Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

DLC for DLC

SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
edited August 15 in General Discussion
(Obviously FLC is a good way to bypass this issue but that's not what we're discussing here)

Many people are averse to the idea of DLC for DLC and I totally understand why; barring content behind two pay walls would be a horrible business practice and might even be a dark rabbit hole we don't want to encourage companies to go down. However. This is not what DLC for DLC would look like:

In Warhammer, we currently have 2 DLC types:

Race packs (tomb kings, vampire coast, Wood Elves, Beastmen, Norsca and chaos). These packs centre around bringing a whole new race to the game, with 2-4 lords and 20 or so new units. These packs cost around £14

Lord packs (Prophet and the warlock, Grim and the Grave, King and the Warlord, Queen and the Crone) these packs focus on bringing 2 new lords and 3 new units (on average) for already existing factions. with the most recent Lord Pack bringing more content than those prior and setting the standard higher: these DLC packs usually cost about half that of a Race pack: around £7

Unless we see a change to the current formula: "DLC for DLC" is only going to come in the form of a Lord pack at £7. ergo: there is no reason to restrict it behind 2 pay walls because we will be paying for new lords and new units as per usual.

(Remember, all new content that comes with every DLC is added to your game regardless. what you pay for is the ability to control the specific lords and units in that DLC)

Under the current system: 2 lords = £7 and 4 lords = £14 (the exception is the Beastmen and Wood Elves, but they also come with their own stand alone campaigns and were poorly priced form the start).

so, as an example: A lord Pack for the Tomb Kings in Future shouldn't require the Tomb Kings DLC because this new lord pack will have different lords and new units (at £7). The original "Rise of the Tomb Kings" DLC has 4 Lords...hence why it is £14. This new "DLC for DLC" lord pack would not unlock Settra, Khatep or any of them so why would you need to own "Rise of the Tomb Kings" to buy this new lord pack?

Some people might say that allowing people to Buy a Lord Pack for a DLC faction would Devalue the original Race Pack, but this isn't true at all, because Norsca and Chaos were £6 to begin with, and as I pointed out: something like the Tomb Kings has double the Lords of a £7 pack, which is why it costs double.

This is why "DLC for DLC is a non issue for me and yet I never hear people bring it up in conversation. What are your thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    edited August 15
    Just to go through all the race packs:

    Vampire Coast: Complete roster with 2 more characters than they had in the lore

    Tomb Kings: Almost fully complete roster with only 3 missing units and a fair few missing Characters. Could easily be patched up in FLC or made complete via 1 simple Lord Pack

    Wood Elves: only 2-3 missing units, all they really need are Generic Lords/heroes and Legendary characters, which could come in the Form of FLC or 1-2 Lord Packs.

    Beastmen: the only real contentious one of the lot. A faction with the second most missing units in the game and about 5 Missing characters. As I said, they were poorly priced to begin with, however: Future Lord packs would not unlock the WH1 Campaign and would not unlock the 3 current lords for the Beastmen. this still gives incentive to buy the original pack.

    Norsca: Mostly in Need of Generic Lords/Heroes and Legendary characters. Was already £6 to begin with so their is no issue here

    Chaos: Game 3. Was £6 to begin with.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,660Registered Users
    I don't mind DLC for DLC, new content is new content.

    If they did Empire vs Skaven + a few new BM units I'd be more than happy with that.

    When it comes to TK and VCoast - not sure if they need new content as they have totally unique units and mechanics.

    For the most part though, I do not believe CA should live by rules made up by the shoutiest in the community.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Posts: 2,450Registered Users
    Actually there are 3 types: Lord Packs, Race Packs (Norsca and WoC) and Campaign Packs (other factions). Race Packs are smaller than Campaign Packs (you can tell by the prices).

    But I see your point. I think WoC should get a separate RP (or at least LP) focussing on Chaos Divided which merges with current WoC if you own both.

    Beastmen and WEs are more tricky. WEs could be fixed with FLC however as they could add 2 relatively simple LLs (Drycha a Branchwraith essentially, and Ariel could float like a Spellsinger). These could be separated to accompany a few DLCs, but a Spellweaver generic lord would also be a nice touch (with more Elf lores in general) and is basically a spellsinger so shouldn't be too much....

    Beastmen... my god. I mean a campaign rework would do wonders, and stuff like a Wargor and Great Bray Shaman would be fairly easy to add, as well as Doombulls - Taurox as well. These all would be based on pre-existing stuff and would make a huge difference (though I would hardly bet on it all being added for free, it is a lot of stuff when added up). Missing units though... that is a tough one, Ghorgon and Jabber and/or Preyton would add a lot of coolness but a bit out of the league of FLCs.... I would personally welcome a DLC to add these.

    I can understand the issues people would have but to me as long as quality is maintaned what matters is we get the biggest and best WH experience possible. I don't really subscribe to the "slippery slope" argument people use about this, in this case I think it is a fallacy. We have a demonstrated quality now in factions like the TKs, if that quality starts to dip after CA started providing DLC for old DLCs (or just in general) it would provoke a backlash, and generally be very conspicuous. WH is a huge setting, there is no need to risk such a backlash as CA could go on for years after WH3 providing DLCs even with high-quality stuff like TKs as a base.
  • _Mad_D0c__Mad_D0c_ Posts: 535Registered Users
    I would buy dlc for dlc for dlc for dlc for BM and WoC.

    Another solution could be a standalone Campaign pack for BM with new and old content and a discount for Call of BM dlc.
    I have made a thread about this:

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/236891/why-a-beastmen-2-0-standalone-dlc-rerelease-would-be-a-major-success#
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,660Registered Users
    _Mad_D0c_ said:

    I would buy dlc for dlc for dlc for dlc for BM and WoC.

    Another solution could be a standalone Campaign pack for BM with new and old content and a discount for Call of BM dlc.
    I have made a thread about this:

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/236891/why-a-beastmen-2-0-standalone-dlc-rerelease-would-be-a-major-success#

    This guy could be fun.. it would allow a BM LL to have access to a 'home-base'.
  • OrontesOrontes Junior Member Posts: 419Registered Users
    I have no issue with DLC for DLC.
  • rafantomasrafantomas Posts: 199Registered Users
    But for example if I buy a lord pack with new lords ( including a new TK lord) and I don’t have Tomb Kings DLC can I enjoy ofthe tomb kings content in multiplayer and campaing?
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    @rafantomas

    If you Buy WH2 but not "the Queen and the Crone" can you still enjoy the High elf and Dark Elf content that exists outside of that lord pack?

    Sure you can. Same rules apply.
  • psychoakpsychoak Posts: 2,149Registered Users
    I buy stuff because of what's in it. I didn't buy 8 Princes, and probably never will, because of what's in it. I'm not gonna get cranky because CA makes more content, I'm either gonna buy it, or not buy it, based on it's perceived value

    I don't expect DLC for DLC to work out real well though.

    I'm sure CA has the numbers on this, and I can only guess, but the information available does not lend itself to this coming to pass.

    When you look at the Warhammer 2 store page, it has almost 20k reviews. Tomb Kings, wildly popular, has about 1500.

    If adoption rates of DLC are at all similar with regards to the ownership base in a DLC of DLC scenario, and review rates are at all similar between primary games, and DLC items, then you have a small percentage of a small percentage.

    If they do something odd to avoid this shrinking pool, like a lord pack with two TK characters lets you play them even without the original DLC, they just get into different trouble. People who bought the original end up butt hurt and whine and complain, leave bad reviews, and cost them money anyway.

    Cross DLC on the other hand should be very viable. Warhammer 1 is likely to remain the largest selling part of the series, and anyone that buys DLC, is highly likely to purchase it simply for the relative value of picking up five full factions. That's assuming they don't already have it before purchasing the sequel. The existing customer base is thus near identical.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    @psychoak

    except no they dont.

    Why would people whine and complain if you don't need the original DLC. You could say that "we paid for the race and now you're giving it to them for cheeper" but that would be bullsh*t because of what i just went over.

    Even if we accept the idea that we bought the first DLC pack for the race...there is still 4 Lords in that pack: 2 lords = £7, 4 = £14

    the fact that it would be a sliver of a sliver of a percentage is exactly why CA wont do something so stupid as to restrict it to people who have the first DLC.

    You're final Paragraph goes against the logic of the rest of your post entirely. I could just as easily say that: because only a sliver of the audience has stuck it out this far to get all the DLC, then they are likely the die hard fans that keep up to date with this **** and they likely own most, if not all of the DLC. I could also say that CA could just offer a discount for the first DLC when they release this new "DLC for DLC" or permenantly reduce the price, but i intentionally avoided this line of reasoning because its wishful thinking based on assumptions of data we dont have.
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 2,749Registered Users
    edited August 16
    I think a poll would be good for this.

    Question
    Would you like dlc for dlc if it meant that dlc races such as woodelves, beastmen, ect could get roster/mechanic additions?

    Option 1. Yes
    Option 2. No

    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    @GingerRoeBro

    Sure, problem is that most people have a misconception about how DLC for DLC would work based on literally no evidence, which is what im trying to address
  • AzurianAzurian Posts: 299Registered Users

    (Obviously FLC is a good way to bypass this issue but that's not what we're discussing here)

    Many people are averse to the idea of DLC for DLC and I totally understand why; barring content behind two pay walls would be a horrible business practice and might even be a dark rabbit hole we don't want to encourage companies to go down. However. This is not what DLC for DLC would look like:

    In Warhammer, we currently have 2 DLC types:

    Race packs (tomb kings, vampire coast, Wood Elves, Beastmen, Norsca and chaos). These packs centre around bringing a whole new race to the game, with 2-4 lords and 20 or so new units. These packs cost around £14

    Lord packs (Prophet and the warlock, Grim and the Grave, King and the Warlord, Queen and the Crone) these packs focus on bringing 2 new lords and 3 new units (on average) for already existing factions. with the most recent Lord Pack bringing more content than those prior and setting the standard higher: these DLC packs usually cost about half that of a Race pack: around £7

    Unless we see a change to the current formula: "DLC for DLC" is only going to come in the form of a Lord pack at £7. ergo: there is no reason to restrict it behind 2 pay walls because we will be paying for new lords and new units as per usual.

    (Remember, all new content that comes with every DLC is added to your game regardless. what you pay for is the ability to control the specific lords and units in that DLC)

    Under the current system: 2 lords = £7 and 4 lords = £14 (the exception is the Beastmen and Wood Elves, but they also come with their own stand alone campaigns and were poorly priced form the start).

    so, as an example: A lord Pack for the Tomb Kings in Future shouldn't require the Tomb Kings DLC because this new lord pack will have different lords and new units (at £7). The original "Rise of the Tomb Kings" DLC has 4 Lords...hence why it is £14. This new "DLC for DLC" lord pack would not unlock Settra, Khatep or any of them so why would you need to own "Rise of the Tomb Kings" to buy this new lord pack?

    Some people might say that allowing people to Buy a Lord Pack for a DLC faction would Devalue the original Race Pack, but this isn't true at all, because Norsca and Chaos were £6 to begin with, and as I pointed out: something like the Tomb Kings has double the Lords of a £7 pack, which is why it costs double.

    This is why "DLC for DLC is a non issue for me and yet I never hear people bring it up in conversation. What are your thoughts?

    I believe that DLC for DLC is inevitable. The perfect fact is that we are waiting for the Lords package, but the fact is that such packages have already received all the main races, which means that only the races entered through the DLC, or in the second round, remain. In both cases, it will be the DLC for the DLC.

  • psychoakpsychoak Posts: 2,149Registered Users
    People have literally complained about getting things for free. If you don't think there will be some level of heartburn over DLC for DLC resulting in a "free ride" for people, you haven't been paying attention.

    The example you used, would **** me off. Forget people getting butt hurt because all of a sudden someone gets access to what they paid for, for free.

    Why the hell would I pay the same price per lord for new Tomb Kings lords, when the price of the original pack was for an entire faction?

    The actual lord packs came with extra units. We didn't buy two lords for half the price of four lords and an accompanying faction. We paid half the price for two lords, ROR, and several new units.
  • AzurianAzurian Posts: 299Registered Users
    psychoak said:

    People have literally complained about getting things for free. If you don't think there will be some level of heartburn over DLC for DLC resulting in a "free ride" for people, you haven't been paying attention.

    The example you used, would **** me off. Forget people getting butt hurt because all of a sudden someone gets access to what they paid for, for free.

    Why the hell would I pay the same price per lord for new Tomb Kings lords, when the price of the original pack was for an entire faction?

    The actual lord packs came with extra units. We didn't buy two lords for half the price of four lords and an accompanying faction. We paid half the price for two lords, ROR, and several new units.

    Unless you assume that such a Lord pack will introduce something fundamentally new and not like ordinary Lordpacks. For example, Nagash, with an army having access to vampires, and not like the "Followers of Nagash" but really, a 50% vampire roster, or at least access to the "Bloodlines"

  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    @psychoak

    so let me get this straight, you think CA wont do something because people will complain, and your reasoning for this is that they complain about everything?...

    if they complain and it hasnt stopped them yet then it shouldnt and wont stop them now.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    edited August 16
    @psychoak

    Have you bought a Lord pack? if yes then you are paying the same price per lord. if no, why are you here discussing it?

    If you bought TK when they came out, you got 4 lords to use. if you didnt and you buy the new Lord pack, you get 2 lords for half the price...because its half the lords/start positions/play styles etc.

    even if we take out the lords and start positions for a sec and just focused on the content: originally you paid £14 for access to those factions. (a year + before this hypothetical DLC for DLC lord pack). with this new lord pack you get 1 lord from that faction along with 3 units....where is the issue here?

    if you bought the original pack you got that stuff a year+ early, with 4 lords with unique starts and mechanics and now you get 1 new lord for that faction and 3 new units...
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 14,659Registered Users
    Lord Packs don't contain enough units to be usable in campaign or MP. Thus it's rather pointless to have it playable without the original DLC because it's not playable without it.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • WazabazabaWazabazaba Posts: 23Registered Users
    What about parallel race packs. The parallel race pack would contain 2-4 unique legendary lords and whatever missing units/generic lords/heroes for $14. If you buy only the parallel race pack and not the original you still gain access to the full roster, but not the original legendary lords. For those with the original race pack, the new units/generic lords/heroes become FLC. So basically both packs offer the full race but differ in which legendary lords you have access to. For those wanting both packs just give a 50% discount to the other pack if you already own one as your essentially only buying the legendary lords.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    @Vanilla_Gorilla

    Wait, what do you mean? did you think i meant that you would only be able to play with the 3 units you get? because that would be stupid, of course not. getting the LP unlocks the roster, just like getting the original DLC does
  • Lord of CinderLord of Cinder Posts: 278Registered Users
    edited August 16
    WH 2 is a DLC for WH 1. Same engine, same setting, same mechanics though some have received a little facelift. And new races. Smells like a DLC to me.

    So, you've got what you wanted - A DLC for a DLC. What you really ask for now is for DLC for DLC of a DLC.

    CA is releasing a game which is cut in three. They should make all races equal and complete without milking you more every step of the way. For what those DLCs are worth you can purchase several other full priced games. No more of that, thanks!
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users

    WH 2 is a DLC for WH 1. Same engine, same setting, same mechanics though some have received a little facelift. And new races. Smells like a DLC to me.

    So, you've got what you wanted - A DLC for a DLC. What you really ask for now is for DLC for DLC of a DLC.

    CA is releasing a game which is cut in three. They should make all races equal and complete without milking you more every step of the way. For what those DLCs are worth you can purchase several other full priced games. No more of that, thanks!

    You like Dark Souls 3, yet you're complaining about CA making the same game over again?!

    Of course the game is cut into 3 pieces. Stratagy games are a Niche genre that survive off of gaining a loyal fan base and making the game in bits, with lots of post launch content.

    I'm usually against modern DLC(as in pack, not expansions) and I'm whole heartedly against microtransactions, but with stratagy games I think it mostly works. Due to this business model, stratagy games are allowed to expand far beyond what they would have managed otherwise.

    Imagine CA trying to make all 3 games in 1...are you insane?! If this wasn't a trilogy then they wouldn't have half the content, CA wouldn't be able to experiment as much, we wouldn't get the graphical bumps we get with every new game and so on.

    The only thing Id protest would be the price of the DLC (I've always waited for a sale, except with P&W, the most recent one)
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 14,659Registered Users
    edited August 16

    @Vanilla_Gorilla

    Wait, what do you mean? did you think i meant that you would only be able to play with the 3 units you get? because that would be stupid, of course not. getting the LP unlocks the roster, just like getting the original DLC does

    That's the impression I got from reading the OP.

    You're in essence proposing selling the TK DLC for half price permanently plus the additional LP units. That doesn't work. The only thing they miss out on is 4 LL's which isn't much considering they'd need to buy an entire CP for them.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    @Vanilla_Gorilla

    No I'm not proposing that. I anticipated that critisizm before I'd even made the post (it's a part of the reason I made the post) and I've given an explanation already.

    first of all, this is a non issue for Norsca, Beastmen and chaos cos they already cost £6

    If we had DLC for DLC it would not be the same thing at all. You'd still have to buy the original DLC to get the lord's that came with them. That's not a rule I made up, that should be blatently obvious.

    As for Beastmen and Wood Elves: you also wouldn't unlock their unique campaigns with the new LP.

    if you're going to focus on the roster like it's a big issue (remember they get put in the game anyway, all your paying for is the ability to unlock it) then you can look at it this way: buying it, unlocked the roster for you a year early or more.

    So in review: not an issue for Norsca, chaos or Beastmen. Vampire Counts is already complete (just need the Merwyrm). Wood elves still have their unique campaign. That just leaves Tomb Kings, who could be made fully complete via FLC as well.
  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 671Registered Users
    Don't want this until they're done with base game DLC with the whole trilogy. It just lets CA be able to release very barebones rosters like the Skaven, where they have their cool units locked by DLC in multiple packs in a Beastmen situation where they're clearly in the need of more work and content, not necessarily because they were released that way in order to incentivize future sales of DLC that completes them. I don't want CA to release a DLC faction with obvious holes in their roster just so they can do a DLC down the line or a cross game DLC.
    I know some people are fine with this since they are used to GW model pricing and find this cheap compared to that, but this should adhere video game standards and practices( not the scummy way like most big publishers are heading).
    Finally, CA should strive for the best they can do with faction pack rosters and character choices for the time being. As they will remain that way until they get an update or paid content. TK are a good example of that due to listening to player feedback about what kind of content they want and cutting the mini campaign that came with faction packs in game 1.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    @3982173917524862

    Amen to all that friend.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Posts: 2,450Registered Users

    Don't want this until they're done with base game DLC with the whole trilogy. It just lets CA be able to release very barebones rosters like the Skaven, where they have their cool units locked by DLC in multiple packs in a Beastmen situation where they're clearly in the need of more work and content, not necessarily because they were released that way in order to incentivize future sales of DLC that completes them. I don't want CA to release a DLC faction with obvious holes in their roster just so they can do a DLC down the line or a cross game DLC.
    I know some people are fine with this since they are used to GW model pricing and find this cheap compared to that, but this should adhere video game standards and practices( not the scummy way like most big publishers are heading).
    Finally, CA should strive for the best they can do with faction pack rosters and character choices for the time being. As they will remain that way until they get an update or paid content. TK are a good example of that due to listening to player feedback about what kind of content they want and cutting the mini campaign that came with faction packs in game 1.

    Like the Hell Pit Abomination and Doomwheel? Skaven have a pretty huge roster, they were always going to have quite a lot missing at launch - but they had a lot of their iconic (and hard to make) stuff, such as the above, the Rat Ogres, Warp Lightning Cannons. Their roster wasn't incredible at launch, but it was hardly barebones and "lacking all their cool stuff".

    The argument that CA is going to start stripping future content is a prime example of a slippery slope fallacy. We have a standard (that by and large is improving with each release) - a sudden drop in the quality of DLC would be highly conspicuous now and would result in a backlash. I very much doubt that such a slip will occur, considering that improvements were made in the quality of DLC after game 1 performed above their estimations - by your logic they would have kept DLC to its lower levels in order to keep costs low whilst the income was higher than expected, but they didn't.
  • steph74steph74 Junior Member Posts: 785Registered Users
    If a DLC is worth 10 €, and a DLC is worth 10 € of additional content, total worth is 20 €.

    I don't mind paying this instead of 20 € at once.

    The concept of "paywal" is too me a bit ridiculous, as long as the content added by a DLC is worth the cost.

  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Posts: 682Registered Users
    edited August 16
    @Goatforce

    I am against that Fallacy too (part of why I made the post) and you're right, I'm also very impressed with what CA did with some of the factions at launch and what they've done with some of the DLC.

    That being said: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with stating where you're lines in the sand are

    " don't want DLC for DLC until they have all the core stuff out of the way"

    "don't want them to intentionally exclude content for future DLC"

    "Their pricing has been good so far but I don't want them to go the way of EA and other publishers"

    These are fairly universal and agreeable stances. Skaven released strong (I'm still amazed at the hellpit abomination) but Beastmen? Greenskins? Wood Elves?

    I don't think CA did it intentionally but these are races I really desperately want to play but I honestly can't. Not until they get some actual campaign mechanics, quests/stories and updates. Even without their lack of units I find them unplayable right now which is such a shame I think.
  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 671Registered Users
    Goatforce said:


    Like the Hell Pit Abomination and Doomwheel? Skaven have a pretty huge roster, they were always going to have quite a lot missing at launch - but they had a lot of their iconic (and hard to make) stuff, such as the above, the Rat Ogres, Warp Lightning Cannons. Their roster wasn't incredible at launch, but it was hardly barebones and "lacking all their cool stuff".

    The argument that CA is going to start stripping future content is a prime example of a slippery slope fallacy. We have a standard (that by and large is improving with each release) - a sudden drop in the quality of DLC would be highly conspicuous now and would result in a backlash. I very much doubt that such a slip will occur, considering that improvements were made in the quality of DLC after game 1 performed above their estimations - by your logic they would have kept DLC to its lower levels in order to keep costs low whilst the income was higher than expected, but they didn't.

    I know that Skaven had some extra units that would have been perfect to be held back for a themed Lord pack, but ultimately CA decided to include them, which I'm thankful for. But that doesn't excuse that the Skaven were admittedly still not hamstrung by the decision to not include their ranged units for a primarily ranged focus faction, while also not leaving them with cheap Moulder hound type units to cover their weakness and they suffered for it in terms of MP competitiveness and campaign army variety. Doesn't help that the most recent ranged DLC units are a tad overtuned likely due to the large time gap between the initial release and DLC release compared to what the skaven infantry and specialized infantry can offer. Not going to mention Undercities, as they were a campaign mechanic.
    I wasn't trying to derail the thread by turning it into a rant about Skaven, but simply wanted to draw a comparison how the implication of DLC for DLC can affect future content and rosters. @SeanJeanquoi 's above post seems to understand and highlights the issues I have brought up. The latest DLC have gone up in quality, even though some of them were not my cup of tea. I just don't want to see another Queen vs Crone after such a great DLC as the TK.
Sign In or Register to comment.