michu Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) That's not what WFB is about, let it have different feel to AoS Edited January 2 by michu 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 23 minutes ago, michu said: That's not what WFB is about, let it have different feel to AoS What is it about then? I do not have a deep knowledge of WHFB, but what has been described sounds epic and rings a bell for me. What would be the focus point for you? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michu Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 What was described sounds AoS-y. While it happened in the WFB world, it was a time when magic was more powerful. WFB is epic, but not in this style. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathrut Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, KingKull said: For the life of me, I don't understand why they are so adamant about the "good" and "evil" camps. I'm not particularly upset about it as we can all ignore the artificial division if we want to, but I just don't see why it matters so much, either lore-wise or meta-marketing wise. Yeah, I'm not particularly pleased with the direction they're taking Tomb Kings under this "good/evil" distinction. I rolled my eyes when I read these two parts: "The aggrandisement of self through the grand statuary and hieroglyphic writings of Nehekhara – it’s so self-centred and so selfish and tells us so much about how little the rulers of Nehekhara cared about their subjects that it cannot be anything but evil." "In the End Times, Settra opposed Chaos, because he was not going to yield to Chaos. He’s too insane, even in undeath. That’s where we think the idea of the Tomb Kings being ‘good’ came from, and where we think the shades of grey perhaps muddied things a little too much. Neither Chaos nor Settra will let the people of the Old World get on with their lives." This seems like a woeful misunderstanding of the faction. Tomb Kings being 'good', has never been a thing, not even with the End Times. They've always been viewed as neutral, with various Kings/Princes/Queens ranging from 'evil', such as Settra, or 'good' such as Queen Khalida, King Phar, and everything in between. I don't like either how they seem to be setting up the faction to focus soley on Settra/characters carrying out his orders. I'll wait until I've read the new background, but so far it's left me feeling cold, when I should be excited, as Tomb Kings are my first and favourite army. Edited January 2 by Sathrut 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brotherhood of Necros Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 36 minutes ago, michu said: That's not what WFB is about, let it have different feel to AoS I agree, and I think they made the right choice for the game. I grew up with WHFB from 5th edition and am so excited for its return. I’d still love to read novels about those times, though! And for all that it sounds like AoS on the surface, I don’t get the same feeling from AoS. I’ve no real attachment to the setting; I don’t care about what happens or feel the threats. I’m not sure I could put into words how or why, though! Even on the grand world stage of WHFB’s Great Catastrophe; it was just that: a world stage. One world, so carefully nurtured and shaped over millennia, and vulnerable, brought almost to the point of ruin beneath a sudden tide of Chaos that threatened everything. The stakes were tangible. The slann, few even then, and irreplaceable. Precious, in many ways, and selfless. Everything has a last stand feel to it that (to me) still feels intimate and close and more relatable than AoS has ever been (to me). The Age of Chaos in AoS is just so huge a concept/event as to be meaningless, I think. It’s lost on me. I can’t frame it. I’m building up a new Lizardmen army for the Old World and I can’t wait for the PDF! EDIT: I wonder, too, if it’s something in the fact that WHFB had these epic roots, which are now largely lost to the modern setting. Perhaps I appreciate its more contained fantasy feeling, it’s street-level dramas, because I can see what was lost, and vice-versa. If the gods were all still walking around and making mischief in the current timeline, like they do in AoS, there wouldn’t be anything epic or poignant about the catastrophe because it’s no different to any other day, and I wouldn’t be so in awe of it. So WHFB has nuances and changes in tone that I don’t necessarily get from the more one-note AoS. Edited January 2 by The Brotherhood of Necros 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKull Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ejecutor said: Imo it is easier to comprehend for those that are totally outside warhammer. To play the devil's advocate here, it's not any easier to comprehend than just "here's a bunch of factions, each has distinct reasons to fight the others, now read on to discover them." Chaos and (contagious) necromancy (so not Tomb Kings), being the two existential threats to the whole world, would arguably be in a category of their own which is beyond moral "evil" (regardless of the morality system one is starting from) and more in the "purge immediately upon sight" territory. Even then, the idea of evil and morals in general (much like in real life) largely depends on one's viewpoint and culture - the "Were of Fjirgard" vignette from the 6th edition Hordes of Chaos book comes to mind, in which the wives and daughters of Norscan warriors who succumbed to spawndom of sorts still look after them and regularly bring food to the caves they now reside in. In short, I always preferred the kind of setting where it's just a free-for-all driven by "us vs them" rather than good vs evil, and I'm not even sure if I'm in the minority here (factoring in people who are fine with both takes). Edited January 2 by KingKull 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beliman Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, michu said: That's not what WFB is about, let it have different feel to AoS I don't get it. Can you explain this? Didn't read all other comments. I find it funny that people talk about that Edited January 2 by Beliman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKull Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) Another final note since I already took the bait: if Settra was evil, so were Alexander the Great, Ramses II and Julius Caesar (and again, a case could be made for that as well, but it would largely depend on the position one is commenting from). Edited January 2 by KingKull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandlemad Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 5 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said: Sprue Preview for Bretonnian Knights of the Realm On Foot and the Lord on Pegasus. Confirmation Foot Knights will come in a box of 20 and aren't dropping this week as well. Looks like if you built the foot knights with sword and board, you could use the two-handed axes with the knights of the realm kit for some slightly non-traditional questing knights. They wouldn't be as good as the brilliant metal 6th ed. questing knights, which might have been the most characterful minis in the range, but very doable and a lot cheaper. @The Brotherhood of Necros That whole Great Catastrophe throughline is more like 40k's War in Heaven to my mind - distant, deeply formative of the world's metaphysics, semi-mythical, only remembered by a handful of living individuals - though really the whole Horus Heresy analogy for the Great War is very rough anyway. Otherwise the emphasis on good vs evil is a bit arbitrary, the TK aren't necessarily that much worse than your average nasty Empire lord, but tbh nothing the designers said is really wrong per se. Ultimately it's only a high level way of grouping factions, just as insignificant as when they did this grouping for, like, Storm of Chaos or the old WHFB card game. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 52 minutes ago, KingKull said: To play the devil's advocate here, it's not any easier to comprehend than just "here's a bunch of factions, each has distinct reasons to fight the others, now read on to discover them." Chaos and (contagious) necromancy (so not Tomb Kings), being the two existential threats to the whole world, would arguably be in a category of their own which is beyond moral "evil" (regardless of the morality system one is starting from) and more in the "purge immediately upon sight" territory. Even then, the idea of evil and morals in general (much like in real life) largely depends on one's viewpoint and culture - the "Were of Fjirgard" vignette from the 6th edition Hordes of Chaos book comes to mind, in which the wives and daughters of Norscan warriors who succumbed to spawndom of sorts still look after them and regularly bring food to the caves they now reside in. In short, I always preferred the kind of setting where it's just a free-for-all driven by "us vs them" rather than good vs evil, and I'm not even sure if I'm in the minority here (factoring in people who are fine with both takes). While I agree a world where nothing is black or white and everything is in greys is the most interesting setting for us (adults), I think the approach followed with Goods vs Bads is easier for younger ppl, and maybe that's where it is coming from. Especially when nowadays all that is looked for is quick stuff without the need to go deeper into something to understand it. Said that, it feels a bit weird if that has been the approach since TOW doesn't feel welcome to newer generations at all, IMO. From its ranks gameplay and the old sculpts. Feels like one approach or the other is clashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitefang Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) According to the established lore, undead Settra ruled over Nehekhara for over 3000 years and spent most of his time pacifying his land and fighting against invaders and Tomb robbers Even when he is ready to launch his outward conquest just before the End Times eventually, he has to fight against Nagash instead Not to mention the "absolute and unchallengeable tyrant" is a myth, since several Nehkharan rulers of famous city-states always retained their autonomies to some degree under the reign of Settra. There are over a hundred ways to show Settra is a selfish and ruthless tyrant, but blaming him for the birth of Nagash is just beyond ridiculous Still not convinced of this division of good vs evil, curious to see what new lore they need to add to justify "force of nature" wood elves being "good" instead of "mercurial neutral". Edited January 2 by Whitefang 9 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKull Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 18 minutes ago, Ejecutor said: While I agree a world where nothing is black or white and everything is in greys is the most interesting setting for us (adults), I think the approach followed with Goods vs Bads is easier for younger ppl, and maybe that's where it is coming from. Especially when nowadays all that is looked for is quick stuff without the need to go deeper into something to understand it. Said that, it feels a bit weird if that has been the approach since TOW doesn't feel welcome to newer generations at all, IMO. From its ranks gameplay and the old sculpts. Feels like one approach or the other is clashing. I don't know. To me, it feels more like what adult salespeople think kids want rather than what kids really want, but maybe I'm wrong. In my experience, kids fall for what looks cool to them first and foremost, without bothering much with the goodness or evil of said things. On a personal note, I remember being delighted by discovering that protagonists from "evil-looking" factions in various Heroes of Might and Magic IV scenarios and campaigns had very human (and sometimes even noble) motivations when I played that game as a little kid. I absolutely agree with the second part. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan's Cynic Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, KingKull said: For the life of me, I don't understand why they are so adamant about the "good" and "evil" camps. I'm not particularly upset about it as we can all ignore the artificial division if we want to, but I just don't see why it matters so much, either lore-wise or meta-marketing wise. I feel like originally they weren't, but in a bunch of places there was a very strong reaction to that initial 'Factions of The Old World' article which Tomb Kings were slid under Evil - I guess because 'Neutral' just being occupied by them and perhaps the Wood Elves would have been too tiny? - and this was them reacting to it. They removed that header from the article pretty quickly, but there's definitely been some clinging onto it since. Personally I only recognise two camps: Dawi and non-Dawi. Edited January 2 by Clan's Cynic 3 3 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 My 2 cents - I really do like a lot of what they’re doing with Old World. And Some choices are not quite my taste. I won’t get into the rereleasing outdated model aspect again. I can see the rationale for omitting Some of the armies in this time period. The Vampire Counts one is a poor argument. Blood Dragons and Necrarchs could be be expanded and feature as the Vampires of Old World as the other Blood Lines already have a pretty good thing going for them in AoS (You go Ushoran 👍🎉). I’m glad the Division of Good and Bad is being Spoken about, but, That could very well just be a mechanism for allies as opposed to “Good and Bad”. The Forces of Fantasy really just are, the Armies that aren’t out to pillage in the Name of Wanton Destruction. The fact that its back alone over rides pretty much any con that I come across, I do have tell myself it is in its Nascent, who knows what amazing things are in development or in the future. I’ve mentioned before, but just to pick up and Old World Lore book, and read the army entries was the majority of my hobby. So very excited to be able to do this again. I’m very excited for Dwarfs coming back! I hope High King Alriksson receives a stunning Forge World Resin Miniature. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landohammer Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 2 hours ago, Sathrut said: Yeah, I'm not particularly pleased with the direction they're taking Tomb Kings under this "good/evil" distinction. I rolled my eyes when I read these two parts: "The aggrandisement of self through the grand statuary and hieroglyphic writings of Nehekhara – it’s so self-centred and so selfish and tells us so much about how little the rulers of Nehekhara cared about their subjects that it cannot be anything but evil." "In the End Times, Settra opposed Chaos, because he was not going to yield to Chaos. He’s too insane, even in undeath. That’s where we think the idea of the Tomb Kings being ‘good’ came from, and where we think the shades of grey perhaps muddied things a little too much. Neither Chaos nor Settra will let the people of the Old World get on with their lives." This seems like a woeful misunderstanding of the faction. Tomb Kings being 'good', has never been a thing, not even with the End Times. They've always been viewed as neutral, with various Kings/Princes/Queens ranging from 'evil', such as Settra, or 'good' such as Queen Khalida, King Phar, and everything in between. I don't like either how they seem to be setting up the faction to focus soley on Settra/characters carrying out his orders. I'll wait until I've read the new background, but so far it's left me feeling cold, when I should be excited, as Tomb Kings are my first and favourite army. I totally get what you are saying, but I interpreted this more as "TK are complicated, but at this point in time they are not the good guys as we see it". Which is something that is extremely relatable in the history of real life warfare. The bad guys of today can be your closest allies 75 years later and vice versa. I think this is good world building. Something I have learned over my many years playing fantasy/40k/AOS/HH is that you shouldn't ever try to identify with a GW faction outside of role playing/satirical situations. All of the armies, even the "good" ones have terrible flaws. Sure, many of the individuals can be noble and relatable and that makes them appealing. But taken in its entirety, 100% of the Warhammer races are doing horrible things to somebody lol. And if you simply want your army to tell a different story than what the fluff says, bring some allies, regiments of reknown and make some conversions and make your army different! 👍 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EccentricCircle Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 Yeah, it's not that we want the Tomb Kings to be "Good", it's that warhammer has never been about good vs evil in the first place. It's a definitive order vs chaos setting, and while Chaos is undoubtedly very evil, that doesn't make everything that opposes it good. I don't have a problem with the Tomb Kings being the villains of this first arc, or being less isolationist in this era. But the fact that they were true neutral rather than being lumped in with all the other bad guy factions was always a nice bit of nuance. Those shades of grey are what endeared the old world to us, and a large part of why we want it back. The question is whether modern GW have the finesse as writers, and the historical expertise to realise that promise in the way their predecessors did. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommissarRotke Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 5 hours ago, Noserenda said: Thats a pretty weak start to the round tables, verrrrry defensive rather than informative, id probably respect them more if they just said, "Yeah we made changes, suck it up nerds" and got on with discussing things they are actually enthusiastic about. what felt defensive about it to you? everything I read in there made sense / confirmed suspicions (like Chaos always being intended to win) but nothing felt "defensive" in tone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommissarRotke Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 3 hours ago, Sathrut said: I don't like either how they seem to be setting up the faction to focus soley on Settra/characters carrying out his orders. I'll wait until I've read the new background, but so far it's left me feeling cold, when I should be excited, as Tomb Kings are my first and favourite army. well that's the time period they chose to restart the "historical chronicle" that is TOW... and with Settra being memed to the moon and back these TK were never not going to have him at the center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommissarRotke Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 my 2 cents on the Good vs Evil split is: GW made the split to more easily sell compendium rulebooks and we should be glad there is only Two faction compendiums to buy we can argue all year about factions and the intended morality of Warhammer but. it still boils down to corporate reasoning, so don't let yourself get too worked up over the changes. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathrut Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 17 minutes ago, Landohammer said: I totally get what you are saying, but I interpreted this more as "TK are complicated, but at this point in time they are not the good guys as we see it". Which is something that is extremely relatable in the history of real life warfare. The bad guys of today can be your closest allies 75 years later and vice versa. I think this is good world building. Something I have learned over my many years playing fantasy/40k/AOS/HH is that you shouldn't ever try to identify with a GW faction outside of role playing/satirical situations. All of the armies, even the "good" ones have terrible flaws. Sure, many of the individuals can be noble and relatable and that makes them appealing. But taken in its entirety, 100% of the Warhammer races are doing horrible things to somebody lol. And if you simply want your army to tell a different story than what the fluff says, bring some allies, regiments of reknown and make some conversions and make your army different! 👍 I've seen others who have interpreted it the same way as I have. and I think the bolded in the following two snippets are why myself and others are interpreting it this way: "The aggrandisement of self through the grand statuary and hieroglyphic writings of Nehekhara – it’s so self-centred and so selfish and tells us so much about how little the rulers of Nehekhara cared about their subjects that it cannot be anything but evil." "In the End Times, Settra opposed Chaos, because he was not going to yield to Chaos. He’s too insane, even in undeath. That’s where we think the idea of the Tomb Kings being ‘good’ came from, and where we think the shades of grey perhaps muddied things a little too much. Neither Chaos nor Settra will let the people of the Old World get on with their lives." They seem to be operating under the belief that the shades of grey muddied the waters thanks to the End Times, and dislikek that people consider the Tomb Kings 'good', so those grey areas need to be minimised by drawing a clearer divide between Good and Evil, with the TK firmly in the latter camp. As @Whitefang said, it's going to be interesting to see how they justify Wood Elves under Good, considering their history with Bretonnia alone would render them in the Evil camp, especially if they're going by the actions of 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutton Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landohammer Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 4 minutes ago, Sathrut said: I've seen others who have interpreted it the same way as I have. and I think the bolded in the following two snippets are why myself and others are interpreting it this way: "The aggrandisement of self through the grand statuary and hieroglyphic writings of Nehekhara – it’s so self-centred and so selfish and tells us so much about how little the rulers of Nehekhara cared about their subjects that it cannot be anything but evil." "In the End Times, Settra opposed Chaos, because he was not going to yield to Chaos. He’s too insane, even in undeath. That’s where we think the idea of the Tomb Kings being ‘good’ came from, and where we think the shades of grey perhaps muddied things a little too much. Neither Chaos nor Settra will let the people of the Old World get on with their lives." They seem to be operating under the belief that the shades of grey muddied the waters thanks to the End Times, and dislikek that people consider the Tomb Kings 'good', so those grey areas need to be minimised by drawing a clearer divide between Good and Evil, with the TK firmly in the latter camp. As @Whitefang said, it's going to be interesting to see how they justify Wood Elves under Good, considering their history with Bretonnia alone would render them in the Evil camp, especially if they're going by the actions of They are all evil to someone. All of them. Especially the woodelves. I can't imagine Bretonnian peasants are big fans of the Wild Hunt or Dryads. Good and Evil are just broad and highly subjective terms GW needed to sort the factions into two books. It could have just as easily been "A and B" or "Red and Blue". Its just a practical means of organizing them. I would not let this impact your hobby/enjoyment in the slightest. Similar to playing an evil paladin or a good rogue in DnD, its just frame work. Your army can tell any story you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathrut Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 14 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said: Yeah, it's not that we want the Tomb Kings to be "Good", it's that warhammer has never been about good vs evil in the first place. It's a definitive order vs chaos setting, and while Chaos is undoubtedly very evil, that doesn't make everything that opposes it good. I don't have a problem with the Tomb Kings being the villains of this first arc, or being less isolationist in this era. But the fact that they were true neutral rather than being lumped in with all the other bad guy factions was always a nice bit of nuance. Those shades of grey are what endeared the old world to us, and a large part of why we want it back. The question is whether modern GW have the finesse as writers, and the historical expertise to realise that promise in the way their predecessors did. Their status as a true neutral faction (much like Wood Elves and Ogre Kingdoms) gave them a level of nuance that I fear will be lost if they're lumped with the other bad guy factions. 1 minute ago, Landohammer said: They are all evil to someone. All of them. Especially the woodelves. I can't imagine Bretonnian peasants are big fans of the Wild Hunt or Dryads. Good and Evil are just broad and highly subjective terms GW needed to sort the factions into two books. It could have just as easily been "A and B" or "Red and Blue". Its just a practical means of organizing them. I would not let this impact your hobby/enjoyment in the slightest. Similar to playing an evil paladin or a good rogue in DnD, its just frame work. Your army can tell any story you want. Oh, I won't let this impact my hobby/enjoyment. If I end up not liking the lore for TK in TOW, I'll take what I like and ignore the rest. If I do like the new lore, well, win-win! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noserenda Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 Quick answer before i break down "defensive" but the good v evil stupidity is a key symptom of it, i had written it off as yet another weird need to justify why they grouped forces like they did, becuase they could have just called them "Defenders and Invaders" and it wouldnt have gotten peoples backs up, but now theyve doubled down on their ****** weak reasoning for some reason in this article rather than moving on. Like, the Bretonnians are vastly more evil than the tomb kings (who are lets remember all victims of Nagash, not skeletons by choice) in how they treat their people and the Wood elves slaughter almost anyone foolish enough to come near them, mess with the Bretonnians religion and sometimes just ride out to do a bunch of murders for lols. And thats just the low hanging fruit! The Border Princes all build their castles on generations of corpses 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommissarRotke Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 5 minutes ago, Noserenda said: Like, the Bretonnians are vastly more evil than the tomb kings (who are lets remember all victims of Nagash, not skeletons by choice) in how they treat their people and the Wood elves slaughter almost anyone foolish enough to come near them, mess with the Bretonnians religion and sometimes just ride out to do a bunch of murders for lols. my friend was actually ranting about this and while the article didn't position TK against Bretonnia, I immediately saw what he meant. It IS ridiculous to make the non-human factions seem more evil than..... the feudal system on steroids and a literal "Empire of Man." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.