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

Maybe the problem with Araby and Kislev is Warmaster

NelthaelNelthael Registered Users Posts: 22
I think the reason why Araby and Kislev have not yet seen the light is because of Warmaster. Just like the naval battles could not be taken out because of problems with the copyright of Man O 'War, CA may have trouble obtaining Warmaster copyright, and that is why these two factions have not yet been able to be developed. At the beginning of total war warhammer 2, it is mentioned that Araby maybe will be a playable faction, they believed in being able to obtain warmaster rights, but this has been impossible for them. That is my theory.

It seems strange to me that Araby, being such a geographically important faction and having an entire army in warmaster has not been developed. The same with kislev, which was an obvious lesson for the first game, and their army is almost all in Warmaster. With Araby I do not believe all that nonsense that it is a political or religious reason, (especially since in Araby's most modern lore the arabyans are specified as godless and bereft of faith, and only the superstitious believe in the djinns). I think that if they have not developed these two factions it is because they have not been able to.
«1

Comments

  • FossowayFossoway Registered Users Posts: 3,257
    edited January 28
    Doubt this was the reason. GW can see how well CA is doing with TW: Warhammer, I don't see them holding out on a whole faction just because of copyrights issues, especially with how willing they are to to let CA bend the current rules (new units that are not from tabletop, dead characters coming back to life, etc).

    My theory is just that CA decided it was not worth it.
    - First, other non-official factions (VCoast and Norsca) reused already made assets, which would have been hard for Araby.
    - Second, the lack of official lords, and therefore interesting characters as flagship.
    - Third, the current geopolitical situation with the Middle-East could have meant CA wanted to avoid any controversies.
    - Fourth, they got a lot of positive feedback from Lord Pack and decided that it was probably more profitable to flesh out the current existing factions instead of making another race that will suffer power creep later on.

    As for Kislev, they are probably holding out on them because Game 3 will need a main Order faction as the good guys, like how Empire and High Elves were from the previous games. I'm not worried about them, I'm sure we will see them eventually.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 9,042
    Ideas of cost/profit imo
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • korradokortokorradokorto Registered Users Posts: 137
    well maybe ,but warmaster was such a failure that gw being picky with its ip seems odd.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 7,494
    Man'o'War has its own video game. Warmaster doesn't.

    Also, have you seen just how ridiculous some of the ships are in Man'o'War? Tzeentch uses a flying ship and a flying tower for a fleet. CA would be hard pressed to make those for every race. Another problem could be that monsters would require special transports just for them.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 2,125
    I storngly doubt that is the reason. CA has used content from several of the stand-alone games, like dreadfleet. Warmaster is ancient and has not been sold for a long time, so I doubt GW would be very protective of it.

    Besides, it's not like CA would have to use anything from waraster to create Kislev or Araby. The warmaster armies were very basic, with only a few types of units for each faction. The miniatures were tiny, and the unit types were very basic like (normal troops/normal ranged troop/elite troop/cavalry), so it would not help much in developing them for total war anyway.
  • bolero567bolero567 Registered Users Posts: 71
    edited January 28
    Nelthael said:

    Araby, being such a geographically important faction

    About that, though. Araby is so compressed to fit the vortex/ME map would there even be room for a full faction? I also think CA have so many factions planned both base game and DLC that Araby didn't make it in. Just Ogres/Chorfs/Daemons/Kislev then Cathay/Monogods DLC for TWW3 would be a decently ambitious release schedule, though I'd hope for more. I was and still am 100% for a full Araby faction (thought it'd be the preorder bonus) but I'd happily take a couple of units and a generic lord for Southern Realms or Dogs of War, so long as other factions got more content as a result.

  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 3,949
    I mean, we have seen some issues like this in the past; CA did say that the reason they created Cylostra Direfin was because they weren't allowed to use any more Dreadfleet characters by GW, as that would have resulted in the majority of the characters being from Dreadfleet, and GW said that would make it more of a Dreadfleet DLC than a Vampire Coast DLC.

    Of course, CA was still allowed to use some elements from Dreadfleet, including both characters and units. So there's presumably some leeway allowed by GW, it's just not clear how much.
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 9,035
    Well we won’t get Araby but we definitely will get Kislev. That’s out of question.

    If we look at Araby we can see that this area is already filled with many other factions.

    But Kislev is still an empty spot on the map without any playable factions around.

    Kislev is 98% safe right now.
  • MarkerMarker Registered Users Posts: 1,219
    Fossoway said:

    Doubt this was the reason. GW can see how well CA is doing with TW: Warhammer, I don't see them holding out on a whole faction just because of copyrights issues, especially with how willing they are to to let CA bend the current rules (new units that are not from tabletop, dead characters coming back to life, etc).

    My theory is just that CA decided it was not worth it.
    - First, other non-official factions (VCoast and Norsca) reused already made assets, which would have been hard for Araby.
    - Second, the lack of official lords, and therefore interesting characters as flagship.
    - Third, the current geopolitical situation with the Middle-East could have meant CA wanted to avoid any controversies.
    - Fourth, they got a lot of positive feedback from Lord Pack and decided that it was probably more profitable to flesh out the current existing factions instead of making another race that will suffer power creep later on.

    As for Kislev, they are probably holding out on them because Game 3 will need a main Order faction as the good guys, like how Empire and High Elves were from the previous games. I'm not worried about them, I'm sure we will see them eventually.

    I Agree, but like they said, there are no '' current plans '' for Araby, so we might see them, but to be honest they are at the bottom of the list if u look at all the factions still possible, even possible new fleshed out factions and they could also be part of Dogs of War like many others alike Amazons ect.
  • MarkerMarker Registered Users Posts: 1,219
    Crossil said:

    Man'o'War has its own video game. Warmaster doesn't.

    Also, have you seen just how ridiculous some of the ships are in Man'o'War? Tzeentch uses a flying ship and a flying tower for a fleet. CA would be hard pressed to make those for every race. Another problem could be that monsters would require special transports just for them.

    Yeah, naval battles was never going to be a thing in TWW. Its an entirely different game that u don't just simply add.
  • MarkerMarker Registered Users Posts: 1,219
    ArneSo said:

    Well we won’t get Araby but we definitely will get Kislev. That’s out of question.

    If we look at Araby we can see that this area is already filled with many other factions.

    But Kislev is still an empty spot on the map without any playable factions around.

    Kislev is 98% safe right now.

    I Agree, huge part of the map and can be put on the TWW3 map as a '' good guy faction ''
    It also has lots of lore with Chaos and Norsca
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 9,035
    Marker said:

    ArneSo said:

    Well we won’t get Araby but we definitely will get Kislev. That’s out of question.

    If we look at Araby we can see that this area is already filled with many other factions.

    But Kislev is still an empty spot on the map without any playable factions around.

    Kislev is 98% safe right now.

    I Agree, huge part of the map and can be put on the TWW3 map as a '' good guy faction ''
    It also has lots of lore with Chaos and Norsca
    Exactly. From CAs perspective it just made sense to save Kislev for later.

    In WH1 we already had enough good races with the Empire, Dwarfs, Bretonnia and WE so for CA it made more sense to add Norsca instead of Kislev.

    “Sorry it’s not Kislev” made clear that CA is pretty aware of the hype about that race.
    Kislev is a huge fan favourite since WH1 and just perfect as a WH3 race against the forces of chaos.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 2,963
    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 9,035

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 2,125
    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    They have already used stuff from other games though, like dreadfleet. So clearly it is not only whfb.
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 9,035

    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    They have already used stuff from other games though, like dreadfleet. So clearly it is not only whfb.
    Yes and they were only allowed to use 2 Characters from Dreadfleet because it is a different IP.

    40k and AoS are totally different settings and IPs.

    I remember that CA said they have a license for WHFB and only for WHFB.
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 5,683
    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    They have already used stuff from other games though, like dreadfleet. So clearly it is not only whfb.
    Yes and they were only allowed to use 2 Characters from Dreadfleet because it is a different IP.

    40k and AoS are totally different settings and IPs.

    I remember that CA said they have a license for WHFB and only for WHFB.
    Still, they were allowed to use stuff from it. So GW can allow stuff even if it's not the WHFB license.
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 3,949
    neodeinos said:

    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    They have already used stuff from other games though, like dreadfleet. So clearly it is not only whfb.
    Yes and they were only allowed to use 2 Characters from Dreadfleet because it is a different IP.

    40k and AoS are totally different settings and IPs.

    I remember that CA said they have a license for WHFB and only for WHFB.
    Still, they were allowed to use stuff from it. So GW can allow stuff even if it's not the WHFB license.
    It's presumably on a case-by-case basis, though. And if the Dreadfleet example is something to go off of, it means they'll only let you use so much.

    In short Kislev might be able to use some items from the Warmaster list, but may have to build the rest of its roster using other sources. Pretty sure they had a roster listed in the Citadel Journal, for example, and that stuff seems to be very firmly under the WHFB heading. Likewise there's stuff from White Dwarf, and maybe stuff from the Kislev RPG as well.
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 2,125
    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    They have already used stuff from other games though, like dreadfleet. So clearly it is not only whfb.
    Yes and they were only allowed to use 2 Characters from Dreadfleet because it is a different IP.

    40k and AoS are totally different settings and IPs.

    I remember that CA said they have a license for WHFB and only for WHFB.
    Almost all of the stuff we have in this game is part of the age of sigmar IP though. They still sell the same miniatures that existed for warhammer fantasy in age of sigmar, so they have been using things from that IP since game launch. I doubt such things are a problem.
  • twwatchertwwatcher Registered Users Posts: 2,379
    On naval battles CA have never mentioned copyright being a problem:

    CA have been clear about Araby in terms of no plans, reasons at present unknown. Its been a hot topic due to its fit with TWW2's standalone campaign. With Kislev think we need to see what's happening with TWW 3 before you can make such parallels.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/745prn/psa_ca_has_no_trouble_getting_the_manowar_licence/
  • AxiosXiphosAxiosXiphos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 915
    twwatcher said:

    On naval battles CA have never mentioned copyright being a problem:

    CA have been clear about Araby in terms of no plans, reasons at present unknown. Its been a hot topic due to its fit with TWW2's standalone campaign. With Kislev think we need to see what's happening with TWW 3 before you can make such parallels.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/745prn/psa_ca_has_no_trouble_getting_the_manowar_licence/

    Think Kislev are likely but I'm betting possibly as a pre-order race for Warhammer 3. The fact they were so specific about the lord packs only statement not including this makes me thing its likely. I still think Mono-gods at launch are likely for WH3 but... lets not get drawn down that rabbit hole again.

    In many respects Kislev matches perfectly to the Norsca model. It's a faction which is currently being held by a placeholder. Many of its unit will be copy-pasted from their mother faction (chaos for norsca, empire for Kislev) and it fits perfectly with only 2 LL (though you could make it to 4 without too much trouble).
  • twwatchertwwatcher Registered Users Posts: 2,379

    twwatcher said:

    On naval battles CA have never mentioned copyright being a problem:

    CA have been clear about Araby in terms of no plans, reasons at present unknown. Its been a hot topic due to its fit with TWW2's standalone campaign. With Kislev think we need to see what's happening with TWW 3 before you can make such parallels.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/745prn/psa_ca_has_no_trouble_getting_the_manowar_licence/

    Think Kislev are likely but I'm betting possibly as a pre-order race for Warhammer 3. The fact they were so specific about the lord packs only statement not including this makes me thing its likely. I still think Mono-gods at launch are likely for WH3 but... lets not get drawn down that rabbit hole again.

    In many respects Kislev matches perfectly to the Norsca model. It's a faction which is currently being held by a placeholder. Many of its unit will be copy-pasted from their mother faction (chaos for norsca, empire for Kislev) and it fits perfectly with only 2 LL (though you could make it to 4 without too much trouble).
    Or possibly the FLC model like Bretonnia, not playable at launch with bare bones roster used as a marketing ploy to pull in the punters. Doubt CA see much DLC potential in it as a core race.
  • Some_ScribeSome_Scribe Registered Users Posts: 1,376
    Considering that the games have pulled stuff from the Warhammer RPGs (which weren't even published by GW) and that the Vampire Coast liberally uses stuff from Dreadfleet (a separate game from WHFB that shares its setting...just like Warmaster), I don't think OP's suggestion has much merit.

    CA and GW can do what they want with these games, up to and including making up new characters and even lores of magic (Aranessa and the Lore of the Deep). They've just decided for some sad reason to not add Araby. At least there's still hope for Kislev.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 2,963
    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    Sega definitely also have a license for W40k, since they are published Dawn of War.. and technically a license for WHFB would also be for Age of Sigmar.. SEGA is also currently listed as the publisheer of all previous THQ W40K titles.

    With that being said, I am pretty sure that SEGA doesn't own Focus Interactive or Fatshark, which respectively developed Mordheim and Vermintide.. So I would imagine that individual "Boxed Games" like Mordheim, Necromunda and Bloodbowl are exempt from the license that SEGA holds.
  • ArchRangerArchRanger Registered Users Posts: 100
    edited January 28

    twwatcher said:

    On naval battles CA have never mentioned copyright being a problem:

    CA have been clear about Araby in terms of no plans, reasons at present unknown. Its been a hot topic due to its fit with TWW2's standalone campaign. With Kislev think we need to see what's happening with TWW 3 before you can make such parallels.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/745prn/psa_ca_has_no_trouble_getting_the_manowar_licence/

    Think Kislev are likely but I'm betting possibly as a pre-order race for Warhammer 3. The fact they were so specific about the lord packs only statement not including this makes me thing its likely. I still think Mono-gods at launch are likely for WH3 but... lets not get drawn down that rabbit hole again.

    In many respects Kislev matches perfectly to the Norsca model. It's a faction which is currently being held by a placeholder. Many of its unit will be copy-pasted from their mother faction (chaos for norsca, empire for Kislev) and it fits perfectly with only 2 LL (though you could make it to 4 without too much trouble).
    *EDiT: Not sure how I missed this comment but that's how I feel as well. Kislev would work perfect as a Norsca type pre-order since they can be used in WH2 via ME map (also enables WH3 owners to play ME in WH2) and used on the Grand Campaign map for WH3. Norsca aren't playable on the Vortex map so there's no reason for the potential pre-order race to be playabel on the Darklands map in WH3.
    ArneSo said:

    Well we won’t get Araby but we definitely will get Kislev. That’s out of question.

    If we look at Araby we can see that this area is already filled with many other factions.

    But Kislev is still an empty spot on the map without any playable factions around.

    Kislev is 98% safe right now.

    I really don't understand how so many people look at Kislev as a guaranteed thing when they have the same issue that Norsca had with not having a full roster. Kislev only had 5/6 unique units in it's AB and the rest was all Empire filler. They also had only 2 LL's which is again, closer to Norsca rather than a full fledged race. We aren't gauraunteed more minor races and the only one with a lot of content to stand on it's own is Dogs of War and Araby with the Warmaster list but that was shot down. I could see Kislev being the potential pre-order using mostly Empire units and it's official handful from the AB but that's about it. My point is that no minor race is even 50% safe right now. There is plenty of ways for CA to pad out the remaining 4 years of the Warhammer license without ever touching another new race outside of CD, Ogres, and Daemons.

    Also, you can apply you Araby logic to Kislev as well. Kislev is full of Skaven (especially once Moulder is properly added), Norsca, Empire (not currently playble up there but still plenty of LL's left for them to be added), and in-early game the WoC.

    As for the OP, we truly don't know what the blocker for Araby is but I doubt it has anything to do with copywrite issues with Warmaster. So far CA has dived into almost every major and secondary source of Warhammer lore/content so I couldn't imagine there being an issue with that. If I were to guess, I'd have to go with the unfortunate assumption that it is tied to real life politics and avoiding SJW attacks from white people that feel offended on other's behalf. I am still really hoping they will take back this decision and add the minor human races at some point though but TBH it isn't looking good with only 4 years of the license left and so much content amongst the current 15 races to add.
    Post edited by ArchRanger on
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 9,035

    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    Sega definitely also have a license for W40k, since they are published Dawn of War.. and technically a license for WHFB would also be for Age of Sigmar.. SEGA is also currently listed as the publisheer of all previous THQ W40K titles.

    With that being said, I am pretty sure that SEGA doesn't own Focus Interactive or Fatshark, which respectively developed Mordheim and Vermintide.. So I would imagine that individual "Boxed Games" like Mordheim, Necromunda and Bloodbowl are exempt from the license that SEGA holds.
    Yes Sega but not CA.

    Sega is just the publisher of the games CA makes.

    CA said back in the day that they bought the license for WHFB because they always had the dream to make a total war game about warhammer. They have a license for WHFB and only for WHFB.

    They are simply not allowed to use stuff from AoS or 40k because they would need a different license for that.

    Working with licenses is very tricky.

    If we look at the LotR series Amazon is producing we can see a similar problem.
    Amazon is just allowed to use stuff from the 2. Century of LotR history.

    In the same way CA is just allowed to use WHFB stuff. Dreadfleet is technically part of WHFB but still a different game. That’s why there where only allowed to use 2 characters. It was a special case were CA worked together with GW.

    If CA would have a licence for all warhammer things, than we wouldn’t have the fat opera lady.
  • twwatchertwwatcher Registered Users Posts: 2,379
    edited January 28
    Original press release:

    SEGA® Europe Ltd. today announced that Creative Assembly™, award-winning creator of the Total War™ series, and SEGA® Group have entered into a multi-title licensing deal with Games Workshop® to create videogames based in the Warhammer® universe of fantasy battles.

    That's all that's been published, no timescales or the nature of the licensee regarding inclusivity or exclusivity. CA limited to the whatever GW defines as the WHFB universe.

    https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121206005396/en/SEGA-Creative-Assembly-Announce-Partnership-Games-Workshop
  • NelthaelNelthael Registered Users Posts: 22
    It is true that Kislev is a possible TW3 core faction, but in the same way that Kislev fits very well with the theme of the third game, Araby would have been an ideal inclusion to fill the southlands after the inclusion of the tomb kings. People are now more reluctant, but a few years ago everyone asked for Araby until transform it into a tired meme. And so it seems strange to me that CA first say "araby are currently owned by bretonnian crusaders" and now they give a resounding no. Perhaps with dreadfleet GW it was more permissive, but Warmaster has other implications that limit being able to develop araby in total war.
  • twwatchertwwatcher Registered Users Posts: 2,379
    edited January 28
    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    Im fairly certain that the license SEGA acquired was for all Game Workshop wargame products. Which means that all Warhammer (Fantasy Battle, Age of Sigmar and 40k) products and off-shoots are fair game.

    Nope it is only for WHFB.
    Sega definitely also have a license for W40k, since they are published Dawn of War.. and technically a license for WHFB would also be for Age of Sigmar.. SEGA is also currently listed as the publisheer of all previous THQ W40K titles.

    With that being said, I am pretty sure that SEGA doesn't own Focus Interactive or Fatshark, which respectively developed Mordheim and Vermintide.. So I would imagine that individual "Boxed Games" like Mordheim, Necromunda and Bloodbowl are exempt from the license that SEGA holds.
    Yes Sega but not CA.

    Sega is just the publisher of the games CA makes.

    CA said back in the day that they bought the license for WHFB because they always had the dream to make a total war game about warhammer. They have a license for WHFB and only for WHFB.

    They are simply not allowed to use stuff from AoS or 40k because they would need a different license for that.

    Working with licenses is very tricky.

    If we look at the LotR series Amazon is producing we can see a similar problem.
    Amazon is just allowed to use stuff from the 2. Century of LotR history.

    In the same way CA is just allowed to use WHFB stuff. Dreadfleet is technically part of WHFB but still a different game. That’s why there where only allowed to use 2 characters. It was a special case were CA worked together with GW.

    If CA would have a licence for all warhammer things, than we wouldn’t have the fat opera lady.
    They are more than just the publisher they own CA outright, they bought all the shares in CA in 2005. CA is a full owned subsidiary of Sega. But you are right the phrasing of the press release is that its a license entered into between Sega and CA and GW just for TWFB.

    Doh WHFB (Freudian slip).
    Post edited by twwatcher on
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 3,949
    My personal suspicion is the Warmaster army list was just too generic and CA didn't think there was enough material elsewhere in the setting to build Araby up to a playable state.

    It's possible they may make the same judgement about Kislev, but Kislev also has a lot of other resources to draw on, so those might offset some of the limits Araby has.
Sign In or Register to comment.