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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out
I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that.
Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.

Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.

I would argue they were not just "there", as the Skaven have a unit that took techniques from Nippon, and the Cathay Empire was described as engaged in a constant war with the Ogres, who are a major faction and are from the same area as Cathay.
Also, you mean to tell me that South America (Lustria) and Egypt (Settri) are part of Europe? Or that 16th century Europe (the inspiration for the Empire) never had contact with China or Japan?

I'd also argue that Cathay and Nippon were undeveloped, not generic. If Cathay, Nippon and Araby were generic as they were clearly China, Japan and Arabia, one could just as easily claim that Bretonnia, Empire, Vampire Counts and High Elves were generic, as they were clearly medieval France, 16th Century Germany, Vampires and European undead legends, and Fantasy Elves.

They could have released the minor nations as supplements, like they are doing with 40k now. There is no reason why they could not have expanded upon them, instead of blowing them up.

Really, the WHFB world was as open to new and interesting factions and scenarios as a creative writer wants it to be. You can have new things pop up in the middle of no where if you want, the world *literally* has world changing magic in it, with the Lizardmen space stuff (for better or worse) you could even have had things from outer space.

It was an entirely fictional world and the only area that had been explored in all that much detail was the Old World, which was only a fraction of the map.

You can't really say Cathay and Nippon were "horribly generic" because they were never explored, you could have any bloody faction you wanted come out of there, there's no reason they had to follow typical Asian tropes.

GW didn't kill WHFB because the world was stagnant (if they did they deserve a whack over the head for lack of creativity), they killed it because they thought building a new world would pull in more customers than trying to build on the existing one. Perhaps they also thought they were too close to existing fantasy worlds and wanted to create something completely different (and more copyrightable).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out
I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that.
Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.

Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.

I would argue they were not just "there", as the Skaven have a unit that took techniques from Nippon, and the Cathay Empire was described as engaged in a constant war with the Ogres, who are a major faction and are from the same area as Cathay.
Also, you mean to tell me that South America (Lustria) and Egypt (Settri) are part of Europe? Or that 16th century Europe (the inspiration for the Empire) never had contact with China or Japan?

I'd also argue that Cathay and Nippon were undeveloped, not generic. If Cathay, Nippon and Araby were generic as they were clearly China, Japan and Arabia, one could just as easily claim that Bretonnia, Empire, Vampire Counts and High Elves were generic, as they were clearly medieval France, 16th Century Germany, Vampires and European undead legends, and Fantasy Elves.

They could have released the minor nations as supplements, like they are doing with 40k now. There is no reason why they could not have expanded upon them, instead of blowing them up.

Interesting, apparently South America had never been colonized during the XVI-XIXth centuries. Egypt also wasn't colonized and turned into a protectorate during the XIX-XXth centuries. Next time I'll hear is that electricity was also never invented.

It had contact. And said contact was almost next to nothing and something extremely peripheric in correlation to what was going inside it. Which is what we get in fantasy, and should as they never had been the focus nor true target of the setting. I could go on but that would be a siege tower of text that I just don't want to regurgitate from my economic history books. Also, said ogre kingdoms just happen to be in between the cathayan land, sretching a barbarous amonunt of land up to just almost the doorstep of the Empire.

*Gasp* You've actually found that bretonnia is a rip-off of the arturic legends!? No gak sherlock. Vampire counts are a mash-up that is more than just vampires. Same goes for elves' and their history. Or dwarves for that matter. Are you honestly making this argument or just going by the slippery slope? Because generic doesn't mean it's based on. It means it's been to death (and before you go on to say something about the VC... they ARE the ones to set the trend, not the other way around), in a lot of literature and plenty of table tops and roleplays you can find this great asian entity with lots of mystical yada yada...oh and the terracota warriors, they have those too, warrior monks and repeating crossbows are present. They did give a glimpse of what the troops would look like and they are regurgitated from chinese/japanese tropes. And yes, we know because Tamurkhan-Throne of chaos showed a battle scene of them and they are just a bunch of cliches and pretty generic ones at that.

If you're telling me that 99% of the fantasy settings are based on a german confederacies using seventeenth century technology you clearly haven't read a lot.

Yeah, they could have made the game an even bigger mess and further wreck how things went. I mean, people are praising the current warhammer and how streamlined its armies are, aren't they? Or like some people wanted to know about the horus heresy' story. Yeah, it went from a myth to a joke of daddy issues and psychiatric tales.

China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.

The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.

I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed? Just as I reduced those factions into overly simplistic terms, you did the same thing.

Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.

The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.

I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?

Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.

"Upstart colonies" was the point I was making, nice job missing it again.

"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth. Also, Hong Kong, not china. That island also is a whole different story respect the country and had alway been so.

They are also bemoaning the fact that the game is becoming a mess with new supplement releases and a book-keeping nightmare. And what development said faction got WAS generic. Please look my edit.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.

The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.

I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?

Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.

"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.

Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it?
Not sure of your point about Hong Kong, as it was a part of China, before it was captured by British forces in 1841.
The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.

The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.

I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?

Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.

"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.

Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it?
The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"

I brought it in for a blanket statement. Could have made the statemnt of: mediterranean, europe and america. Period. Happy now? The focus has always been the NOT!Mediterranean, NoT!European lands and NOT!America. Now we can move to another thing instead of you desperately triying to get a cheap gotcha and ignore the points as to why cathay, even though underfleshed, has been portrayed as generic? What is worse is that those cliches are mainly japanese.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.

The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.

I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?

Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.

"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.

Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it?
The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"

I brought it in for a blanket statement. Could have made the statemnt of: mediterranean, europe and america. Period. Happy now? The focus has always been the NOT!Mediterranean, NoT!European lands and NOT!America. Now we can move to another thing instead of you desperately triying to get a cheap gotcha and ignore the points as to why cathay, even though underfleshed, has been portrayed as generic? What is worse is that those cliches are mainly japanese.

I'm not ignoring the points about Cathay being generic, as you have not made such points. Instead of being so confrontational, perhaps you can make these points? Or do I have to make them for you?

And I'm not sure of what Japanese cliches concerning Cathay you are referring to. In the 7th ed BrB, where there's a brief paragraph on Cathay, all it mentioned is that its ruled by an Emperor (both China and Japan had an emperor, so hardly a Japanese thing), was surrounded by a huge wall to fend off barbarian hordes (a Chinese thing), warrior monks (both a Chinese and Japanese thing, Shaolin and Sohei respectively) and had cannons (Those were invented in China, and were used frequently there. Not so much in Japan)

Now is that generic? Yes, at first glance. But only because its a paragraph that barely expands upon them, and because they haven't been developed. If the other factions weren't as developed, you could probably do the same to them.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.

The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.

I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?

Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.

"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.

Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it?
The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"

I brought it in for a blanket statement. Could have made the statemnt of: mediterranean, europe and america. Period. Happy now? The focus has always been the NOT!Mediterranean, NoT!European lands and NOT!America. Now we can move to another thing instead of you desperately triying to get a cheap gotcha and ignore the points as to why cathay, even though underfleshed, has been portrayed as generic? What is worse is that those cliches are mainly japanese.

I'm not ignoring the points about Cathay being generic, as you have not made such points. Instead of being so confrontational, perhaps you can make these points?
And I'm not sure of what Japanese cliches concerning Cathay you are referring to. In the 7th ed BrB, where there's a brief paragraph on Cathay, all it mentioned is that its ruled by an Emperor (both China and Japan had an emperor, so hardly a Japanese thing), was surrounded by a huge wall to fend off barbarian hordes (a chinese thing), warrior monks (both a Chinese and Japanese thing) and had cannons (Those were invented in China, and were used frequently there. Not so much in Japan)

Maybe if you had actually read the edits you'd know. Instead of being smug you could go and read them, specially since I told you so from the second comment of this tirade.

But I'll repeat myself: in Tamurkhan Throne of chaos they appear: their troops feature amongst other things samurais ( elite soldier-caste wielding thousand folded swords *cough*katanas*cough* and backbanners) tengu, an artillery piece whose design was of japanese origin but I don't recall the name and shintoistic stuff. It all read as an asian regurgitation of tropes. And it was fairly more than a single paragrapah.

I admit I do not have Throne of Chaos, but if that is the case that is pretty bad writing. I suppose they just didn't put the effort in, as it was an undeveloped faction, so they just threw in whatever nonsense came to mind.
And no, you didn't repeat yourself. When you first mentioned the Throne of Chaos all you said what that it was a series of cliches. You did not specify what said cliches were.
You did mention a bunch of cliches that are found in other works, but did not specify which ones were in your example.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I admit I do not have Throne of Chaos, but if that is the case that is pretty bad writing.
And no, you didn't repeat yourself. When you first mentioned the Throne of Chaos all you said what that it was a series of cliches. You did not specify what said cliches were.
You did mention a bunch of cliches that are found in other works, but did not specify which ones were in your example.

*Look at my comments*



Oh god fething dammit. Bravo my internet.

Yeah, from that moment on I did really not want anything to do with Cathay. I mean, it was strong stuff and all... but most of it was straight up taken from japanese/chinese fantasy tropes. Not in the example of bretonnians which, from the get go did add a teensy tiny twist (their society it's not all thats cracked up to be, the casualties are refered to, they worship the lady and it seems to be a bit of bad news if you think of her with care).

Araby may have deserved attention but I held about as much ilusion as with Cathay (which had been rumored to be the focus of one of the three books of the trilogy). Better leave it to the imagination before they ruin it. Honestly speaking, I was fine with them not touching the other factions least they did it again. And it was forgeworld who generally are more careful with stories.

How does this have anything to do with the original topic at hand?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How does this have anything to do with the original topic at hand?

Yeah I think this tangent has gone a little beyond contributing anything to the topic.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How does this have anything to do with the original topic at hand?

Yeah I think this tangent has gone a little beyond contributing anything to the topic.

Take it to PMs or another thread at this point the last like page and a half has been off topic arguing.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How does this have anything to do with the original topic at hand?

Yeah I think this tangent has gone a little beyond contributing anything to the topic.

Take it to PMs or another thread at this point the last like page and a half has been off topic arguing.

Seems like your standard thread on good old Dakka

Well, considering how FW's writing ability apparently went down, I guess GW hasn't gotten better.

Ok, but on topic, there are some things I do like. The painting videos are good, they are bringing back lists for minor factions (GSC and Ad Mech), like they used to do a decade ago (Kroot, Southlands, etc), and they are bringing back specialist games as well as new board games.

That's good, I like that. Its not what I wanted, and I'd rather they bring back WHFB, stop coming up with horrible names, make necron vehicles look good, and fix 40k so it isn't a mess of rules, but baby steps, you know?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How does this have anything to do with the original topic at hand?

Yeah I think this tangent has gone a little beyond contributing anything to the topic.

Take it to PMs or another thread at this point the last like page and a half has been off topic arguing.

Seems like your standard thread on good old Dakka a forum

FTFY

 Dysartes wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.

When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.

Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.

Debatable. End Times sold very well for WHFB, everyone enjoyed the Eye of Terror official campaign (until GW pulled a bait and switch so that Chaos lost). People are excited for Cadia, the return of the Primarchs, etc. I think people like an advancing setting, as long as it doesn't go the AoS route (blow up your whole setting with something totally different).

 jreilly89 wrote:
Debatable. End Times sold very well for WHFB, everyone enjoyed the Eye of Terror official campaign (until GW pulled a bait and switch so that Chaos lost). People are excited for Cadia, the return of the Primarchs, etc. I think people like an advancing setting, as long as it doesn't go the AoS route (blow up your whole setting with something totally different).

I don't think people were necessarily excited for End Times because it was advancing the setting, it was because WHFB was getting attention and people like attention on their game.

People like campaigns and stories within their wargaming world, I don't think overall people like that story advancing in a way that upsets the status quo. But it would be interesting to have a poll.

What players liked recently was the return of CSM with formations and whatnot. Same holds for BA.
Some say that their CSM armies are playable again (to a certain extent).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Debatable. End Times sold very well for WHFB, everyone enjoyed the Eye of Terror official campaign (until GW pulled a bait and switch so that Chaos lost). People are excited for Cadia, the return of the Primarchs, etc. I think people like an advancing setting, as long as it doesn't go the AoS route (blow up your whole setting with something totally different).

I don't think people were necessarily excited for End Times because it was advancing the setting, it was because WHFB was getting attention and people like attention on their game.

People like campaigns and stories within their wargaming world, I don't think overall people like that story advancing in a way that upsets the status quo. But it would be interesting to have a poll.

Or to put it in simple terms, they liked it because they new stuff. Everyone likes new stuff. Unless its terrible. Like pumba gors.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, on book prices....

We might just be seeing a shift there too.

Tzeentch book for AoS is 136 pages, hardback, and priced at £20. From memory, that's cheaper than others of a similar size.

Fall of Cadia is £30 - which seems cheaper to me, but I don't know if it's a single book, or even the page count.

Could also be that both prices are printing whoopsies in WD.

So they reduce book prices.. but churn out way more books diluting the useful content in them, lost in setting destroying... I mean setting advancing fluff.

Thank you GW I am so grateful.

What are they destroying Kaiyanwang?

As for the prices of the books, in Canadian funds they don't seem cheaper to me at all. What were the prices last time for the Shield of Baal books and Sanctus Reach books?

Davor wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, on book prices....

We might just be seeing a shift there too.

Tzeentch book for AoS is 136 pages, hardback, and priced at £20. From memory, that's cheaper than others of a similar size.

Fall of Cadia is £30 - which seems cheaper to me, but I don't know if it's a single book, or even the page count.

Could also be that both prices are printing whoopsies in WD.

So they reduce book prices.. but churn out way more books diluting the useful content in them, lost in setting destroying... I mean setting advancing fluff.

Thank you GW I am so grateful.

What are they destroying Kaiyanwang?

As for the prices of the books, in Canadian funds they don't seem cheaper to me at all. What were the prices last time for the Shield of Baal books and Sanctus Reach books?

Shield of baal: was (and is) 40 pounds per softback (and I honestly don't want to know how much the hardback was) book (leviathan and exterminatus)

Lord Kragan wrote:

Shield of baal: was (and is) 40 pounds per softback (and I honestly don't want to know how much the hardback was) book (leviathan and exterminatus)

Thanks for that. So about $80 Canadian then. Dang I really wish my memory isn't failing me. I bought the hard cover because I was a Nid collector. I guess I paid about $100 Canadian for them so about 50 pounds. So I guess the prices for the new books will be cheaper if it's in hard cover and same number of pages or more. I know I haven't bought any of the $80 or $90 books GW as asking for with Age of Sigmar books. Not sure how many pages those books had.

Sadly any new book GW releases now is all obsolete come June correct? So is it really worth getting? I was thinking of getting the new book since it's advancing the fluff. Thing is knowing it will be obsolete in 5 months or so is it "worth" getting? I guess it depends what worth means for the individual person. I guess I will have to wait and see the reviews and how people like it before buying. I am just hoping GW is not under producing just so they "sell out" and seem to be in high demand.

I doubt traitor legions will be obsolete, same for fall of cadia. If what they say is true, they will only contain formations which means they can change the rules and points for the units and still make it valid. Just my two cents. I'm honestly not buying anything as Spire of dawn and add-ons has dried up my wallet, so I'll revert to piracy, like my kin have done since the beginning of times and up to actuality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, they are marketing fall of cadia as the most epic event in 40k up to date. My body is not ready for this.

What do you mean by "if they say what is true". Who is they and what are they saying?

Davor wrote:
What do you mean by "if they say what is true". Who is they and what are they saying?

The rumors regarding that, barring celestine and the others, we won't be getting new units in the books, only formations and extra rules. Which may make the books worth it as they'll still be usable for game, only that the profile for the units they are written for may change with 8th.

Davor wrote:

What are they destroying Kaiyanwang?

Cadia?

The mystery of lost Primarchs?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Davor wrote:

What are they destroying Kaiyanwang?

Cadia?

The mystery of lost Primarchs?

Hey could be worse. Guilliman could have awo- oh wait I think they want to do that one, don't they? Well, yeah, they gone and done it.

Lord Kragan wrote:
can change the rules and points for the units and still make it valid.

This is a problem of the new format. They do not change the units, they just add formations and moar rules*. If a unit is defective remans so unless the amount of rules stacked is overwhelmingly good (like the Death Guard).

This help little codices with organic problems, OR force them to play formations and specific rules, destroying the potential diversity of list building.

* One possible exception are the new Purestrains Jeanstealers. But they are a different unit.

 Dysartes wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.

When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.

Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.

This is especially true as the setting is so incredibly vast. The 40K universe is utterly immense, virtually anything could be happening within and without the Imperium's borders. The fluff only becomes stagnant if writers and gamers lack imagination; that's not to say that events could be resolved (its basically required if large campaigns are going to have any effect) but they should always be peripheral to the central narrative.

Just look at the sheer quantity of fluff that FFG produced for their RPGs and that's (mostly) only in 1 Sector!

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.

When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.

Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.

This is especially true as the setting is so incredibly vast. The 40K universe is utterly immense, virtually anything could be happening within and without the Imperium's borders. The fluff only becomes stagnant if writers and gamers lack imagination; that's not to say that events could be resolved (its basically required if large campaigns are going to have any effect) but they should always be peripheral to the central narrative.

Just look at the sheer quantity of fluff that FFG produced for their RPGs and that's (mostly) only in 1 Sector!

However this thought baffles me however, could you not just play in the former ages as you do now even as the setting advances? Does your imagination get broken as the fluff starts to progress forward beyond a set date? Infact why wouldn't it help increase it as it adds new battlefields and wars and other things you could use.