my own arguments to the words you put in my mouth, to be honest.

And somehow you have overlooked that there several named Stormcast: Vandus Hammerhand, Orius Adamantine, Ionus Cryptborn, Anactos Skyhelm, Thostos Bladestorm, etc, etc. Yet again, a criticism with no basis other than ignorance and spite.

Funny - I quoted you word for word - you must be having trouble following your own BS.

Also, shall I bring out the dozens of named space marines that aren't in the army lists? But please ignore the fact that I was pointing to the lack of named characters as usable in a game - I mean, it's not that hard to understand, unless you're choosing to ignore it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
When you're writing my lines, could you at least make them comprehensible? I think I prefer my own arguments to the words you put in my mouth, to be honest.

And somehow you have overlooked that there several named Stormcast: Vandus Hammerhand, Orius Adamantine, Ionus Cryptborn, Anactos Skyhelm, Thostos Bladestorm, etc, etc. Yet again, a criticism with no basis other than ignorance and spite.

And then the gall to lecture someone else thus:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
know wtf you're talking about when answering to people who disagree with you

And this right after calling him a whiteknight:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
not insult others

And you're claiming pseudo-moral high ground too!

I think the argument about the fluff is unproductive. It's pretty obvious that some people are going to like the fluff and others are going to dislike it. This is true for any fiction game or historical period.

As for whether AoS has special appeal in its fluff, the WHFB fluff sustained the game and RPG and boardgame spin-offs for 30 years, so it can't have been all bad. It just goes to prove my point.

The real question is whether the AoS fluff will be successful in attracting a new audience to replace the lost WHFB audience. But in fact I don't think people play games just because of fluff anyway. You have to look at all three main elements which are fluff, rules and models.

Well, truth is, AoS is a new game. A lot of people thought it would be WFB 9th edition. It wasn't, and veteran gamers were thus confused then angry. Because they wanted WFB 9th edition, let's face it.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to know what happened after the destruction of the Old World. It's just that, in AoS fluff, this is akind to the Age of Myths; it's all lost to legends in a long past time. You're not even sure the characters are actually the same, past the fact they bear the same name.

And I think it's intentional.

So better to take the "new fluff" for what it is rather than what it should "have been". Otherwise, you can't help but being disappointed in the end.


About Mantica...if you really don't take its fluff seriously just because of that, I don't see why you should for Sigmarite. You have to call it anyway, so that word is as good as another. It's like Doomshadow or Disneyland.

History is also full of names that look or sound stupid, but have a reason behind - sometimes very simple, pragmatic or even an actual joke made serious.

 Manchu wrote:
One nameless SM dies and is replaced by another. One nameless stormcast falls in battle and Sigmar remanufactures him. To me, the difference is entirely academic.

Oh, to me it's not. The nameless SM did die, he will not come back again. Another will replace him, but he is another SM. Here, for Stormcast, it's not the same. He may lose "something", yeah, sure, but you can't really feel for him for "dieing". Because it's not the end for him, just an episode.

That's the big difference; empathy. It's not the same for a Stormcast or for a Space Marine. Because death has not the same meaning for both.

In a way, Space Marines are more humans than Stormcast Eternals. Because they can die. For a Stormcast, something similar may happen...but it's more an exception than the norm. Most of them will just go back to Sigmar to be reforged. Sure, they "lose something" in that, but is it really that big a deal for someone who is already a war machine and doesn't seem to do anything else than getting ready for battle?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
please ignore the fact that I was pointing to the lack of named characters as usable in a game

How is that even relevant? The argument you joined is about AoS having no characters. Yet it does. Contrary to your vitriolic assertions, the Stormcast are no more faceless automatons than Space Marines. It doesn't matter at all to the narrative quality of the setting that Vandus is not a unique entry in the list but rather the name of a particular soldier of a rank that is available on the army list.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the argument about the fluff is unproductive.

It must of needs be when posters argue out of both sides of their mouths about it. But it has never been a matter of whether a given poster likes the setting; the point is, GW applied a good idea from 40k in AoS. This is true for many aspects of AoS, from the setting to particular mechanics.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
please ignore the fact that I was pointing to the lack of named characters as usable in a game

How is that even relevant? The argument you joined is about AoS having no characters. Yet it does. Contrary to your vitriolic assertions, the Stormcast are no more faceless automatons than Space Marines. It doesn't matter at all to the narrative quality of the setting that Vandus is not a unique entry in the list but rather the name of a particular soldier of a rank that is available on the army list.

It is relevant because it's setting a trend within the game, but regardless, I can pick up on what you're saying and still say that SC Eternals are pretty much just automatons, regardless of them having specific platform denominations. And, it's not vitriol at all, even though I am sure your tinted shades are colouring it as such just because I am one of the voices against AoS.
Are you going to colour it as vitriol when even AoS-likers agree to this view? Are THEY also making "vitriolic assertions"? (Did I quote that well enough? )

Also, please read Sarouan's comment on how a Space Marine's death is far, far more relevant than a Stormcast's.

But KK is right. This is pointless.

"Fifteen space marines died taking that fortress."

"Fifteen stormcast fell taking that fortress."

As a matter of storytelling, these are equivalent statements. The fifteen in question in either case only exist to make a point about how difficult it was to take the fortress.

"I would give my life for the Emperor."

Fine. You're very loyal, I get it.

"I will serve Sigmar faithfully for all eternity."

Yep, also loyal. In the equivalent degree.

To me, it is superfluous for GW to make a fantasy setting that uses core concepts from 40K.

We've already got 40K, a science fantasy mass skirmish game with immortal armoured super warriors of the God-Emporer,encrusted with arcane symbols, banners and melee weapons, fighting to restore the galaxy after it was torn apart by the forces of Chaos. Etc.

Wouldn't it be better for GW to do something new?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for GW to do something new?

Or keep doing something old? Only time will tell. I would bet you a dollar that more people will play Warhammer Total War than AoS in 2016.

 Manchu wrote:

Yep, also loyal. In the equivalent degree.

Totally.

It's just that death is not the same.

For the Space Marine, it means his end. He will not be able to serve the Emperor after that.

For the Stormcast? Well, he will just go back after his reforging.

So the sacrifice for the Space Marine and for the Stormcast are not the same. One will not be able to do more, the other will. Thus, when a Space Marine launch a suicidal attack to protect its nobles, it has a lot more impact than the Stormcast doing the same. Because the Stormcast will come back, anyway.


You sacrifice 15 SM for that Fortress? That's 15 SM who will forever be lost. You did the same with 15 Stormcast? Meh, it will only cost Sigmar time and Sigmarite, no big deal. They can even go back into the same battle if he's in a hurry (yeah, that happens in the fluff).

I am not saying SM don't die. I'm saying that it is pretty meaningless most of the time from the perspective of a storyteller. As a rule, storytellers have exactly as many Space Marines as are required to tell the story. SM being mortal is certainly meaningless when we're talking about playing with the models.

 Manchu wrote:
"Fifteen space marines died taking that fortress."

"Fifteen stormcast fell taking that fortress."

As a matter of storytelling, these are equivalent statements. The fifteen in question in either case only exist to make a point about how difficult it was to take the fortress.

"I would give my life for the Emperor."

Fine. You're very loyal, I get it.

"I will serve Sigmar faithfully for all eternity."

Yep, also loyal. In the equivalent degree.

The Space Marines all seemed to have names and back stories and human-esque interactions, and when they die they are sorely missed. Sure, some can be re-created from gene-seed if recovered but the Space Marine numbers are dwindling so each loss is felt. They also serve partially because they want to (partly because it's what they were created to do). Losing 15 Space Marines will lose 15 personalities and sets of experience, though it might result in say, 10 new Space Marines being trained up.

Stormcast have none of that; they are personalityless golems that can be recreated in exactly the form they were before. Nothing is lost.

 Manchu wrote:
GW just pushed reset. So comparing it to a setting that they have developed over decades, whether the Old World or the 40k galaxy, will definitely leave the Mortal Realms feeling ... well, underdeveloped. That's why I think it's better to compare the setting style rather than the specific content at this point. And given each successive AoS campaign book shows us more and more of the Mortal Realms, development is already under way.

GW is the biggest company in the market, and has it's own writing staff. Do you really believe that the current fluff is all they had time to do?

There are companies less than 1% of GW's size that have managed to produce more fluff about their game world in the first edition. What I've seen of the fluff so far just smacks of complete apathy; I just can't see it getting any better over time because they just don't seem to care about it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for GW to do something new?

Or keep doing something old? Only time will tell. I would bet you a dollar that more people will play Warhammer Total War than AoS in 2016.

If the reports about Specialist Games coming back are true, they are going to return to doing something old.

However I hope they will produce some new titles as well.

 Manchu wrote:
I am not saying SM don't die. I'm saying that it is pretty meaningless most of the time from the perspective of a storyteller. As a rule, storytellers have exactly as many Space Marines as are required to tell the story. SM being mortal is certainly meaningless when we're talking about playing with the models.

So wait... you're actually saying that the death of a character like Tarik Torgaddon (keeping to the HH thingie) has the same storytelling impact as the "death" of a named SCE, when you know he'll be right back in a few moments, if necessary.

Herzlos wrote:
GW is the biggest company in the market

And it's still very small. I could not tell you whether GW has capacity to publish 10 army/campaign books a month. Before 2012-2013, I would have had trouble believing they could do one a month or every other month which is pretty much what they do these days. But I will say, I could imagine some reasons not to publish 10 army/campaign books per month, or similar.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
So wait... you're actually saying that the death of a character like Tarik Torgaddon (keeping to the HH thingie) has the same storytelling impact as the "death" of a named SCE, when you know he'll be right back in a few moments, if necessary.

Didn't I just tell you to knock it off with the straman fallacy?

Tarik died for one reason only: a writer wanted to tell a story about it and the line editor did not object. If the same were true of Vandus, he could die.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However I hope they will produce some new titles as well.

It's so much riskier .. for example Dreadfleet or Execution Force. And both of those were based on existing IPs. I very much doubt we will see GW introduce a whole cloth IP.