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.
As for forests I think the main issue there is still the seraphon and their ability to summon terrain to the table.
That was part of it but the majority of the anger was more along the lines of shooting is all completely dead now that we have terrain that always blocks line of sight, so its not fair.
The sylvaneth being able to summon terrain just added to that outrage.
I think Old fantasy had more issues with terrain because of the way units moved; you had to be lighter on terrain so that units could have space to wheel and turn in formation; AoS strips that out entirely.
People were howling about terrain needing to die in a fire in 40k as well where you didn't have formations or ranked up units, and everything has always been skirmish formation in 40k.
People in general didn't like terrain impacting their game hardly at all and did their best to keep it out of the game or minimal until GW made rules that made it largely inconsequential.
I don't recall a lot of people complaining about the amount of terrain in 40K, except for not using enough of it. Some of the rules here and there were a little wonky, and how cover interacted with them, but that was pretty much it.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
I heard it personally, or read about it almost daily. There was always someone complaining that melee armies were screwed and that terrain should not have much of an impact so that melee armies could not be as screwed.
Conversely, good terrain allows for melee armies to not be screwed. Oddly enough, it was up to the players to really define what the terrain is and what it does.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
That was probably because in older editions of 40k you had things like difficult terrain tests and needing to remove the models closest to the unit firing which would often be the ones you most wanted to actually get into combat.
Now the removal of all that and the introduction of true LoS creates a different problem entirely.
The Chaos Warriors are actually my favorite older plastic kit. Unlike a lot of other models, they still work with a more static rank and file pose. I always thought it gave the impression of a deliberate, unyielding, unstoppable death march.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
EnTyme wrote: The Chaos Warriors are actually my favorite older plastic kit. Unlike a lot of other models, they still work with a more static rank and file pose. I always thought it gave the impression of a deliberate, unyielding, unstoppable death march.
Those Warriors of Chaos, in their nice, straight, orderly lines.
Chaos used to mean CHAOS, not evil and cruel. That is actually why I never bothered playing any Warhmmer after 4th edition, and probably the reason I've never picked up AoS; the emphasis of evil over Chaos for the ruinous powers.
Though guards may sleep and ships may lay at anchor, our foes know full well that big guns never tire.
Just because Chaos was a certain way in D&D doesn't mean it should be that way in Warhammer. If you think about it, Chaos isn't inherently evil. It's amoral.
Just Tony wrote: Just because Chaos was a certain way in D&D doesn't mean it should be that way in Warhammer. If you think about it, Chaos isn't inherently evil. It's amoral.
It used to be chaotic. It used to be more fun! Now it’s just evil chaps with spikes, so it is what it is. I preferred the older chaos too - 4th book is a classic
Just Tony wrote: Just because Chaos was a certain way in D&D doesn't mean it should be that way in Warhammer. If you think about it, Chaos isn't inherently evil. It's amoral.
I don't even mean Chaos in the DND context. I mean Chaos in the Realm of Chaos - Slaves to Darkness context. When it was about madness, and insanity and mutation and weirdness, not just killing.
Though guards may sleep and ships may lay at anchor, our foes know full well that big guns never tire.
Terrain (should) be an easy thing to have rules for in a game, it's just that Rules Lawyers tear it apart and require an idiotic amount of clarifications. Two level-headed players should not have any trouble with a very short summation of the terrain that is most likely to be on the table.
For instance, this is the entire set of terrain generalizations for a free indie skirmish game that I am clarifying up/ inventing my own additions for some home games of mine:
Spoiler:
Terrain
Line of Sight: If you can draw a straight line from the shortest distance between an attacker's base to the target's without it passing through any solid obstacle or building, across another unit’s base, or between any members of another unit which has more than one model, then it has a clear line of sight.
The following list covers most types of commonly found terrain on a battlefield. Many terrain items can be made of two or more types, agreed upon by the players before the start of the battle.
-Cover(forests, ruins, fences, farm fields, etc.): Any unit shooting across or into an area of cover terrain, while their target has most of their models within or behind that cover receive -1 to their shooting rolls, unless the shooting unit is within 1” of that piece of terrain.
-Difficult Terrain(woods, brush, mud, shallow rivers, etc.): Units moving through difficult terrain cannot move more than 6” at a time, even when Rushing or Charging. (*note: in this game, that means units are restricted to basic movement lengths)
-Dangerous Terrain (quicksand, deadly vegetation, deep rivers, etc.): Roll one die for every model that moves across dangerous terrain or begins their activation inside of it. On a roll of 1 the model takes one wound, regardless of its Defense value.
-Dense Terrain: (thick forests, overgrown ruins, etc.): Some areas of terrain are so thick that units with the majority of their models completely inside will gain cover from shooting attacks that originate from outside of the same terrain area. Line of sight is also blocked when drawn from one side of an area of dense terrain to another, if neither unit is already inside of this terrain.
-Elevations(rooftops, hills, etc.): Drawing line of sight to or from units that are in Elevated positions ignores models which are deemed to be on a lower elevation. An Elevation of more than 2” high with a sheer edge requires a ladder, ramp, or stairs for models to climb on top of it.
-Bottomless Terrain(deep crevasses, lava pools, etc.): Any model may attempt to leap across an Impassable terrain element during their movement, but if they fail (see: Jumping), or are pushed or fall off the edge (see below) they are immediately Knocked Out, rather than Stunned.
Is it full of holes exploitable by rules lawyers? Sure, absolutely. But two people wanting to have a good time can find it perfectly serviceable. With just a couple more paragraphs, rules can be added for Jumping across and Falling off of Elevations, as well as jumping down onto other units as a form of attack.
Garrisoning and basic cover rules in AoS is along the right track, but not even close to good enough, unless you are just pushing models around a flat plane and rolling dice.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/14 02:09:31
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
As a Sylvaneth player I feel like people are as scared of the wyldwoods as they are because they aren't as aware of the restrictions they have. The need to keep a mimimum distance from other models on placement means you need to place them quickly before people run up the fields and I have had cases where the terrain was spaced just right to leave these huge tracts of land the forests couldn't fit into without being too close to something else.
PiñaColada wrote: Looking at the title of the thread and then looking at the new Gloomspite Gitz release. I don't know, man I might start a small little AoS force. I'd say a drawback is that none of my friends play AoS, they're all 40k players and while I probably would be able to drag one or two down with me I think I'm the fastest (or rather most consistent) painter in the bunch. Playing a game where you don't know the system all that well with a complete stranger can be fun, it's also a bit daunting sometimes.
How viable is a grot-throng looking? The getting grots back with the shrine seems strong and buffing them with snufflers seems like a good idea too but I'm not familiar with the game and am just guessing from how that would work in 40k roughly. I haven't played fantasy since 2003. The battalions in AoS seem a bit strange but I think I sort of get how they work..
But could something like this be a decent place to work towards?
I haven't really calculated where that'd all end up pointswise but I love the idea of massed grots and the rest of the units are just too cool to forgoe.
I'm not really much of a pro, and I'm only just starting to get back into Sigmar because of the Grot release too, but that collection looks pretty good actually. Lots of bodies, some good buffing units, and fanatics look hilariously awesome if they can roll well. The army on the board would also look ace.
auticus wrote: People were howling about terrain needing to die in a fire in 40k as well where you didn't have formations or ranked up units, and everything has always been skirmish formation in 40k.
People in general didn't like terrain impacting their game hardly at all and did their best to keep it out of the game or minimal until GW made rules that made it largely inconsequential.
On the flipside the 8th 40k resulted in terrain being so ESSENTIAL that I have never in my life fought in such a big amount of terrain. One could say even it now has bigger impact than ever before here but style is different. Rather than degrading say shooting it now blocks it completely as these huge solid walls appear around making it very hard to draw LOS to enemy. End result is my ork LOOTAS(with their heavy weapons) are one of my most mobile units in my army as they are being magick'ed around just to get LOS!
Cover has died in flames. Big LOS blocking walls have come in.
EnTyme wrote: The Chaos Warriors are actually my favorite older plastic kit. Unlike a lot of other models, they still work with a more static rank and file pose. I always thought it gave the impression of a deliberate, unyielding, unstoppable death march.
Those Warriors of Chaos, in their nice, straight, orderly lines.
Chaos used to mean CHAOS, not evil and cruel. That is actually why I never bothered playing any Warhmmer after 4th edition, and probably the reason I've never picked up AoS; the emphasis of evil over Chaos for the ruinous powers.
Do you have another solution how to position the models in a regiment? I would like to hear it.
I couldn't get my head around GW destroying the Old World. Even from a business standpoint I thought it madness. Like D&D killing the Forgotten Realms or Battletech the Inner Sphere. An act of vandalism.
I'm a veteran - gaming since the early Eighties. Table-top, hex and counter, RPGs - love them all. I tried AoS.
I think think the battle was already lost in the very early stages for me. The vandalism. Then the 'humour'. The change in aesthetic from classic fantasy to super hero fantasy. Rank and file to skirmish - at the very least I'd need another large scale fantasy combat system to use thirty years of armies.
But I was interested to see if the game system was decent. It wasn't. At launch it was probably one of the worst systems I have ever played through. I ain't just including professional commercial releases in that either. Things seemed to be improving rules wise and I'm glad people are enjoying it. But at launch it was a absolute mess. Remember on forums when people thought it was a joke? Others were saying these were just quick start rules and GW would be releasing the full rules soon. A mess from every standpoint.
So why the love? KoW.
I'm simply loving it. Fast and furious, tactically deep, multi-basing with dioramas, manoeuvre - counter manoeuvre. Games going to the wire most times. The new version of WFB I really wanted.
Two or three games a sitting rather than two-thirds of a game a sitting. Making playing out campaigns or linked scenario battles much easier.
Balance is decent. We play with the Clash of King updates as the company keeps thing tidy with these updates. We are a close group though so we don't try to break games. So maybe others will have a different opinion in this area. Balance was always an issue in WFB but again not trying to break the game and actively working to fix such issues as they arise helps. But in this regard KoW is certainly less stressful.
I hope those that play AoS enjoy it for many years. It didn't really stand a chance with me. Lost me at the beginning with the actual mechanics being the coup de grâce. Even saying that I might still have went to KoW over WFB if I'd given it a try a few years before the launch of AoS. AoS enabled my group and I to overcome our in-errata in testing and enjoying different systems over WFB. The Old World was to fantasy table-top what D&D is to fantasy RPGs. It's simple presence controlled that market through history and scale. I think that was a mad thing to throw away.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/18 18:07:45
I’ve tried twice to get into AoS. I bought both starter sets, built the minis, read the books then rapidly lost interest both times. There’s a number of reasons, but they all fall into the camp of either issues I have with the background or issues I have with the game.
Stormcast. I find them very disappointing. I remember there was a brief period when AoS was first released, when we didn’t know what Staormcast actually were. The possibilities felt exciting and intriguing. Were they golems, animated statues, maybe empty suits of armour animated by spirits? Perhaps they were celestial beings, angelic hosts of Sigmar with visages too terrible or awe inspiring for mortals to look upon? Turns out the reality was far more dull. They’re basically space marines but worse, because any tension or tragedy in their deaths is instantly dispelled by the lore in which they just keep coming back to life. So, the poster boys and girls of the game are the most boring thing in the game. I do like their minis, until they take off their helmets to remind me how boring they are under those cool helmets.
The background in general just doesn’t work for me. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Planescape, the old D&D campaign setting (my favourite one too). Planescape had the same sense of anything goes, anything could potentially exist in the various planes of existence, but AoS fails where Planescape succeeded.
When Planescape launched it initially focused on the places where ordinary people lived. It created a very real sense of being a living, breathing setting where people went about their lives. AoS has utterly failed at this. When everything is dialled up to eleven, it stops feeling “real”. Despite GW repeatly trying to tell us that there are cities and towns in the mortal realms where ordinary people go about their lives, when it comes to the game, the miniatures etc they’re just not there. The ordinary humans are just leftovers from WHFB.
I feel like AoS is a non-setting. Whereas Planescape managed to tie its wildly disparate elements together with a thick veneer of Planescape style (in the art, the writing, as well as the lore) AoS still feels like a mishmash of cool ideas without any uniting theme. The mortal realms just feel like an excuse to give the miniature designers free reign, but free reign is not a coherent setting.
The game itself is too gamey for my tastes. I’ve seen articles on AoS tactics which advocate arranging your units into massively spread out W or H shapes to restrict the enemy’s movements. This is the exact opposite of what any general would do in reality. Any war game in which the best way to win is to not behave the way real armies behaved, is failing as a wargame.
I don’t hate AoS. Like I said, I’ve dumped money on two starter sets and genuinely tried to like it. I love some of the miniatures. I just can’t get excited about it because every time I try to dive into it, it feels hollow and disappointing.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I’ve tried twice to get into AoS. I bought both starter sets, built the minis, read the books then rapidly lost interest both times. There’s a number of reasons, but they all fall into the camp of either issues I have with the background or issues I have with the game.
Stormcast. I find them very disappointing. I remember there was a brief period when AoS was first released, when we didn’t know what Staormcast actually were. The possibilities felt exciting and intriguing. Were they golems, animated statues, maybe empty suits of armour animated by spirits? Perhaps they were celestial beings, angelic hosts of Sigmar with visages too terrible or awe inspiring for mortals to look upon? Turns out the reality was far more dull. They’re basically space marines but worse, because any tension or tragedy in their deaths is instantly dispelled by the lore in which they just keep coming back to life. So, the poster boys and girls of the game are the most boring thing in the game. I do like their minis, until they take off their helmets to remind me how boring they are under those cool helmets.
The background in general just doesn’t work for me. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Planescape, the old D&D campaign setting (my favourite one too). Planescape had the same sense of anything goes, anything could potentially exist in the various planes of existence, but AoS fails where Planescape succeeded.
When Planescape launched it initially focused on the places where ordinary people lived. It created a very real sense of being a living, breathing setting where people went about their lives. AoS has utterly failed at this. When everything is dialled up to eleven, it stops feeling “real”. Despite GW repeatly trying to tell us that there are cities and towns in the mortal realms where ordinary people go about their lives, when it comes to the game, the miniatures etc they’re just not there. The ordinary humans are just leftovers from WHFB.
I feel like AoS is a non-setting. Whereas Planescape managed to tie its wildly disparate elements together with a thick veneer of Planescape style (in the art, the writing, as well as the lore) AoS still feels like a mishmash of cool ideas without any uniting theme. The mortal realms just feel like an excuse to give the miniature designers free reign, but free reign is not a coherent setting.
The game itself is too gamey for my tastes. I’ve seen articles on AoS tactics which advocate arranging your units into massively spread out W or H shapes to restrict the enemy’s movements. This is the exact opposite of what any general would do in reality. Any war game in which the best way to win is to not behave the way real armies behaved, is failing as a wargame.
I don’t hate AoS. Like I said, I’ve dumped money on two starter sets and genuinely tried to like it. I love some of the miniatures. I just can’t get excited about it because every time I try to dive into it, it feels hollow and disappointing.
I think that when C7 comes out finally with the AoSRPG a lot of that fluff issue will be much better resolved. they are a great game company. They will do it justice. ONE of my big fluff complaints is not so much the lack of it, but the shotgunned out disjointed mess of it. There is plenty of it and some of it I find really damn good, some of it I think it basically trash,.though that is likely due to my preference in authors, to me Josh Reynolds is the 2nd coming of Tolkein so I love everything he has put out. Hammerhal for warhammer quest made a good impression on me whereas shadespire, not so much. It feels like Shadespire tried to hard to be Mordheim and isnt, whereas Hammerhal just tried to be Hammerhal and is very interesting as a city.
Bad mechanics I just think are more par for the course with GW, the only game I thought they did a good job with is the LOTR series.
Bad mechanics I just think are more par for the course with GW, the only game I thought they did a good job with is the LOTR series.
Epic 1st and 2nd were good rule-sets for the scale they depicted.
RT was a beautiful little sandbox for exploring the early 40K universe. People forget about the customisation it allowed to players to invent whatever the wanted in the new universe.
Warhammer Historical Wargames also had some good stuff.
thekingofkings wrote: ...Bad mechanics I just think are more par for the course with GW, the only game I thought they did a good job with is the LOTR series.
The impression I get from GW is that they have a bunch of little competing sub-teams that either can't or won't coordinate what they're doing, so they end up with a weird emergent meta based on bad interactions that the design team never really bothered to consider. 30k is way, way more functional than 7e 40k despite using the same books simply because there was a lot more central control over the play environment, which is also one of the things LotR does that most GW games don't.
AoS feels like it's gone the opposite direction and thrown any attempt to control the play environment to the wolves in favour of writing every single army book like it's for a different game from every single other army book.
In terms of miniatures, Age of Sigmar seems to be head and shoulders above 40k.
In terms of gameplay... well, I'd say they're actually pretty close at this point.
What it really comes down to for me is the story. I just don't see anything interesting or engaging going on there.
I've actually thought about this before. The entire purpose of Age of Sigmar is to provide as wide and open a canvas to the writers and game developers as possible so that they can craft something engaging out of it, but for the life of me I just haven't seen anything. I know there are a lot of books out there but at the same time the 40k books are almost treated like the Star Wars books were under George Lucas. Except where those books weren't considered canon, last I asked an official representative of GW the books are neither canon nor non-canon, they just don't commit themselves either way.
Having said all that, I have actually read the 2 short stories of Age of Sigmar that were included in that free Black Library sampler book that they gave out in 2017, as well as most of the shorts from Malign Portents. They were all surprisingly engaging, but lacked something that I just can't quite put my finger on. Maybe I just need more information, but then again I've absorbed so much already and still feel like I'm spinning my wheels in the mud when it actually comes to me actually wanting to go out of my way to engage with it either in fiction or game.
I think the biggest drawback for the lore is the lack of structure and placement. The world that was had very fine details and over time it also refined the now iconic characters.
It's going to take time to refine and create a more recognizable history of the AoS world.
Currently, I'm excited about the light elves - Tyrion and Teclis successful rebirth of the ancient elven souls. It feels as if there's a great potential in the theme.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Stormcast. I find them very disappointing. I remember there was a brief period when AoS was first released, when we didn’t know what Staormcast actually were. The possibilities felt exciting and intriguing. Were they golems, animated statues, maybe empty suits of armour animated by spirits? Perhaps they were celestial beings, angelic hosts of Sigmar with visages too terrible or awe inspiring for mortals to look upon? Turns out the reality was far more dull. They’re basically space marines but worse, because any tension or tragedy in their deaths is instantly dispelled by the lore in which they just keep coming back to life. So, the poster boys and girls of the game are the most boring thing in the game. I do like their minis, until they take off their helmets to remind me how boring they are under those cool helmets.
Also this. When I first heard of Stormcast I had this image in my head of the angels and demons of diablo, duking it out in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
You know what, now that I think of it I pretty much expected Age of Sigmar to be Diablo. Not that copying someone else would have been a very wise move, either.
Still, it doesn't take much to come up with an idea better than what they had. Space Marines in Fantasy with infinite lives.
Having said all that, I have actually read the 2 short stories of Age of Sigmar that were included in that free Black Library sampler book that they gave out in 2017, as well as most of the shorts from Malign Portents. They were all surprisingly engaging, but lacked something that I just can't quite put my finger on. Maybe I just need more information, but then again I've absorbed so much already and still feel like I'm spinning my wheels in the mud when it actually comes to me actually wanting to go out of my way to engage with it either in fiction or game.
What do you guys find so exciting about it?
Try the Skaven Pestilens book (get it in the omnibus 1 edition because you also get the Sylvanath and Fyrslayers books too) and the new Novella stories like Warqueen and Heart of Winter (to name but two). They are great reads and I think go further to establishing the lore. I think one mistake was that a lot of the early Realmgate novels were very much focused on key battles and as such didn't have the same room nor time to establish a world because they were getting stuck into a fight.
Another issue is that GW sort of skipped the whole building and mythic age of the Realms and jumped to after all that had built and fallen and been corrupted by a 1000 years of Chaos incursions. What you have in the Mortal Realms now is essentially a period after the Realmgate Wars where its as if the Chaos Wastes of the Old World were swept back. Old cities rebuilt upon; old secrets long since forgotten; old battles long since gone etc....
Some of the new Novellas feel as if they are at least 100 years or more after the Realmgate events and my impression is that the lore should start to settle and slow down and start to establish places and timelines and connecting events between books. I would also recommend checking out Inferno 1 and 2 and (when it comes) 3 and soforth. The stories are much shorter, but again they feel like they are developing into a world and peoples.
I also hope GW pumps out some more artwork - not just a scene of loads of warriors, but scenes of the realms. My impression from the books I've read is that looking into the Realms is like looking at Album covers from earlier Metal era - you've got a world of hot metal with creatures that have natural valves and pistons within them - you've got a land soaked in greenery and life; you've got a realm that's a blasted wasteland - you've got vast leviathan sized wyrms that walk over huge landscapes. Wyrms so fast that people have built a city atop their back; the buildings towering up against slow swaying thick "hair" like tendrils.
I think the newer Lore and books are getting better, the writers and setting is more "solid" and firm and I think developing itself. Whilst GW has resources I think that the management attitude toward the launch of AoS was casual in the extreme and that's reflected in the earlier lore and rules and mostly everything except model quailty. So there's been a lag-time for many other things to play catch up as the management and focus has changed dramatically.
It seems to me that a lot of AoS is more management driven than creative driven. I do not detect a huge amount of enthusiasm from the design studio about the setting.
It should feel vast and crazy, but the lack of reference and focus on all these godlike personae like Sigmar, Nagash and Morthai makes it feel weirdly small and cramped to me.
I usually do not read any secondary fiction for game worlds and expect to be able to get the information from my factions rulebook, but I got the Seraphon one and found it pretty bare, and what was there (Seraphon being memories of the space frogs) pretty unsatisfying.
Da Boss wrote: It seems to me that a lot of AoS is more management driven than creative driven. I do not detect a huge amount of enthusiasm from the design studio about the setting.
It should feel vast and crazy, but the lack of reference and focus on all these godlike personae like Sigmar, Nagash and Morthai makes it feel weirdly small and cramped to me.
I usually do not read any secondary fiction for game worlds and expect to be able to get the information from my factions rulebook, but I got the Seraphon one and found it pretty bare, and what was there (Seraphon being memories of the space frogs) pretty unsatisfying.
I think this comes from its history and the Kirby era. AoS was a tightly kept secret - heck we didn't even really get huge rumours on it and even teams like the FW team were left totally surprised by it (from what I recall reading). So yeah I think a lot of the creative side to very muted by GW's management desire to keep a tight lid on the release before it happened. Plus I think early on the intent was to have a much more fuzzy world setting. I strongly believe the original intention was to have a game system that was more collector edition models. With smaller armies overall for most factions - letting GW retire whole factions in one go and introduce others at the same time. So having an infinite realm network with fuzzy lore and timelines fits that really well. I think that's why we saw so many armies fractured in to so so many subfactions that were all rather small.
Having it all fuzzy and infinite means no more pesky players and fans screaming for updates to their favourite army that hasn't been selling well for 10 years (even though part of that might well be GW not releasing anything for them over those 10 years). Instead you drop the army - those models become legacy/collectors and you introduce the new snazzy army in their wake. Because you're embracing the "we are a boutique model company" mindset and abandoning the "Lore" entirely
Since then management has changed- the Iron Wall has fallen and the attitude has shifted. AoS has a lag-time reaction to that but I think we are starting to see it approaching its golden age. Ergo a period where the lore is coming together; where the armies are getting cleaned up and functional and where there's a general air of future and direction to it. 2.0 was a big turning point - the lore got a bit firmer; maps appeared and we've now also got an RPG setting coming and I think that is giong to bolster the lore a fair bit. RPG games NEED a fixed timeframe and lore aspect to let people use them so I can see that starting to shore things up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/19 23:54:16
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
