Warhammer - The Old World

[Beliman]

3 hours ago, Flippy said:

Why is that a bad thing? I like this approach more than the current alternative; it makes the game more about the models and less about some abstract and arbitrary victory conditions.

No need to compare AoS with TOW, a more modern Rank&File games should gave us a better perspective.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of how AoS deals with Victory Points, but, for example, Conquest have objectives and still need to fight and kill enemies to win a war.

 

[Sathrut]

3 hours ago, Jefferson Skarsnik said:

The frequency of the "Tomb Kings are pure evil" propaganda cropping up in these articles is starting to seem a little weird.

Yep. It furthers my concern Tomb Kings are going to be portrayed as nothing but "EVIL! THIS FACTION IS SO EVIL! LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO TO THE POOR BRETONNIANS, THE GOOD GUYS!", instead of nuance and shades of grey.

2 hours ago, SirSalabean said:

So in the article they state the liche priests are at fault for the way the tomb kings gained immortality and not waking to their verdant lands. 

Am I wrong for thinking it was mostly Nagash who ruined the lands and initiated the resurrections when he took over, and gained revenge for being kicked out? I may be wrong though.

Additionally I feel like these articles focus a lot more on Bretonnians and little on the tomb kings? I would like to see more about their design process and inspiration, I believe they have alot more depth to them than they make out.

It's as @Noserenda said, the Liche Priests are somewhat responsible, in the sense Nagash was among their ranks for a while, and mummies being different to skeletons, but Nagash is the one who returned all Nehkarans to unlife. The latest article today makes them sound less like Liche Priests and more like necromancers:

"The Liche Priests can’t be seen to be attempting to seize power by force. They are insidious, and do strange and dark things."

"Necromancers can't been seen to be attempting to seize power by force. They are insidious, and do strange and dark things."

Edited January 3 by Sathrut

[Gildus]

5 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

My impressions after watching the Battle Report:

- The Rubber Lance Syndrome hasn't been fixed (again) As a former bretonnia player it is an understatement that this makes me sad.
- Normal Knights are incredibly bad (like they were back in 8th)
- The Blessing of the Lady is still plainly bad.
- Magic is still completely out of whack (I know he rolled well, but the potential is plainly silly)
- The frankly stupid challenge rules haven't been changed at all.
- Knights not having 2 wounds each feels so wrong after playing AoS
- Scoring by killpoints is the worst and it is back - WHY
- The TK recursion seems a little strong?
- TK still crumbling when the Hierophant dies is the worst. Jesus, it doesn't even make sense lore-wise

- The push-back after losing is cool.
- I like that the damage is in general dialed down, it makes the fights more thrilling.

 

Raging:

  Reveal hidden contents

This gives me 8th Flashbacks. Too little issues, that ruined 8th, have been solved. How long was this in development again? I am downright angry at how this game seems to turn out. All the rage gathered during the insufferable 8th edition resurfacing (funnily enough I remembered all the rules and the hundreds of conversations we had with our club on how to solve such issue, the 3 inofficial tournament packs that tried to make the game playable...I can't express the amount of sadness and rage that's building up)

 

What battle report are you referring to? 

[JackStreicher]

2 minutes ago, Gildus said:

What battle report are you referring to? 

Warhammertv has one on their streaming service 

[The Red King]

Maybe it's too political to say (even tongue in cheek) but perhaps the idea that a sovereign nation of foreigners retaliating after a pseudo European faction invades their lands and steals from their tombs are not in fact EVIL just doesn't register to their very British sensibilities lol. 

 

Edit: I mean the British did eat a LOT of mummies back in the day.

Edited January 3 by The Red King

[Asbestress]

7 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

Well, that "Hastings" over there at War of Sigmar probably isn't the same guy from Warseer time, as he is usually quite wrong.

On the other hand, Valrak Rumors + Dwarfen Dice = I trust the next TOW release is Orcs & Goblins vs Dwarfen Kingdoms next in 2024.

I'm also taking from the last TOW Lore article that we could see Chaos Warriors before they got to the Siege of Praag (which is "not anytime soon" and got me worried for my black armored barbarians) ...

The "we eventually sometime in the not now but soon future will get to the Siege of Praag" kinda rekindles my hopes of a Kislev release.

And oh my, my Cities might be getting even more Dispossessed soon (which I'm most likely also going to use for Old World as well if I can figure out a movement tray solution).

[Ejecutor]

35 minutes ago, Gildus said:

What battle report are you referring to? 

The one on warhammer + that they added today.

[Sception]

3 hours ago, SirSalabean said:

So in the article they state the liche priests are at fault for the way the tomb kings gained immortality and not waking to their verdant lands. 

Am I wrong for thinking it was mostly Nagash who ruined the lands and initiated the resurrections when he took over, and gained revenge for being kicked out? I may be wrong though.

Additionally I feel like these articles focus a lot more on Bretonnians and little on the tomb kings? I would like to see more about their design process and inspiration, I believe they have alot more depth to them than they make out.

Yes, Nagash ruined everything by inventing necromancy, killing the nehekharans, and raising all their dead as the tomb kings, and he is personally responsible for those atrocities.  BUT Nagash invented necromancy by combining the mortuary cults study of life extending and soul manipulating rituals with dark magic learned from captive dark elves, and he wouldn't have been able to do that in the first place without having those mortuary cult traditions to build on, which draws a direct line back to Settra, who ordered the creation of the mortuary cults and their elevation over the other priestly orders of nehekhara in an attempt to defy his own death.  Without Settra's fear of death there would be no mortuary cult and no Nagash.

And it goes further than that - in order to usurp the authority of any who would come after him, Settra ordered that the firstborn of the ruling houses of Nehekhara would no longer inherit rulership, but must instead be given over to the mortuary cult to become priests, with the secondborn inheriting power not as true heirs but as stewerds waiting for Settra's eventual return.  Without Settra's selfishness, Nagash would never have been a priest to begin with.  Partially because he never would have been born in the first place due to different lines of succession and marriage and what not in a firstborn-inheritance alternate Nehekharan timeline, but even ignoring that Nagash as firstborn would have been king to begin with - still a villain, but never studying the arcane to begin with, and not needing to resort to any extremes to gain power.  He simply would have been another tyrannical king of khemri in a long line of similar tyrants, a threat to his people and his neighbors but not to the entire world.

So yeah, Nagash is responsible for the ruin of Nehekhara, but Nagash would never have been Nagash had Settra not set his people down the road of defying death in the first place.  Nagash is Settra's legacy, the inexorable doom that Settra cursed his Empire to suffer through his selfishness and pride.

Edited January 3 by Sception

[Sathrut]

12 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Maybe it's too political to say (even tongue in cheek) but perhaps the idea that a sovereign nation of foreigners retaliating after a pseudo European faction invades their lands and steals from their tombs are not in fact EVIL just doesn't register to their very British sensibilities lol. 

 

Edit: I mean the British did eat a LOT of mummies back in the day.

Yeah, it does highlight the issue of having Good/Evil alignments, because in the context of fantasy fiction, Good factions have are generally perceived as protecting the innocent, caring for their people, are noble, benevolant, defeating tyranny etc etc, and Evil factions are murderous, treacherous, malevolant, egostical, brutal, tyrannical, etc etc.

Obviously it's more nuanaced than that, with many grey areas for both, but both articles (today and yesterday) they seem intent on reframing Tomb Kings as nothing but evil.

You have a Good nation (Bretonnia) invading, plundering and desecrating the lands of another nation (Nehekhara), but it's fine because that nation is 'Evil'.

I wonder what they have changed about Wood Elves, to justify their position as a Good faction, considering they were, like Tomb Kings, a true neutral faction. I'm sure Bretonnians would be thrilled to consider the Wood Elves as 'good', given the history between the two.

[SirSalabean]

11 minutes ago, Sception said:

Yes, Nagash ruined everything by inventing necromancy, killing the nehekharans, and raising all their dead as the tomb kings, and he is personally responsible for those atrocities.  BUT Nagash invented necromancy by combining the mortuary cults study of life extending and soul manipulating rituals with dark magic learned from captive dark elves, and he wouldn't have been able to do that in the first place without having those mortuary cult traditions to build on, which draws a direct line back to Settra, who ordered the creation of the mortuary cults and their elevation over the other priestly orders of nehekhara in an attempt to defy his own death.  Without Settra's fear of death there would be no mortuary cult and no Nagash.

And it goes further than that - in order to usurp the authority of any who would come after him, Settra ordered that the firstborn of the ruling houses of Nehekhara would no longer inherit rulership, but must instead be given over to the mortuary cult to become priests, with the secondborn inheriting power not as true heirs but as stewerds waiting for Settra's eventual return.  Without Settra's selfishness, Nagash would never have been a priest to begin with.  Partially because he never would have been born in the first place due to different lines of succession and marriage and what not in a firstborn-inheritance alternate Nehekharan timeline, but even ignoring that Nagash as firstborn would have been king to begin with - still a villain, but never having studying the arcane to begin with, and not needing to resort to any extremes to gain power.  He simply would have been another tyrannical king of khemri in a long line of similar tyrants, a threat to his people and his neighbors but not to the entire world.

So yeah, Nagash is responsible for the ruin of Nehekhara, but Nagash would never have been Nagash had Settra not set his people down the road of defying death in the first place.  Nagash is Settra's legacy, the inexorable doom that Settra cursed his Empire to suffer through his selfishness and pride.

Thank you that makes alot more sense!!

[Bosskelot]

The warcom articles can often be wildly inaccurate to how things are actually portrayed.

I remember every Necron player being nervous and disheartened with how warcom preview articles were treating The Silent King in the run up to the Necron release in 9th. Talking about how he was this evil megalomaniac with delusions of godhood which... is like, not his character at all.

And then we got the Codex and his lore was essentially not that in the slightest.

[Sception]

And in terms of being evil, even before Nagash Nehekharan society was still an empire that imposed its rule through military force, robbing and enslaving those in the periphery to transfer vast sums of wealth to the imperial core, and thus was pretty baseline evil by default.  But even on top of that, thanks to Settra's influence Nehekharan culture was especially death obsessed, devoting all the treasure they stole not to improving the lives of the citizenry of the imperial core, or even to enhancing the comfort and mortal pleasure of its elite rulers, but rather to building vast necropolis structures stuffed with riches and tribute to be enjoyed by their kings only after their supposed elevation to eternal life at some point in the distant future.  Even before the undead existed, it was a land where the living were forced to suffer lives of perpetual toil and torment in service to the vanity of the dead, a land ruled by selfish tyrants but where the real power was in a priestly caste who encouraged and demanded ever increasing tributes to the dead because the priests were the only living souls tending the necropoli to enjoy them.  The tomb kings aren't a 1 to 1 analogue of the ancient egyptian society with all its nuances and rich humanity, but rather a pop culture parody of the worst traits ascribed to them by pulp fiction writers long after they were gone.

You might argue that the brettonians or the empire or the high & wood elves weren't exactly good, but even by those standards the Tomb Kings were still pretty darn evil.  Sure, they'd fight against chaos if the only other options were submission or annihilation, but so would the dark elves, and you wouldn't call them good or even neutral either.

Edited January 3 by Sception

[Sception]

An interesting note is that in the old world Mummies and Wights are essentially the same things, hence the similarities between tomb guard and grave guard units throughout the editions.  Basically, the wealthy nobility among nehekhara would pay the mortuary cult expensive tribute to have their bodies preserved through mummification, but more importantly to have their souls preserved and bound permanently to the bodies.  This wasn't undeath, they didn't know how to restore true life to the body or even allow the soul to puppet the corpse around, but the theory was that in time the secret to restoring true life to the dead would be discovered, and the preserved bodies and souls of the nobility would be waiting for them.  Of course, that secret was never discovered, and in time the mortuary cult grew decadent and stopped looking, even forgetting how the rituals they practiced actually worked and continuing them out of rote tradition more than anything else.

Well in the waning years of Nehekhara, During Nagash's reign and later after Nagash had poisoned the great River of Life, many refugees fled the dying land, including many mortuary priests, and fragments of these traditions spread to the less civilized peoples of the northern lands.  The secrets of mummification to preserve the body were lost & forgotten, but the ritual practices to preserve the souls remained, leading to the souls of early warlords and barbarian chieftans being bound to their skeletal remains within their barrow mounds throughout the regions that would later become the Empire, Brettonia, Tilea, etc.  The practice even spread to some Chaos worshipping warrior tribes of the far North - Krell was one from of these.

When Nagash raised the Tomb Kings - and when the necromancers and vampires that follow raise the dead in the Old World - if the animated body is one where the soul was bound to it in this way then they're more physically powerful for that connection, but more importantly they also retain more of their soul, and with it more of their personality and memory and skills from life, which is what makes mummies & wights so similar to each other, and so different from zombies and skeletons.

[Whitefang]

1 hour ago, Sception said:

an empire that imposed its rule through military force, robbing and enslaving those in the periphery to transfer vast sums of wealth to the imperial core,

True, this is why it can never be considered "good"

1 hour ago, Sception said:

not to improving the lives of the citizenry of the imperial core

Wrong, Nehekharans were obsessed with the afterlife, and they exploited slaves for it, but throughout its history, prosperity has been achieved multiple times by multiple rulers. Settra used slaves to dig wells of pure water and irrigation systems for Khemeri; Khalida and many other kings are famous for fighting against raiders or digging canals. 

1 hour ago, Sception said:

where the real power was in a priestly caste who encouraged and demanded ever increasing tributes to the dead because the priests were the only living souls tending the necropoli to enjoy them. 

Wrong, partially true during Nagash's time. For multiple times in history, the priesthood was disciplined, purged, and replaced by different monarchs. The most major purge happened after Nagash was defeated the first time. 

1 hour ago, Sception said:

Sure, they'd fight against chaos if the only other options were submission or annihilation

Worshipping chaos and necromancy were strictly forbidden since ancient Nehekhara because they were against their gods and religion. 

Edited January 4 by Whitefang

[Sception]

I mean, necromancy didn't exist to be forbidden until Nagash, and after Nagash it's mostly forbidden on account of the horrible atrocities he committed using necromancy.  Nehekharan religion was pretty much wrecked by that point anyway, and its gods were pretty thoroughly cut off.  Regardless, it wasn't that long from Nagash's first defeat to the death of the entire civilization anyway.

[Kronos]

5 minutes ago, Whitefang said:

 

Worshipping chaos and necromancy were strictly forbidden since ancient Nehekhara because they were against their gods and religion. 

This bit always confuses me with Nehekara, Elves, and Dwarfs, and pretty much every race Created by the Old Ones. - Why do they have their own Gods, when they were made, by what we can only assume, are God Like beings. Did the Old Ones NOT want to be Worshipped.

I know its a bit of a lateral step from the discussion, but just as we’re on the point of Nehekaran Gods. Not even One Elf out there, saying - I worship Tepok. 

Edited January 4 by Kronos

[The Brotherhood of Necros]

I have also found this confusing in the past.

I’ve moved my questions on the topic to their own thread. 

Edited January 4 by The Brotherhood of Necros

[Whitefang]

5 minutes ago, Sception said:

Nehekharan religion was pretty much wrecked by that point anyway, and its gods were pretty thoroughly cut off.  Regardless, it wasn't that long from Nagash's first defeat to the death of the entire civilization anyway.

That's... not true

The first defeat happened in -1600 IC, that is 750 years away from Settra's death and 449 years away from the death of civilization

Though the treachery of Nagash cost Nehekhara dearly, leaving several famous city-states such as the famous Lybaras, the city of scholars, in poverty, many other city-states endured. 

During this period the religion is still strong enough for Khalidae to receive the blessing from goddess Asaph, and Nehekharan rulers have to unite immediately to fight against Neferata and her vampires. 

Before the final destruction, Alcadizzar's reign is also described as highly successful with "great prosperity and rejoicing", second to only Settra.    

[Whitefang]

2 hours ago, Sception said:

Basically, the wealthy nobility among nehekhara would pay the mortuary cult expensive tribute to have their bodies preserved through mummification, but more importantly to have their souls preserved and bound permanently to the bodies.  This wasn't undeath, they didn't know how to restore true life to the body or even allow the soul to puppet the corpse around, but the theory was that in time the secret to restoring true life to the dead would be discovered,

This is wrong on so many levels that directly against the most basic lore of tomb kings

Nehekharans believe upon death their souls leave their bodies to enjoy afterlife in the realm of souls, under the judgment and guidance of Usirian, which thanks to ET we know do exist.

And liche priest do know how to restore the soul to the body: almost every unit of their roaster are loyal souls called back from the realm of souls to serve their leaders once again, either in skeleton or in stone construct. Khatep himself awakened Settra through his own magic. 

Moreover, what Settra wants is not to restore his original body, what he wants is to restore his soul into an imperishable body. Why would he want his soul bound to his body? Not to mention his body has already been destroyed at least twice, yet his soul weren't affected.

2 hours ago, Sception said:

The secrets of mummification to preserve the body were lost & forgotten, but the ritual practices to preserve the souls remained, leading to the souls of early warlords and barbarian chieftans being bound to their skeletal remains within their barrow mounds throughout the regions that would later become the Empire, Brettonia, Tilea, etc.  The practice even spread to some Chaos worshipping warrior tribes of the far North - Krell was one from of these.

There is indeed connection between barrow kings and tomb kings, as Nehekhara once ruled part of the nowaday territory of Empire and Bretonia, but pretty sure that's not how wight king works.

Edited January 4 by Whitefang

[Noserenda]

Yeah WIghts and mummies are similar, but in the way that like dogs and cats are, its very superficial. They might be similar magics but wights and mummies are pretty different creatures with different abilities other than being the lowest kinds of mostly sentient undead, you could say similar things on some level about wraiths too, at least on the magical front, though obviously their bodies are gone

[The Red King]

2 hours ago, Sception said:

You might argue that the brettonians or the empire or the high & wood elves weren't exactly good, but even by those standards the Tomb Kings were still pretty darn evil.  Sure, they'd fight against chaos if the only other options were submission or annihilation, but so would the dark elves, and you wouldn't call them good or even neutral either.

I love the wood elves. I even have an army of them ready to go, but since they straight up skin trespassers and hang it as a warning to stay out of their forest (in their novels) I think it's safe to say that the tomb kings are not evil for defending their lands either.

You can argue that the wood elves have more right because they really do need to keep people out of the forest but the goal of the tomb kings to defeat death was equally "worthy" and only time would prove it "wrong". 

[Sception]

1 hour ago, Whitefang said:

This is wrong on so many levels that directly against the most basic lore of tomb kings

Nehekharans believe upon death their souls leave their bodies to enjoy afterlife in the realm of souls, under the judgment and guidance of Usirian, which thanks to ET we know do exist.

I am admittedly drawing on older fluff here - primarily the Liber Necris, which is still my favorite source for old world undead lore.

"So the soul, as defined by the liche priests of Nehekhara, was called the Akhu and it was the immortal, incorporeal person that was a blend of the Ka, Ab, Ba, Ren and Sekhem bound together and unified for all eternity in an afterlife.  Since the time of Settra, the priests of what became the Mortuary Cult knew that the Akhu did not necessarily stay whole and safe after death, as many where the gods and daemons that would seek to consume elements of it, or even the entirety of it.  So it was that the liche priests bent all their efforts into finding a way to bind the Akhu to the mortal shell, or Kha, so that it would not disperse or be consumed after death" etc etc.

The Liber Necris is rather outdated, though, fair enough.  For instance it includes the old Vashanesh lore and positions it as the origin of the Von-Carstein bloodline, and Vashanesh was in his entirety decanonized by later lore, particularly the Nagash novels.  And rightfully so - as cool as Vashanesh was, he heavily undercut Neferata's presence and role in the narrative, and as the first Vampire the focus of that part of the story really should have been on her from the start.  In addition to being at least partially outdated, the book is also explicitly narrated by Mannfred, whose knowledge of necromancy and the undead is matched only by his unreliability as a narrator.

The same book is my source for the decay of Nehekharan culture under its immortality-obsessed kings and increasingly degenerate Mortuary priesthood, so fair to question that too.  The newer lore was an improvement in many ways (particularly regarding Neferata, as already mentioned), but I grew up on the old lore and it still has its hooks in me.  Standard grognard brainrot, admittedly.

Edited January 4 by Sception

[Whitefang]

46 minutes ago, Sception said:

I am admittedly drawing on older fluff here - primarily the Liber Necris, which is still my favorite source for old world undead lore.

"So the soul, as defined by the liche priests of Nehekhara, was called the Akhu and it was the immortal, incorporeal person that was a blend of the Ka, Ab, Ba, Ren and Sekhem bound together and unified for all eternity in an afterlife.  Since the time of Settra, the priests of what became the Mortuary Cult knew that the Akhu did not necessarily stay whole and safe after death, as many where the gods and daemons that would seek to consume elements of it, or even the entirety of it.  So it was that the liche priests bent all their efforts into finding a way to bind the Akhu to the mortal shell, or Kha, so that it would not disperse or be consumed after death" etc etc.

The Liber Necris is rather outdated, though, fair enough.  For instance it includes the old Vashanesh lore and positions it as the origin of the Von-Carstein bloodline, and Vashanesh was in his entirety decanonized by later lore, particularly the Nagash novels.  And rightfully so - as cool as Vashanesh was, he heavily undercut Neferata's presence and role in the narrative, and as the first Vampire the focus of that part of the story really should have been on her from the start.  In addition to being at least partially outdated, the book is also explicitly narrated by Mannfred, whose knowledge of necromancy and the undead is matched only by his unreliability as a narrator.

The same book is my source for the decay of Nehekharan culture under its immortality-obsessed kings and increasingly degenerate Mortuary priesthood, so fair to question that too.  The newer lore was an improvement in many ways (particularly regarding Neferata, as already mentioned), but I grew up on the old lore and it still has its hooks in me.  Standard grognard brainrot, admittedly.

Oh yeah, the canon conflicts between TK tomes, Liber Necris and Nagash TOL series is a mess, I think ET also doesn't help because it reaffirmed Vlad as Vashanesh.

I admittedly based my opinions mostly on TK tomes and some WFRP material, since they are my most familiar ones. 

Edited January 4 by Whitefang

[Noserenda]

Wasnt the Liber Necris a specifically in universe book with unreliable narrator like the Liber Chaotica though? Its been a long time since i read it and not much has stayed But in that case its not so much that its been superseded as much as the history and detail of necromancy being esoteric and closely guarded by murderous (and frequently insane) people, inaccuracy is always going to creep into secondary sources in universe.

[Sception]

43 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Wasnt the Liber Necris a specifically in universe book with unreliable narrator like the Liber Chaotica though? Its been a long time since i read it and not much has stayed But in that case its not so much that its been superseded as much as the history and detail of necromancy being esoteric and closely guarded by murderous (and frequently insane) people, inaccuracy is always going to creep into secondary sources in universe.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.  Again, the Liber Necris is narrated by Mannfred, who is about as unreliable as they come, but he does know his stuff when it comes to necromancy, so I've always been inclined to take his description of the arcane mechanics of necromancy and how all the various undead types are distinguished as accurate, and in particular that mummy/wight connection had game mechanic follow through in parallel rules for tomb guard & grave guard and sometimes also tomb kings & wight kings that continued all the way into the early days of Age of Sigmar.

But yeah, when it comes to tomb kings culture Mannfred's speaking from shaky research, tomes of questionable veracity, and personal interactions and interviews with ancient vampires and liches, most of whom were half insane by that point and none of whom liked him or had any particular motivation to tell him the truth, and its easy to write off contradictions with later lore as either 'Mannfred was misinformed' or 'Mannfred was crunching down a thousand year civilization into a single narrative that served the story he wanted to tell,' one where the history of the undead is a river of fate flowing down a single path leading from Settra to Nagash to Vashanesh and finally to himself as the ultimate culmination of all that came before.

Even the inclusion of Vashanesh could be taken not as later decanonized lore but rather as an apocryphal story that Mannfred heard somewhere as a mythical account of the origins of vampire weaknesses.  A story he would latch onto, expand, and promoted specifically because he could tie Vlad to it - making Vlad the best and most important vampire that ever was, when he was probably just some random Kislevite raider turned a few decades before Mannfred himself by some offshoot of an offshoot of a no name vampire clan.  That wouldn't serve Mannfred's ego though, so instead it's "have you ever heard of Vashanesh?  He was the best and most important vampire ever and he was totally real and by way did I mention that he was MY sire AND I killed him which makes ME even better than he was?"

Meanwhile Neferata, Abhorash, Arkhan et al are thinking "Vasha-who now?"

 

Anyway, the Liber Necris version of TK culture sticks with me more than later stuff due to how coherent it was and how neatly it built on the lore from the 4th ed Warhammer Undead army book.  There was a period of Vamp Count and Tomb Kings army book lore following the split when it felt like the writers were trying to excise Nagash.  In the TK case maybe that was a deliberate parody of Egyptian kings occasionally trying to scrub all history of a previous king or dynasty who's existence or legacy had become inconvenient.  If so, kudos to them on the clever gimmick, but it went right over my head.  I was mostly frustrated at the seeming decision to remove the most important character in warhammer undead history from the lore, and as a result hardly absorbed any of the new lore introduced at the time.

Edited January 4 by Sception