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

Could Lord Packs for existing DLC's be a thing?

Laytenb2122Laytenb2122 Posts: 16Registered Users
Do you all think this could be a thing? I hope it is as Chaos and Beastmen desperately need it as in their current states, they're jokes of a race. Maybe Lord Packs could save them from being the laughing stocks of the community. If you see this CA, please do it.
«1

Comments

  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Posts: 1,597Registered Users
    It should be a thing but we don't know at the moment. They've said they have no rule against it, but nothing planned at the moment.

    Which is kind of sad, as Warriors of Chaos, Beastmen, Wood Elves, Norsca, Tomb Kings and Vampire Coast do need more new things and updates and I really really doubt the future FLC list is big enough to fit lord pack equivalent content.
  • Arcani_4_EverArcani_4_Ever Junior Member Posts: 2,334Registered Users
    Right now, i doubt it..

    Once Part 3 comes, all possibilities are open.

    With the trilogy Complete and an entire Mortal Empires and even a Realm of Chaos Map CA can go all out in filling out that map with new Lords and Races.
  • kitekazekitekaze Posts: 266Registered Users
    edited October 3
    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users
    Hopefully not.

    Not till game 3 anyway when they can get the update they deserve.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • _Mad_D0c__Mad_D0c_ Posts: 948Registered Users
    kitekaze said:

    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.

    Yeah H&B shows it with the standalone part of the empire, opens up a bunch of new possibilities.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users
    kitekaze said:

    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.

    Beastmen are a DLC. A Lord for the BM is literally DLC for DLC. Whether or not it makes the BM DLC worthless doesn't change that it would literally be DLC for DLC.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • _Mad_D0c__Mad_D0c_ Posts: 948Registered Users

    kitekaze said:

    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.

    Beastmen are a DLC. A Lord for the BM is literally DLC for DLC. Whether or not it makes the BM DLC worthless doesn't change that it would literally be DLC for DLC.
    Is the empire part of H&B not the precedence to contradict that?

    You can play as Empire with a new LL, to play the others you need game 1 and you can play Empire campaign in game 1.

    A BM LP could let you play alone with the new LL, for the old you need CotB, back in game 1 you can play mini and grand campaign.

    Where is the difference?
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users
    _Mad_D0c_ said:

    kitekaze said:

    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.

    Beastmen are a DLC. A Lord for the BM is literally DLC for DLC. Whether or not it makes the BM DLC worthless doesn't change that it would literally be DLC for DLC.
    Is the empire part of H&B not the precedence to contradict that?

    You can play as Empire with a new LL, to play the others you need game 1 and you can play Empire campaign in game 1.

    A BM LP could let you play alone with the new LL, for the old you need CotB, back in game 1 you can play mini and grand campaign.

    Where is the difference?
    Not in the slightest.

    CA said they have no plans to do DLC for DLC. Empire are not a DLC race. They're a core game 1 race.

    As I said whether or not this theoretical DLC makes the BM DLC worthless does not change the fact that it would be for a DLC race.

    CA said they don't plan to do DLC. I highly doubt they'd say that only to then do DLC for DLC. For game 2's cycle the chances of DLC for DLC are highly unlikely.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • _Mad_D0c__Mad_D0c_ Posts: 948Registered Users

    _Mad_D0c_ said:

    kitekaze said:

    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.

    Beastmen are a DLC. A Lord for the BM is literally DLC for DLC. Whether or not it makes the BM DLC worthless doesn't change that it would literally be DLC for DLC.
    Is the empire part of H&B not the precedence to contradict that?

    You can play as Empire with a new LL, to play the others you need game 1 and you can play Empire campaign in game 1.

    A BM LP could let you play alone with the new LL, for the old you need CotB, back in game 1 you can play mini and grand campaign.

    Where is the difference?
    Not in the slightest.

    CA said they have no plans to do DLC for DLC. Empire are not a DLC race. They're a core game 1 race.

    As I said whether or not this theoretical DLC makes the BM DLC worthless does not change the fact that it would be for a DLC race.

    CA said they don't plan to do DLC. I highly doubt they'd say that only to then do DLC for DLC. For game 2's cycle the chances of DLC for DLC are highly unlikely.
    I think it unlikely for game 2 too. Maybe the last LP for game 2, to test it, like the crossover now.

    But in game 3 they should find a way to improve WoC and BM in away above FLC. if it is standalone LP, reinforcing DLC with shared units for different Chaos faction (monogod dlc) or rereleased 2.0 CP for both.
    I mean the original DLCs are so old at that time, I dont see a problem in a dlc of this dlc after game 3.
  • kitekazekitekaze Posts: 266Registered Users
    edited October 3

    kitekaze said:

    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.

    Beastmen are a DLC. A Lord for the BM is literally DLC for DLC. Whether or not it makes the BM DLC worthless doesn't change that it would literally be DLC for DLC.
    Did C.A ever say that Beastmen DLC?
    No, it's Call of the Beastmen Campaign Pack DLC.
    It include:
    - Beastmen race with two LLs.
    - Call of the Beast campaign.
    - Boris Todbringer for custom battle.
    It's never been Beastmen DLC. Completely wrong term.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users
    @kitekaze You're making a really long stretch. There's no getting around that the BM are a DLC and any LP for them would be DLC for a DLC because that's what they are. Regardless of how it's done.
    _Mad_D0c_ said:

    _Mad_D0c_ said:

    kitekaze said:

    C.A states that no plan for DLC for DLC
    A lord pack requires DLC is DLC for DLC.
    A lord pack that does NOT require DLC is not DLC for DLC.

    If there is beastman lord pack without need of CotB DLC, then it's not DLC for DLC and it can happen.
    You need to define this clearly because if not, you will fail.

    An example for this, is that you will need both CotB DLC and Warhammer 1 to play Beastman in Warhammer 2.
    CotB is DLC, Warhamer 1 is a Game.
    So, a DLC for Game is not DLC for DLC, and CA treats them as such.

    Beastmen are a DLC. A Lord for the BM is literally DLC for DLC. Whether or not it makes the BM DLC worthless doesn't change that it would literally be DLC for DLC.
    Is the empire part of H&B not the precedence to contradict that?

    You can play as Empire with a new LL, to play the others you need game 1 and you can play Empire campaign in game 1.

    A BM LP could let you play alone with the new LL, for the old you need CotB, back in game 1 you can play mini and grand campaign.

    Where is the difference?
    Not in the slightest.

    CA said they have no plans to do DLC for DLC. Empire are not a DLC race. They're a core game 1 race.

    As I said whether or not this theoretical DLC makes the BM DLC worthless does not change the fact that it would be for a DLC race.

    CA said they don't plan to do DLC. I highly doubt they'd say that only to then do DLC for DLC. For game 2's cycle the chances of DLC for DLC are highly unlikely.
    I think it unlikely for game 2 too. Maybe the last LP for game 2, to test it, like the crossover now.

    But in game 3 they should find a way to improve WoC and BM in away above FLC. if it is standalone LP, reinforcing DLC with shared units for different Chaos faction (monogod dlc) or rereleased 2.0 CP for both.
    I mean the original DLCs are so old at that time, I dont see a problem in a dlc of this dlc after game 3.
    They should definitely get large updates.

    I just don't see it happening this cycle. The only way around what they've said is if they haven't planned all the LP's. That seems highly unlikely.

    It'd also ruin the chance for them to be properly updated in game 3.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • TheWolfLordTheWolfLord Posts: 69Registered Users
    edited October 3
    Can we please stop this ‘no plans’ rubbish.

    Yes they said they have no plans to do dlc for dlc.

    When asked in April they said they had no plans for a cross game release.

    What were they planning and working on in April? A cross game release in Hunter and the Beast.

    When CA say they have no plans they are simply saying they can’t say.

    Too many people take any CA statement and twist every word to make crazy predictions but just as many people treat these statements as gospel.

    It’s standard company speak when they can’t give concrete answers

    No plans does not mean they are or they are not working on it.

    We just need to wait and see
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users

    Can we please stop this ‘no plans’ rubbish.

    Yes they said they have no plans to do dlc for dlc.

    When asked in April they said they had no plans for a cross game release.

    What were they planning and working on in April? A cross game release in Hunter and the Beast.

    When CA say they have no plans they are simply saying they can’t say.

    Too many people take any CA statement and twist every word to make crazy predictions but just as many people treat these statements as gospel.

    It’s standard company speak when they can’t give concrete answers

    No plans does not mean they are or they are not working on it.

    We just need to wait and see

    Please provide a source for that crossover claim because I'm quite certain that's not what was said.

    CA very rarely say something isn't coming. They didn't with crossovers, they did with DLC for DLC and Araby.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Posts: 1,597Registered Users

    Can we please stop this ‘no plans’ rubbish.

    Yes they said they have no plans to do dlc for dlc.

    When asked in April they said they had no plans for a cross game release.

    What were they planning and working on in April? A cross game release in Hunter and the Beast.

    When CA say they have no plans they are simply saying they can’t say.

    Too many people take any CA statement and twist every word to make crazy predictions but just as many people treat these statements as gospel.

    It’s standard company speak when they can’t give concrete answers

    No plans does not mean they are or they are not working on it.

    We just need to wait and see

    Please provide a source for that crossover claim because I'm quite certain that's not what was said.

    CA very rarely say something isn't coming. They didn't with crossovers, they did with DLC for DLC and Araby.
    You sound very against DLC for DLC.
  • angry_rat_loverangry_rat_lover Posts: 1,065Registered Users
    Doubtful right now, maybe game 3
    Soon
  • GoatforceGoatforce Posts: 3,290Registered Users
    edited October 3

    Can we please stop this ‘no plans’ rubbish.

    Yes they said they have no plans to do dlc for dlc.

    When asked in April they said they had no plans for a cross game release.

    What were they planning and working on in April? A cross game release in Hunter and the Beast.

    When CA say they have no plans they are simply saying they can’t say.

    Too many people take any CA statement and twist every word to make crazy predictions but just as many people treat these statements as gospel.

    It’s standard company speak when they can’t give concrete answers

    No plans does not mean they are or they are not working on it.

    We just need to wait and see

    Please provide a source for that crossover claim because I'm quite certain that's not what was said.

    CA very rarely say something isn't coming. They didn't with crossovers, they did with DLC for DLC and Araby.
    Did they not just say they had "no current plans for DLC for DLC", which is about what they said for crossovers ages ago as I recall. I mean I would say that definitely rules out a LP or something for DLC races this game for sure, but doesn't say anything about next game.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users


    This is what they said for Crossovers. Not exactly a "No plans". Rather the opposite.

    @Goatforce As I say above it doesn't rule it out in future. It just rules it out for when they have planned. Game 3's still wide open, hopefully BM and WoC get their updates then.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 5,062Registered Users
    edited October 3
    I think it can be done so it isn't DLC for DLC, same how Empire is now playable. You release a lord pack with BM LL and you don't own BM DLC? Your LL has access to BM units but you don't have access to a part of the roster or other LLs. Thus it is a separate DLC that doesn't need the Beastmen DLC to play. Same as any other race. Make WE LL in Oreon's Camp have limited access and some own units. You don't need WE DLC to play thatLL.

    This is no different than Wulfhart. Empire is a race of a completely different game, you can now play Empire without that game. Same thing applies here.

    The can of worms is open. CA can just do whatever now that you people let them make content of one game available in the other. This is no different in principle.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • ArsenicArsenic Posts: 4,732Registered Users
    I feel for Beastmen fans, I really do. They got the excremental end of the stick with an over-priced DLC missing some iconic units. The problem with being one of the first DLC races I suppose, they were very conservative with it unsure if it would sell.

    However..

    Think about the precedent DLC for DLC would set. Give developers an inch and they take a mile, we've seen that with lootboxes, microtransactions, etc. It'd not be long before you're paying multiple times for one, salami-sliced, DLC.
    "Ours is a world of fleeting glory. But it is glory, nonetheless."
  • GoatforceGoatforce Posts: 3,290Registered Users
    Crossil said:

    I think it can be done so it isn't DLC for DLC, same how Empire is now playable. You release a lord pack with BM LL and you don't own BM DLC? Your LL has access to BM units but you don't have access to a part of the roster or other LLs. Thus it is a separate DLC that doesn't need the Beastmen DLC to play. Same as any other race. Make WE LL in Oreon's Camp have limited access and some own units. You don't need WE DLC to play thatLL.

    This is no different than Wulfhart. Empire is a race of a completely different game, you can now play Empire without that game. Same thing applies here.

    The can of worms is open. CA can just do whatever now that you people let them make content of one game available in the other. This is no different in principle.

    I agree, I think some method can be found to get these races up to snuff. I do wonder though if they could change it up a bit for the possible WE LP, maybe add 2 LLs, Spellweaver lord and perhaps the shadowdancer (or whatever the hero wardancer is called), without any new units (or something extremely simple like Dryad variants or a new ammo type such as Trueflight or Moonfire). I think the priority with WEs should be to get them up to 4 LLs and give them their caster Lord.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users
    Crossil said:

    I think it can be done so it isn't DLC for DLC, same how Empire is now playable. You release a lord pack with BM LL and you don't own BM DLC? Your LL has access to BM units but you don't have access to a part of the roster or other LLs. Thus it is a separate DLC that doesn't need the Beastmen DLC to play. Same as any other race. Make WE LL in Oreon's Camp have limited access and some own units. You don't need WE DLC to play thatLL.

    This is no different than Wulfhart. Empire is a race of a completely different game, you can now play Empire without that game. Same thing applies here.

    The can of worms is open. CA can just do whatever now that you people let them make content of one game available in the other. This is no different in principle.

    How can a DLC be for a DLC race without being for a DLC?

    The Empire is completely different to the BM. CA can give away the Empire without devaluing TWW1 significantly. They give away the BM then there's no point in buying the DLC.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 5,062Registered Users
    edited October 3

    Crossil said:

    I think it can be done so it isn't DLC for DLC, same how Empire is now playable. You release a lord pack with BM LL and you don't own BM DLC? Your LL has access to BM units but you don't have access to a part of the roster or other LLs. Thus it is a separate DLC that doesn't need the Beastmen DLC to play. Same as any other race. Make WE LL in Oreon's Camp have limited access and some own units. You don't need WE DLC to play thatLL.

    This is no different than Wulfhart. Empire is a race of a completely different game, you can now play Empire without that game. Same thing applies here.

    The can of worms is open. CA can just do whatever now that you people let them make content of one game available in the other. This is no different in principle.

    How can a DLC be for a DLC race without being for a DLC?

    The Empire is completely different to the BM. CA can give away the Empire without devaluing TWW1 significantly. They give away the BM then there's no point in buying the DLC.
    Yes there is, just like there's a point to buying game 1 even when you gave away that race(and others as well if crossovers continue) in a DLC.

    DLC is for game 2. Beastmen are still in their DLC and would get a rework that works just for them, some of their units aren't available in game 2 DLC and it has different mechanics from mainstream BM. All of this is exactly like how Wulfhart does it and Wulfhart also devalued game 1. But, aparently game 1 wasn't devalued by Wulfhart or other crossovers and neither will BM DLC be devalued either if we follow same logic. The principle doesn't change between these.

    It isn't DLC for DLC because you don't need BM DLC to play it. This nonsense about devaluing has been buried with Wulfhart. Just like game 1 had discounts so did BM have them so there's little devaluing to exist for one as it doesn't exist for the other. Or do you admit Wulfhart devalued game 1? In which case nothing changes as CA already did this.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,964Registered Users
    Crossil said:

    Crossil said:

    I think it can be done so it isn't DLC for DLC, same how Empire is now playable. You release a lord pack with BM LL and you don't own BM DLC? Your LL has access to BM units but you don't have access to a part of the roster or other LLs. Thus it is a separate DLC that doesn't need the Beastmen DLC to play. Same as any other race. Make WE LL in Oreon's Camp have limited access and some own units. You don't need WE DLC to play thatLL.

    This is no different than Wulfhart. Empire is a race of a completely different game, you can now play Empire without that game. Same thing applies here.

    The can of worms is open. CA can just do whatever now that you people let them make content of one game available in the other. This is no different in principle.

    How can a DLC be for a DLC race without being for a DLC?

    The Empire is completely different to the BM. CA can give away the Empire without devaluing TWW1 significantly. They give away the BM then there's no point in buying the DLC.
    Yes there is, just like there's a point to buying game 1 even when you gave away that race(and others as well if crossovers continue) in a DLC.

    DLC is for game 2. Beastmen are still in their DLC and would get a rework that works just for them, some of their units aren't available in game 2 DLC and it has different mechanics from mainstream BM. All of this is exactly like how Wulfhart does it and Wulfhart also devalued game 1. But, aparently game 1 wasn't devalued by Wulfhart or other crossovers and neither will BM DLC be devalued either if we follow same logic. The principle doesn't change between these.

    It isn't DLC for DLC because you don't need BM DLC to play it. This nonsense about devaluing has been buried with Wulfhart. Just like game 1 had discounts so did BM have them so there's little devaluing to exist for one as it doesn't exist for the other. Or do you admit Wulfhart devalued game 1? In which case nothing changes as CA already did this.
    No it's not. Wulfhart gives you access to the entire Empire roster. Limiting it to part of the already limited BM roster weakens the argument for buying the LP while still devaluing the BM DLC.

    It's DLC for DLC because the BM are a DLC. If it's for BM it's for DLC regardless of how its done because the BM are a DLC. It can't be separated out like that. CA said they have no plans to do DLC for DLC, and guess what? BM are a DLC. They didn't say they have no plans to do DLC that requires DLC to play. This line of logic requires them to have been far more specific than they were. They simply said no plans for DLC for DLC. That means exactly what they said.

    CA hasn't discounted DLC's significantly. They discount game 1 for 75% off regularly. Game 1 also has all the rest of its content so there's still reason to buy it. An LP that gives away the BM roster makes the BM DLC worthless. It's a question of degrees, Wulfhart might on the margin slightly devalue TWW1. An LP for BM completely devalues 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.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 5,062Registered Users

    Crossil said:

    Crossil said:

    I think it can be done so it isn't DLC for DLC, same how Empire is now playable. You release a lord pack with BM LL and you don't own BM DLC? Your LL has access to BM units but you don't have access to a part of the roster or other LLs. Thus it is a separate DLC that doesn't need the Beastmen DLC to play. Same as any other race. Make WE LL in Oreon's Camp have limited access and some own units. You don't need WE DLC to play thatLL.

    This is no different than Wulfhart. Empire is a race of a completely different game, you can now play Empire without that game. Same thing applies here.

    The can of worms is open. CA can just do whatever now that you people let them make content of one game available in the other. This is no different in principle.

    How can a DLC be for a DLC race without being for a DLC?

    The Empire is completely different to the BM. CA can give away the Empire without devaluing TWW1 significantly. They give away the BM then there's no point in buying the DLC.
    Yes there is, just like there's a point to buying game 1 even when you gave away that race(and others as well if crossovers continue) in a DLC.

    DLC is for game 2. Beastmen are still in their DLC and would get a rework that works just for them, some of their units aren't available in game 2 DLC and it has different mechanics from mainstream BM. All of this is exactly like how Wulfhart does it and Wulfhart also devalued game 1. But, aparently game 1 wasn't devalued by Wulfhart or other crossovers and neither will BM DLC be devalued either if we follow same logic. The principle doesn't change between these.

    It isn't DLC for DLC because you don't need BM DLC to play it. This nonsense about devaluing has been buried with Wulfhart. Just like game 1 had discounts so did BM have them so there's little devaluing to exist for one as it doesn't exist for the other. Or do you admit Wulfhart devalued game 1? In which case nothing changes as CA already did this.
    No it's not. Wulfhart gives you access to the entire Empire roster. Limiting it to part of the already limited BM roster weakens the argument for buying the LP while still devaluing the BM DLC.

    It's DLC for DLC because the BM are a DLC. If it's for BM it's for DLC regardless of how its done because the BM are a DLC. It can't be separated out like that. CA said they have no plans to do DLC for DLC, and guess what? BM are a DLC. They didn't say they have no plans to do DLC that requires DLC to play. This line of logic requires them to have been far more specific than they were. They simply said no plans for DLC for DLC. That means exactly what they said.

    CA hasn't discounted DLC's significantly. They discount game 1 for 75% off regularly. Game 1 also has all the rest of its content so there's still reason to buy it. An LP that gives away the BM roster makes the BM DLC worthless. It's a question of degrees, Wulfhart might on the margin slightly devalue TWW1. An LP for BM completely devalues them.
    Even better. Wulfhart would commit even greater devaluing than what I propose. However, Wulfhart limited access to Empire units in campaign is partially what I'm talking about, the Imperial supply systems. Now make this new DLC introduce Ghorgon, Jabberslythe and Preyton instead of some other high tier mainstream BM DLC(like maybe Minotaurs and Cygors, maybe others like Chaos Spawn) and you can effectively substitute it so that on its own game 2 DLC plays differently than mainstream BM thus making two DLCs that are roster AND mechanics wise somewhat distinct, thus maintaining the value of mainstream BM DLC. Even further valuing it if it gets a rework alongside this.

    You can play the Beastmen from that DLC without owning the Beastmen game 1 DLC. Therefore it isn't DLC for DLC.

    Also, they said they haven't rules out crossovers in the past, not just what you posted. They also haven't denied no DLC for DLC policy and what I propose gives more of a middle ground. Therefore the gate is open.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 5,062Registered Users
    edited October 3
    Also, just so we're clear, DLC for DLC is when content of a DLC is only playable when you own another DLC. However, as everything I proposed here is playable without having the first BM DLC then it isn't by principle DLC for DLC. It would only be DLC for DLC it it required you to own both DLCs to make it available.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • SteamageSteamage Posts: 400Registered Users
    I believe that and i fully support it.

    Because, waiting years for something coming... "free" make no sense.

    I can surely say, we don't get the, Slaughterbrute, Ghorgon, Medusa, etc for free.

    Will never happen.

    This why, give me the dlcs!
  • GoatforceGoatforce Posts: 3,290Registered Users
    Steamage said:

    I believe that and i fully support it.

    Because, waiting years for something coming... "free" make no sense.

    I can surely say, we don't get the, Slaughterbrute, Ghorgon, Medusa, etc for free.

    Will never happen.

    This why, give me the dlcs!

    Months back I did propose that the pre-order DLC could be a god focussed WoC RP that tied together with the "Undivided" WoC if you owned both, which would come with the WoC rework as well as a FLC LL (Horstman I proposed) that you would get even if you owned only 1 of the 2 packs. Still think that would be a fairly elegant way to get WoC up to standard - as the 2 RPs together (if purchased separately from pre-order) would not be much more than a CP - maybe 1 or 2 pounds more - and would make WoC one of the larger rosters that has 6 LLs, 5 paid and 1 FLC, which seems like a good deal.

    I know some would complain, most probably purely based on the optics of it (just because they didn't like the pre-order WoC for WH1 a pre-order WoC for WH3 is automatically bad), but I think this would be the best chance to ensure a fairly complete roster for WoC - especially since perhaps they could add in some stuff a bit later during WH3 that can be transfered from DoC.
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 2,143Registered Users
    CA: No plans to make DLC for DLC!

    also CA: No plans for Araby!

    Some people: We will get Araby and DLC for DLC, CA just lied to us when they especially said that they don’t have plans for that.

    I‘m getting so tired of this...
  • neodeinosneodeinos Posts: 2,168Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    CA: No plans to make DLC for DLC!

    also CA: No plans for Araby!

    Some people: We will get Araby and DLC for DLC, CA just lied to us when they especially said that they don’t have plans for that.

    I‘m getting so tired of this...

    At least about DLC for DLC they said it was only currently so we can still see them later.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Posts: 3,290Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    CA: No plans to make DLC for DLC!

    also CA: No plans for Araby!

    Some people: We will get Araby and DLC for DLC, CA just lied to us when they especially said that they don’t have plans for that.

    I‘m getting so tired of this...

    Read their quotes on this more precisely, both say "currently no plans for DLC for DLC", the difference between that and your "no plans for X" is vast. Yes there is no chance this game of it realistically, but game 3 is another matter entirely.
Sign In or Register to comment.