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

Suggestion for a potential lord pack for Norsca in game 3.

Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 869
edited November 2020 in General Discussion
This post aims to look to potential expansions to rosters that will come in game 3 with a specific focus on lord packs. CA has spent a lot of time demonstrating that lord packs are standalone content that provide a consistent amount of content for the price, which is now being used to offer expansion to factions regardless of where the original content was sold.

A few guiding assumptions this post is based upon. 1. Any race in the game can receive a lord pack with unique mechanics and units that are not beholden to the original release. 2. Army themes will be used as a guide when deciding on what deserves expansion and may justify units that are not explicitly from the tabletop. 3. Units, Mechanics, and Lords will expand a races playstyle without overtly removing weaknesses. 4. While lord pack match ups will be suggested this post will focus only one side of a lord pack.

Now with that out of the way, why Norsca? Norsca is ripe for a lord pack expansion for a few reasons. First, some northern tribes will 100% be on any conceivable game three map. Second, chaos will have 4 in game factions which have experienced some overlap over the course of the tabletop game’s history so spreading the lords and units around will help keep army identities more distinct, while limiting lord bloat and bringing in as many neat ideas and units as possible. Norsca has the least legendary lords (and lords in general) and has a flexible guiding ethos which makes expansion easy given chaos’ abundance of characters. The Northern tribes have a lot of units that are thematically incompatible with a WoC roster but can nicely slot into Norsca. Finally, Norsca as a pack was pretty reasonably priced meaning that it requires less of a rework and does not require an FLC lord to be worth the price of admission as the wood elves and the beastmen do.

Short aside about lord bloat
What I mean by lord bloat is not having too many characters, but having characters distributed in such a way that some overshadow very similar options. WoC have a lot of similar lords who in one army would provide a samey experience overall. By placing them in different rosters even if the lord is similar mechanically the experience provided is unique. Also it has the benefit of reducing the instance of a lord being completely overshadowed in multiplayer because another lord does a similar job either better or more cheaply. F's in chat for Eltharion.


Before discussing units we need to identify Norsca’s theme and army playstyle. For many people both of these are fairly obvious. Monsters. Monster hunting, a roster full of monster, big beasties everywhere to kill and be killed by, blood for the blood god, glory to the hound, etc. While this is an outcome of Norsca’s theme and does define its army playstyle it is not the core idea. At its core Norsca is the unfavored and unchosen of chaos. Norsca’s lords are currently 2 (relatively) minor champions of chaos who despite receiving gifts are not rewarded with positions of authority, their roster includes a variety of beings who chaos has abandoned or afflicted with conditions that are a more curse than blessing, their units are consistently shown to be scrounging for resources that the chosen of chaos have in abundance, and Norsca’s campaign mechanics literally lets them challenge the Everchosen himself, toppling the ordained champions of chaos because fighting for the approval of the gods is what they do. Practically this leads to their roster having a lot of the weird chaos units that don’t fit neatly into either the DoC or the WoC roster, with their only leg up being access to some nasty monsters (and whether or not that will stick going into game 3 is unclear).

This is an interesting place mechanically as it means the Norscan roster is not limited in the way the Warriors of Chaos, the Beastmen, or the Daemons of Chaos are/will be. In practical terms, weird monsters, inferior equipment, no favored beings of chaos such as daemons. Basically, a generalist chaos faction that makes up for it's lack of strength with a wider range of tools than either the Beastmen or the Warriors. This is a good theme and one that is easy to build upon.

Now after all of that text we can start talking about units. I’ve seen discussions of the inclusion of a Kurgan or a Hung race pack and that frankly seems to be a recipe for creating more small factions when it would be quite simple to roll them into a subfaction of Norsca. Between the Kurgan and the Hung who both have a similar nomadic horsemen aesthetic the Kurgan have more lore and specific legendary lords, so they will be the focus of this pack.

Units




Kurgan archers: Yeah this is pretty bland, but I think they exapnd upon the generalist feel of the faction. A cheap archer unit comparable to the empire archers with better melee stats (I’d suggest making them decent melee combatants) and the rage mechanic. They provide a tradeoff compared to the javelin marauders when going up against a faction that isn’t bringing large units. Having 120 range is a substantial increase compared to the javelins while also still being substantially shorter than order factions ranged units. While it could be argued this steps on the beastmen's toe's a bit, I'd suggest that stalk and fast movement are the key parts of the beastmen playstyle. Ungors are still more able to reposition and are less likely to be focused down by the ranged units of another faction.

Kurgan horse archers: Pretty comparable to most skirmish cav with bows. I suggest a range of 140 making them comparable to skeleton horse archers and ellyrian reavers. This is something the Kurgan are known for and helps expand the playstyles available to Norsca without simply replacing other units. How does this not replace horsemen? Garbage melee stats, limited armor, poor charge bonus, and lower missile damage. These guys want to kite all day with parthian shot, not soften up the enemies before running them over. They’d be priced around 700, similar to the price of horsemasters. This leaves horsemen as a budget option, with horsemasters and horse archers offering a trade of range for missile damage and melee potential.

Kurgan Raiders: So here we get into a melee cavalry unit. Since the Kurgan and the Ungol have a similar background and are known for having the best light cavalry around it seems this would be a place to let a unit overperform slightly. Handweapons (likely axes) and shields, very fast, great melee stats for light cav, (34 MA, 28 MD, 50 CB for example), high weapon strength for light cav with mediocre ap ratio and I’d argue they should have frenzy for a bit more punch in melee. They are still marauders so still only have 15 armor making them squishy. I would also like an armored variant that has 50 to 60 armor, making them comparable to horsemasters defensively, while blowing them out of the water in melee. Heavy cavalry is a warrior of chaos feature and would provide Norsca a strength that was intentionally carved out of their roster so I've specifically avoided providing a more elite upgrade. Rot knights and Rot beasts would be a bit much, though I hope to see them in other chaos rosters more suited for heavy cavalry.

Aside about the difference between light and heavy cavalry:
Some keen-eyed viewers may be wondering how these units won’t perform at a similar level to wild riders with such high stats? The answer is that wild riders (and centigors) are not actually light cavalry. They are unarmored heavy cavalry. What is the difference? Mass. The impact on a charge from wild riders and centigors is comparable to heavy cavalry and impact damage accounts for between ¼ and 1/3 of damage immediately dealt upon a charge. I used the mod tools to strip all damage and accuracy from cavalry at various masses (taken from TWWS.com) and noted significant differences in damage dealt on impact. Also counter charging cavalry is a bad idea since you take more impact damage if your unit is charged while in motion. Regardless if these Kurgan Raiders have a mass of 600 they will not outperform heavier cav when used against infantry.



Toad Dragon:



So for this slot you could fit most any beastie in for Chaos but the Toad Dragon is linked to a Kurgan lord who I think would slot nicely into Norsca and also provides an opportunity for filling another niche that Norsca doesn’t have. Instead of giving the Toad dragon a breath weapon as a bound ability I’d want them to be closer to how the release ancient salamander played, just with severely reduced ammo capacity. Essentially a melee monster that can make some short-range artillery shots. The Toad Dragon would be primarily a melee monster but Norsca has a lot of those already. This gives more flexibility with the roster while still leaving it inferior to both the Beastmen and the Warriors of Chaos.

Insert leftover beastie here: Got a monster that doesn’t slide into another chaos roster? Well it could go in here without much trouble. My pick would be the Basilisk over something like the Chimera, the Cursed Ettin, or Plague Ogres simply because I think it is neat. Might be worthwhile to shrink it down and make it a multi model unit so it does not directly compete with the Toad Dragon. Or you could shift the artillery attack here and just give the Toad Dragon a normal breath weapon. While that makes the Toad Dragon feel more redundant with preexisting units it allows for the same roster expansion I mentioned above while keeping units closer to tabletop, if that’s your bag. Regardless basically anything can slot in here as long as it’s chaos themed and isn’t vital to another army.

An aside about Plague Ogres:


So these would be super on brand for the theming of the pack depending on the legendary lord and are technically separate enough from chaos ogres that including them in the roster wouldn’t be stealing something too vital, but Norsca already has a lot of monstrous infantry and without knowing how Ogres are going to be implemented I’m concerned they would crowd the roster without expanding playstyle. If they are similar to trolls with better leadership, it basically becomes a matter of pricing. It is certainly possible to do something unique with them but I’m struggling to justify it. As for why I mentioned them over bile trolls... bile trolls definitely do not feel unique enough to warrant a unit slot. In theory chaos ogres may only be available to the WoC making this unit comparable to the Ice Trolls, a similar unit with a different purpose in another roster.



Arch-Sorcerer: Caster lord. Pretty self-explanatory. Given that this is game 3 they’d be able to add the lores of Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle which would be an impactful expansion. While an argument could be made for limiting the God specific lores to help differentiate factions I don't think access to these lores of magic is a great tool for enforcing asymmetry.

Legendary Lord: Tamurkhan.



He rides a Toad dragon, he’s Kurgan through and through, while he is a champion blessed by Nurgle, he’s got stiff competition for placement in either the DoC or the WoC and I think it is possible to do him justice with Norsca’s roster. For unique mechanics, that will depend somewhat on match up but instead of choosing which God to venerate he’d be specifically attempting to complete some goal in Nurgle’s glory. Given the presence of the Daemons in game three attempting to prepare for the coming of a great unclean one (who could be a unique legendary lord available to his subfaction a la the Azrik the Maze Keeper) is a pretty easy justification for a tussle with any non-chaos faction. If CA wanted to go the extra mile his quest for the Throne of Chaos and ascension is on the table, but I don't think his lore goals translate particularly well. More importantly, Tamurkhan is mechanically very different from either Trogg or Wulfrik making him a worthwhile investment on the players part, as a unit and as a faction.

Additionally he provides an opportunity to play around with mounts, either having him start with Bubebolos, a la Grom and the Bretonnian's, or have his various corpse puppets act as "mount" options. As for his rule about taking over the bodies of enemies or allies... well that's probably gonna have to be scraped. Still even without that element he's an awesome character and one I would hate to miss out on because Nurgle has so many other characters to choose from.

Less good legendary lord option: Vardek Crom the Conqueror



Also, fairly easy to justify a campaign for. He is the everchosen’s vanguard so a campaign about preparing the world for the coming of chaos by clearing a path into the old world, smashing Kislev aside, etc. In lore he goes to prepare an army worthy of Archeon from his people, giving him a link to Norsca’s unchosen theme. He has the benefit of being undivided which means you can have a campaign that incorporates more of Norsca’s old mechanics (though that is more of a benefit to CA). However, he does not add much as a lord being essentially a tankier/killier marauder chieftain. Hell he kind of steps on Wulfrik's toes what with being a duelist. Solid FLC lord choice I think but I would be pretty miffed if he was being sold as a third lord for Norsca.

I guess I should mention him: Sayl the Faithless



This guy is... fine. He has cool looking art. He's a caster lord so that nicely fits with the generic lord option I suggested. He's within the Kurgan tribes. But otherwise he's rather bare bones. He doesn't have a new lore, his tabletop abilities make him more mobile and let him cast a bit better. He does have a unique... thing in nightmaw but at best it makes him just a caster who can effectively mix things up in melee or a bodyguard "hero" unit. His items provide support for his melee capacity and his casting. Admittedly some of this is him personally not doing much for me, I don't think anything about him warrants taking a DLC slot. Crom is more impactful from a lore standpoint and has a better justification for the match up but Sayl would edge him out on mechanics I think. Also a solid FLC lord in my eyes.

Match up suggestions:

Ogre Kingdoms: Fairly self-explanatory. Tamurkhan spent a lot of his time fighting Ogres in lore and he was particularly vexed by the mountains of morne so a campaign focused on subjugating the Ogre tribes has a natural motivation. Crom works less effectively here, but he is the vanguard of the everchosen. If Archaon orders it, he will get it done. This seems to be the path of least resistance.

Chaos Dwarfs: While not as personally vexing for Tamurkhan, they were reintroduced in the Throne of Chaos and did have a major clash. However the Dawi Zharr most likely to be matched against Tamurkhan is very likely to be in the base of game 3. This does not mean such a match up is impossible (the prophet and the warlock used an unusual rivalry but was able to create a solid thematic linkage) but it does make this pairing a less exciting opportunity. Quite possible, but not super likely.

Kislev: This one aligns far better with Crom than Tamurkhan on the face of it. The first bulwark against the tide of chaos means there is an immediate conflict with minimal required justification. Crom burning through Kislev is true to the lore and offers a meaningful connection to a potential DoC campaign. Hard to say anything about this without more knowledge on the implementation. While GW's revival of the Old World likely means CA wouldn't be creating characters from scratch in a vacuum it's hard to know how many Kislev characters we should expect. I'd say this is unlikely.

Empire: This is the spicy one. As of game 3 I believe the idea of core races is becoming untenable. By its nature game 1 races are going to be underrepresented since they had the least amount of time to appear in lord packs assuming a core race must always be present. And simply based on proximity I can't imagine the game 3 map with have no imperial presence. As such I think CA is likely to nix that requirement leaning harder into lord packs as independent content that have their own unique mechanics for the lords. In this case it would be quite possible to have a lord pack that features two factions that are not a part of the core races as long as both fit onto the game 3 map. There are a few Middenland and Nuln themed units that are available for a pack, and it would provide an opportunity to promote Toddy to playable on the map (as FLC). Not to mention a certain dragon riding amethyst wizard has an in-lore reason to oppose Tamurkhan... This is the best option to my mind, and certainly more likely than Kislev. The only issue is that Nuln is mighty far south for a theoretical game 3 map, and while I think that some part of the empire will definitely have to be included in a game three map, Nuln might be pushing it. Crom has a much easier time in this case since he took the standard chaos invasion route.

These are all the match ups I think are worthy of mention based upon the information we have available. Feedback and thoughts are welcome.
Post edited by Spellbound55 on
«1

Comments

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505
    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • DwarfSizedBeardDwarfSizedBeard Registered Users Posts: 936
    norsca vs Norse dwarfs
  • ReghisReghis Registered Users Posts: 1,016

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505
    edited October 2020
    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • ReghisReghis Registered Users Posts: 1,016

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505
    edited October 2020
    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number. But please do keep draging this dumb argument foward whoch race is important and which isn't and extend discussion on bretonnia subject matter.

    All races deserve their fair share of dlc. No exceptions. Unless you haven't been in fourm long enough you should no i support vampire counts blood lines, empire dlc, pig dlc just as much. I am just asking squeeze a bret one in there.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • ReghisReghis Registered Users Posts: 1,016

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505
    edited October 2020
    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, woc so not every damn race. And wood elf has even more complex relationship and DE raid bretonnia.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • BjornNorlinderBjornNorlinder Registered Users Posts: 818
    Bad ideas. Just destroy the identity of the roster and give them things they lack for a clear reason...

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505

    Bad ideas. Just destroy the identity of the roster and give them things they lack for a clear reason...

    Not totally off though, toad dragon was kurgen thing but so is mammoth so it fits. And they can do kurgen lp to norsca. With other kurgen stuff. But would make them more woC like.

    Though, it also makes sense to them to get crussed ettin, fimir matrich, some kind of wearkin lord, hopefully bear. And dark emissary since they tied to belkor.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • ReghisReghis Registered Users Posts: 1,016

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, so not every damn race.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.
    Bretonnias "rivalrys" if you want to call it that way are a joke compared to other factions like Empire, Kislev, Dwarfs etc. they were pretty much abandoned by GW and yet they have the same amount of LL as the **** EMPIRE or the dwarfs imagine that. And youre still forcing your Bret crap in every thread....we literally had to explain you why a bret LP in game two makes no sense ...am i against a Bret LP? nope i want one more LL for them in the faaaar future (Bohemond vs Chaos Lord XY? sure) but yo are spamming this nonsense daily like there are no other races that need LPs before.
    Know what? there are: Empire need 2 more, Dwarfs need two more, GS need one more, Vampires need their Bloodlines, Beastmen need so much stuff, WoC need so much stuff, game 3 races will have less LL at launch and years after than the damn Brets. Thats why i think your trash spam is so obnoxious....Brets are an unimportant footnote and for some weird reason they already got more stuff than some major races + Empire, Dwarfs etc fans are not spamming on the daily basis like you do even if that races need much more love from CA...

    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505
    edited October 2020
    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, so not every damn race.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.
    Bretonnias "rivalrys" if you want to call it that way are a joke compared to other factions like Empire, Kislev, Dwarfs etc. they were pretty much abandoned by GW and yet they have the same amount of LL as the **** EMPIRE or the dwarfs imagine that. And youre still forcing your Bret crap in every thread....we literally had to explain you why a bret LP in game two makes no sense ...am i against a Bret LP? nope i want one more LL for them in the faaaar future (Bohemond vs Chaos Lord XY? sure) but yo are spamming this nonsense daily like there are no other races that need LPs before.
    Know what? there are: Empire need 2 more, Dwarfs need two more, GS need one more, Vampires need their Bloodlines, Beastmen need so much stuff, WoC need so much stuff, game 3 races will have less LL at launch and years after than the damn Brets. Thats why i think your trash spam is so obnoxious....Brets are an unimportant footnote and for some weird reason they already got more stuff than some major races + Empire, Dwarfs etc fans are not spamming on the daily basis like you do even if that races need much more love from CA...

    Well lets see dwarf got 1 dlc , empire two dlc. Bret zero dlc.

    And lets compare bret reworks to empire rework not in the same ball park.even dwarf rework was better.
    Only reaso bret got second flc lord was it was free, and it was same time as a similar 40k realse.

    Kislev has no army book compared to bret , and whole end time book was based on story of bretonnia. So ehm better than kislev. Which honestly dosen't matter.
    Stop acting like jealous child, it looks bad.

    And unfortunately bohemond role was given to alberic he has BvL, item that gives aoe bvl, hippogrph, and aoe buff that increase charge bonus and speed.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,494
    To OP I ask, what is Tamurkhan's competition? He isn't DoC so he was never a potential DoC LL and his only real rival is Festus the Leechlord from WoC 8th who is a lot more bland. Everyone else is either older characters or ET characters who have never taken priority over 8th edition characters, my example being Imrik wasn't an 8th character but an older one who became ET.

    You even say Norsca's point is being Undivided so I'd rather give God Aligned characters to WoC and unaligned to Norsca to stay consistent with Norsca's mecahnics. There are easy choices like a Caster LL in Sayl the Faithless as you mention and the best Norscan LL in Lord Mortkin. Tamurkhan should be either first or second WoC Nurgle LL. I'd say Festus as part of a rework and Tamurkhan as an LP.
  • ReghisReghis Registered Users Posts: 1,016

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, so not every damn race.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.
    Bretonnias "rivalrys" if you want to call it that way are a joke compared to other factions like Empire, Kislev, Dwarfs etc. they were pretty much abandoned by GW and yet they have the same amount of LL as the **** EMPIRE or the dwarfs imagine that. And youre still forcing your Bret crap in every thread....we literally had to explain you why a bret LP in game two makes no sense ...am i against a Bret LP? nope i want one more LL for them in the faaaar future (Bohemond vs Chaos Lord XY? sure) but yo are spamming this nonsense daily like there are no other races that need LPs before.
    Know what? there are: Empire need 2 more, Dwarfs need two more, GS need one more, Vampires need their Bloodlines, Beastmen need so much stuff, WoC need so much stuff, game 3 races will have less LL at launch and years after than the damn Brets. Thats why i think your trash spam is so obnoxious....Brets are an unimportant footnote and for some weird reason they already got more stuff than some major races + Empire, Dwarfs etc fans are not spamming on the daily basis like you do even if that races need much more love from CA...

    Well lets see dwarf got 1 dlc , empire two dlc. Bret zero dlc.

    And lets compare bret reworks to empire rework not in the same ball park.even dwarf rework was better.
    Only reaso bret got second flc lord was it was free, and it was same time as a similar 40k realse.

    Kislev has no army book compared to bret , and whole end time book was based on story of bretonnia. So ehm better than kislev. Which honestly dosen't matter.
    Stop acting like jealous child, it looks bad.
    the fact that you compare Brets to Empire or Dwarfs just shows that it makes not sense to discuss with you. Both are missing **** tons of LL and two thematic LPs...brets are maybe missing some RoRs and your beloved giant snails. They are a FLC Race for a reasons

    so whatever floats your boat. Like i said keep spamming your trash but prepare yourself for a dissapointment.
    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505
    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, so not every damn race.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.
    Bretonnias "rivalrys" if you want to call it that way are a joke compared to other factions like Empire, Kislev, Dwarfs etc. they were pretty much abandoned by GW and yet they have the same amount of LL as the **** EMPIRE or the dwarfs imagine that. And youre still forcing your Bret crap in every thread....we literally had to explain you why a bret LP in game two makes no sense ...am i against a Bret LP? nope i want one more LL for them in the faaaar future (Bohemond vs Chaos Lord XY? sure) but yo are spamming this nonsense daily like there are no other races that need LPs before.
    Know what? there are: Empire need 2 more, Dwarfs need two more, GS need one more, Vampires need their Bloodlines, Beastmen need so much stuff, WoC need so much stuff, game 3 races will have less LL at launch and years after than the damn Brets. Thats why i think your trash spam is so obnoxious....Brets are an unimportant footnote and for some weird reason they already got more stuff than some major races + Empire, Dwarfs etc fans are not spamming on the daily basis like you do even if that races need much more love from CA...

    Well lets see dwarf got 1 dlc , empire two dlc. Bret zero dlc.

    And lets compare bret reworks to empire rework not in the same ball park.even dwarf rework was better.
    Only reaso bret got second flc lord was it was free, and it was same time as a similar 40k realse.

    Kislev has no army book compared to bret , and whole end time book was based on story of bretonnia. So ehm better than kislev. Which honestly dosen't matter.
    Stop acting like jealous child, it looks bad.
    the fact that you compare Brets to Empire or Dwarfs just shows that it makes not sense to discuss with you. Both are missing **** tons of LL and two thematic LPs...brets are maybe missing some RoRs and your beloved giant snails. They are a FLC Race for a reasons

    so whatever floats your boat. Like i said keep spamming your trash but prepare yourself for a dissapointment.
    oh how wrong you are , brets also miss two themes,supernatural, and robin hood, and brets have a ton of characters . even with the lack of love. hey by the way how many stuff did WE miss again before they got LP? this argument got f the moment CA announced WE dlc.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • ReghisReghis Registered Users Posts: 1,016

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, so not every damn race.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.
    Bretonnias "rivalrys" if you want to call it that way are a joke compared to other factions like Empire, Kislev, Dwarfs etc. they were pretty much abandoned by GW and yet they have the same amount of LL as the **** EMPIRE or the dwarfs imagine that. And youre still forcing your Bret crap in every thread....we literally had to explain you why a bret LP in game two makes no sense ...am i against a Bret LP? nope i want one more LL for them in the faaaar future (Bohemond vs Chaos Lord XY? sure) but yo are spamming this nonsense daily like there are no other races that need LPs before.
    Know what? there are: Empire need 2 more, Dwarfs need two more, GS need one more, Vampires need their Bloodlines, Beastmen need so much stuff, WoC need so much stuff, game 3 races will have less LL at launch and years after than the damn Brets. Thats why i think your trash spam is so obnoxious....Brets are an unimportant footnote and for some weird reason they already got more stuff than some major races + Empire, Dwarfs etc fans are not spamming on the daily basis like you do even if that races need much more love from CA...

    Well lets see dwarf got 1 dlc , empire two dlc. Bret zero dlc.

    And lets compare bret reworks to empire rework not in the same ball park.even dwarf rework was better.
    Only reaso bret got second flc lord was it was free, and it was same time as a similar 40k realse.

    Kislev has no army book compared to bret , and whole end time book was based on story of bretonnia. So ehm better than kislev. Which honestly dosen't matter.
    Stop acting like jealous child, it looks bad.
    the fact that you compare Brets to Empire or Dwarfs just shows that it makes not sense to discuss with you. Both are missing **** tons of LL and two thematic LPs...brets are maybe missing some RoRs and your beloved giant snails. They are a FLC Race for a reasons

    so whatever floats your boat. Like i said keep spamming your trash but prepare yourself for a dissapointment.
    oh how wrong you are , brets also miss two themes,supernatural, and robin hood, and brets have a ton of characters . even with the lack of love. hey by the way how many stuff did WE miss again before they got LP? this argument got f the moment CA announced WE dlc.
    Supernatural and Robin Hood theme for the Brets? now you went full Luci...Im out of this discussion...good luck with the daily trash spam...
    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,494

    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time.

    This is the most selfaware post out of everyone on this forum and more of us should be this humble lol.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505
    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, so not every damn race.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.
    Bretonnias "rivalrys" if you want to call it that way are a joke compared to other factions like Empire, Kislev, Dwarfs etc. they were pretty much abandoned by GW and yet they have the same amount of LL as the **** EMPIRE or the dwarfs imagine that. And youre still forcing your Bret crap in every thread....we literally had to explain you why a bret LP in game two makes no sense ...am i against a Bret LP? nope i want one more LL for them in the faaaar future (Bohemond vs Chaos Lord XY? sure) but yo are spamming this nonsense daily like there are no other races that need LPs before.
    Know what? there are: Empire need 2 more, Dwarfs need two more, GS need one more, Vampires need their Bloodlines, Beastmen need so much stuff, WoC need so much stuff, game 3 races will have less LL at launch and years after than the damn Brets. Thats why i think your trash spam is so obnoxious....Brets are an unimportant footnote and for some weird reason they already got more stuff than some major races + Empire, Dwarfs etc fans are not spamming on the daily basis like you do even if that races need much more love from CA...

    Well lets see dwarf got 1 dlc , empire two dlc. Bret zero dlc.

    And lets compare bret reworks to empire rework not in the same ball park.even dwarf rework was better.
    Only reaso bret got second flc lord was it was free, and it was same time as a similar 40k realse.

    Kislev has no army book compared to bret , and whole end time book was based on story of bretonnia. So ehm better than kislev. Which honestly dosen't matter.
    Stop acting like jealous child, it looks bad.
    the fact that you compare Brets to Empire or Dwarfs just shows that it makes not sense to discuss with you. Both are missing **** tons of LL and two thematic LPs...brets are maybe missing some RoRs and your beloved giant snails. They are a FLC Race for a reasons

    so whatever floats your boat. Like i said keep spamming your trash but prepare yourself for a dissapointment.
    oh how wrong you are , brets also miss two themes,supernatural, and robin hood, and brets have a ton of characters . even with the lack of love. hey by the way how many stuff did WE miss again before they got LP? this argument got f the moment CA announced WE dlc.
    Supernatural and Robin Hood theme for the Brets? now you went full Luci...Im out of this discussion...good luck with the daily trash spam...
    well boy try learning bret lore for once, you know about betrand , hermulets and faceless correct.

    and not to mention the rule book for that introducced rule to 8th eddition also mentiones supernatural gurdians of earth which could be Naids , sprits of knights, knights on demigrph like creature art work ..etc, same in end times. and then there are sons of bretonnia .. so there you go supernatural theme,

    and then there is hree missing army book units(deployable stakes 6th ed, foot squires sword and long bow 5th edition,truffle hounds third) , bret bards,...etc seriously learn bret lore before commenting

    read following threads you may learn something
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/272809/new-units-for-bretonnia#latest
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/272808/more-heroes-for-bretonnia#latest

    there are more such threads if you might wanna read up and use your head before accusing any one or any race, and stop acting like child

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • ReghisReghis Registered Users Posts: 1,016

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    Reghis said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    yep not derailing every "race xy post" into your Bretonia BS at all. you oficially became the new Luci. maybe even more annoying because his crap is atleast funny
    well my crap is lore friendly 70% of the time. are you trying to be my arne.. at least he has good meme skills
    thats a weirdly precise number considering you still cant understand the definition of the word "core". but yeah keep spamming im sure Brets will see anything before such unimportant races like Empire, VC, Dwarfs or any upcoming W3 race. Giant Snails and Truffle Dogs are gonna be a topseller for sure
    See now this thread never asked about core races did it. That is off topic it was considereding who norsca can go against, and bretonnia is just as much valid lore wise as any of those said races.

    And learn to read similar to core is not 100% equal to core. I am claming brets are similar to core.

    Yes, i have been wrong hence that specific number.
    Youre never suggest ANYTHING meaningful.

    Its always the same pattern:

    Thread: how about?/ what race xy?/ what would be if?

    You: Bretonnia!


    just read your goddam post history...its getting obnoxious
    Ok lets get this straight. In lore

    Bretonnia has rivalry with norsca, beastmen, daemons, greenskins, skaven, v count, so not every damn race.

    Man seriously what are you fourm police. Then i suggest applying for mod.if my posts are off topic then either mod will remove or i will get banned.

    Whats your personal issue with me i am kind and understanding person you can tell me. I will try to help you work through it.
    Bretonnias "rivalrys" if you want to call it that way are a joke compared to other factions like Empire, Kislev, Dwarfs etc. they were pretty much abandoned by GW and yet they have the same amount of LL as the **** EMPIRE or the dwarfs imagine that. And youre still forcing your Bret crap in every thread....we literally had to explain you why a bret LP in game two makes no sense ...am i against a Bret LP? nope i want one more LL for them in the faaaar future (Bohemond vs Chaos Lord XY? sure) but yo are spamming this nonsense daily like there are no other races that need LPs before.
    Know what? there are: Empire need 2 more, Dwarfs need two more, GS need one more, Vampires need their Bloodlines, Beastmen need so much stuff, WoC need so much stuff, game 3 races will have less LL at launch and years after than the damn Brets. Thats why i think your trash spam is so obnoxious....Brets are an unimportant footnote and for some weird reason they already got more stuff than some major races + Empire, Dwarfs etc fans are not spamming on the daily basis like you do even if that races need much more love from CA...

    Well lets see dwarf got 1 dlc , empire two dlc. Bret zero dlc.

    And lets compare bret reworks to empire rework not in the same ball park.even dwarf rework was better.
    Only reaso bret got second flc lord was it was free, and it was same time as a similar 40k realse.

    Kislev has no army book compared to bret , and whole end time book was based on story of bretonnia. So ehm better than kislev. Which honestly dosen't matter.
    Stop acting like jealous child, it looks bad.
    the fact that you compare Brets to Empire or Dwarfs just shows that it makes not sense to discuss with you. Both are missing **** tons of LL and two thematic LPs...brets are maybe missing some RoRs and your beloved giant snails. They are a FLC Race for a reasons

    so whatever floats your boat. Like i said keep spamming your trash but prepare yourself for a dissapointment.
    oh how wrong you are , brets also miss two themes,supernatural, and robin hood, and brets have a ton of characters . even with the lack of love. hey by the way how many stuff did WE miss again before they got LP? this argument got f the moment CA announced WE dlc.
    Supernatural and Robin Hood theme for the Brets? now you went full Luci...Im out of this discussion...good luck with the daily trash spam...
    well boy try learning bret lore for once, you know about betrand , hermulets and faceless correct.

    and not to mention the rule book for that introducced rule to 8th eddition also mentiones supernatural gurdians of earth which could be Naids , sprits of knights, knights on demigrph like creature art work ..etc, same in end times. and then there are sons of bretonnia .. so there you go supernatural theme,

    and then there is hree missing army book units(deployable stakes 6th ed, foot squires sword and long bow 5th edition,truffle hounds third) , bret bards,...etc seriously learn bret lore before commenting

    read following threads you may learn something
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/272809/new-units-for-bretonnia#latest
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/272808/more-heroes-for-bretonnia#latest

    there are more such threads if you might wanna read up and use your head before accusing any one or any race, and stop acting like child
    and if you dig far enough for all the other factions you can find three times as much stuff. does it make sense to put all the crap in the game tho? going by your twisted logic yes i guess. Brets are a Cav faction. what you want is to make them an all-round by putting all the crap from the darkest corners in the lore just for the sake of "reeeee i need more bret stuff"

    like i said good luck
    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • ChristianSpartaChristianSparta Registered Users Posts: 155

    norsca vs Norse dwarfs

    I wish it happened.

    I would at least like to see dwarf fortresses like Kraka Ravnsvake, Ornsmotek and Dorden put on the map.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 869
    edited November 2020

    To OP I ask, what is Tamurkhan's competition? He isn't DoC so he was never a potential DoC LL and his only real rival is Festus the Leechlord from WoC 8th who is a lot more bland. Everyone else is either older characters or ET characters who have never taken priority over 8th edition characters, my example being Imrik wasn't an 8th character but an older one who became ET.

    You even say Norsca's point is being Undivided so I'd rather give God Aligned characters to WoC and unaligned to Norsca to stay consistent with Norsca's mecahnics. There are easy choices like a Caster LL in Sayl the Faithless as you mention and the best Norscan LL in Lord Mortkin. Tamurkhan should be either first or second WoC Nurgle LL. I'd say Festus as part of a rework and Tamurkhan as an LP.

    If I said Norsca's point is to be undivided I should have done another read through before posting. :s I was more trying to describe its current lord selection and the armies lack of specifically blessed units. I do not believe Norscan lords packs will need to be held to this standard, as when game 3 arrives I assume god specific mechanics will be easier to slot into new content. To be clear, I believe that all of the chaos factions (with the exception of the chaos dwarfs) should have mechanics relating to god specific subfactions, and that they should be evenly distributed between the factions to maximize unique play experiences.

    It is important to note that the warriors of chaos roster also has competition from every other god's champions and the remaining undivided champions, as well as other Nurgle characters. So from 8th edition Valkia, Vilitch, Galrauch and of course Festus are all competing for the slot (I refuse to acknowledge Scyla but that's a personal issue). This is pretty stiff competition before considering other nurgle champions that are either fan favorites or favorites of GW, and I'd argue that a decent number of the other 8th edition army book options are less able to fit into a thematic Norscan expansion.

    Specifically for why he's got Nurgle champion competition is simply because their are a lot of them throughout the lore, and specifically a glut of them in endtimes who have compelling appearances and mechanical potential. The Glottkin are just an impressive model and offer a very lord centric campaign where you have a single powerhouse unit. Also while end times lore is of questionable quality the simplicity of the conflicts they were involved in makes them easy to justify including without the involvement of other specific characters. The Maggoth lords are a bit samey given the 3 of them share a gimmick but they have unique mounts, cool appearances, and potential for unique mechanics. Gotrut Spume has a neat appearance and potentially a playstyle and focus not shared by any other chaos champion. And this is ignoring some of the older dark horses people are backing.

    Do I think any of these Nurgle characters deserve a spot more than Tamurkhan? Generally no. The Glottkin is probably gonna happen regardless of my thoughts and I can't say I'll be too mad about it. However when discussing all of these options that are very clean fits for standard warriors of chaos I think Tamurkhan is going to be far enough down the list that I'd be concerned. Currently only Slaanesh has a representative in the game as a playable legendary lord. If Tamurkhan isn't the first representative for Nurgle and Khorne and Tzeentch get their representatives we're at 6 lords for WoC. At that point continuing to shove lords in WoC will just overcrowd the faction and DoC aren't likely to take a dude wearing corpses on a weird beastie. Norsca has plenty of slots, no representatives for any of the Gods, and Tamurkhan has a compelling lore connection with regions that will be relevant in game 3. Seems like an easy sell.
    Post edited by Spellbound55 on
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 869
    @kasunrathnatunga

    I'm thinking of doing a post like this for Bretonnia, though I'm not convinced their problems need DLC to address rather than unit reworks. However this match up seems unlikely primarily due to regional placement. Bretonnia is a little far west and frankly I'm not sure if they'll even be represented in the game 3 map. However with the idea of mortal empire only FLC (a good decision on CA's part as it frees up expansion to where it is needed most on the map, rather than limiting to what regions can fit what factions) I'm expecting at least one other Bretonnian addition over the games lifespan.
  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,494

    If I said Norsca's point is to be undivided I should have done another read through before posting. :s I was more trying to describe its current lord selection and the armies lack of specifically blessed units. I do not believe Norscan lords packs will need to be held to this standard, as when game 3 arrives I assume god specific mechanics will be easier to slot into new content. To be clear, I believe that all of the chaos factions (with the exception of the chaos dwarfs) should have mechanics relating to god specific subfactions, and that they should be evenly distributed between the factions to maximize unique play experiences.

    It is important to note that the warriors of chaos roster also has competition from every other god's champions and the remaining undivided champions, as well as other Nurgle characters. So from 8th edition Valkia, Vilitch, Galrauch and of course Festus are all competing for the slot (I refuse to acknowledge Scyla but that's a personal issue). This is pretty stiff competition before considering other nurgle champions that are either fan favorites or favorites of GW, and I'd argue that a decent number of the other 8th edition army book options are less able to fit into a thematic Norscan expansion.

    Specifically for why he's got Nurgle champion competition is simply because their are a lot of them throughout the lore, and specifically a glut of them in endtimes who have compelling appearances and mechanical potential. The Glottkin are just an impressive model and offer a very lord centric campaign where you have a single powerhouse unit. Also while end times lore is of questionable quality the simplicity of the conflicts they were involved in makes them easy to justify including without the involvement of other specific characters. The Maggoth lords are a bit samey given the 3 of them share a gimmick but they have unique mounts, cool appearances, and potential for unique mechanics. Gotrut Spume has a neat appearance and potentially a playstyle and focus not shared by any other chaos champion. And this is ignoring some of the older dark horses people are backing.

    Do I think any of these Nurgle characters deserve a spot more than Tamurkhan? Generally no. The Glottkin is probably gonna happen regardless of my thoughts and I can't say I'll be too mad about it. However when discussing all of these options that are very clean fits for standard warriors of chaos I think Tamurkhan is going to be far enough down the list that I'd be concerned. Currently only Slaanesh has a representative in the game as a playable legendary lord. If Tamurkhan isn't the first representative for Nurgle and Khorne and Tzeentch get their representatives we're at 6 lords for WoC. At that point continuing to show lords in WoC will just overcrowd the faction and DoC aren't likely to take a dude wearing corpses on a weird beastie. Norsca has plenty of slots, no representatives for any of the Gods, and Tamurkhan has a compelling lore connection with regions that will be relevant in game 3. Seems like an easy sell.

    I see, than my question would be what is the point of Norsca if it's just WoC? Norsca being undivided and WoC having a heavy focus on Aligned units would help the two stand out far more as distinct races then just WoC with some different units and LLs. I was implying WoC should get 2 Aligned characters per god, I don't think that's unreasonable with how much Chaos has missing. DoC seem likely to get at least 9 LLs imo, 2 per god and Belakor for undivided. We have a long way to go before this trilogy is done and I much prefer trying to get as many characters as possible for each race. We know Skaven will have 7 with Throt and Thanquol and LM and HE are expected to have one more DLC for their missing 8th units (or unit) so 9 or 11 is not much more of a stretch.

    The Glottkin is a terrible choice for LL imo since it's just a Mary Sue plot device. It's the best monster and the best caster and the best warrior because it's 3 LLs in one so it's just good at everything and thus is only unique in that it's perfect. Trash.
    Sycla's more of a LH anyway and shouldn't lead armies since he's a chaos spawn.

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505

    @kasunrathnatunga

    I'm thinking of doing a post like this for Bretonnia, though I'm not convinced their problems need DLC to address rather than unit reworks. However this match up seems unlikely primarily due to regional placement. Bretonnia is a little far west and frankly I'm not sure if they'll even be represented in the game 3 map. However with the idea of mortal empire only FLC (a good decision on CA's part as it frees up expansion to where it is needed most on the map, rather than limiting to what regions can fit what factions) I'm expecting at least one other Bretonnian addition over the games lifespan.

    the thing their issue is lack of ways to play and their ability to support knights, but that require few units, some heroes, new lores of magic, a good rework, ror. while few of them will fix them, it requires budget, budget only dlc can bring, but yes i do agree if CA is generous they could do them for free. but i doubt their generosity

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 869

    If I said Norsca's point is to be undivided I should have done another read through before posting. :s I was more trying to describe its current lord selection and the armies lack of specifically blessed units. I do not believe Norscan lords packs will need to be held to this standard, as when game 3 arrives I assume god specific mechanics will be easier to slot into new content. To be clear, I believe that all of the chaos factions (with the exception of the chaos dwarfs) should have mechanics relating to god specific subfactions, and that they should be evenly distributed between the factions to maximize unique play experiences.

    It is important to note that the warriors of chaos roster also has competition from every other god's champions and the remaining undivided champions, as well as other Nurgle characters. So from 8th edition Valkia, Vilitch, Galrauch and of course Festus are all competing for the slot (I refuse to acknowledge Scyla but that's a personal issue). This is pretty stiff competition before considering other nurgle champions that are either fan favorites or favorites of GW, and I'd argue that a decent number of the other 8th edition army book options are less able to fit into a thematic Norscan expansion.

    Specifically for why he's got Nurgle champion competition is simply because their are a lot of them throughout the lore, and specifically a glut of them in endtimes who have compelling appearances and mechanical potential. The Glottkin are just an impressive model and offer a very lord centric campaign where you have a single powerhouse unit. Also while end times lore is of questionable quality the simplicity of the conflicts they were involved in makes them easy to justify including without the involvement of other specific characters. The Maggoth lords are a bit samey given the 3 of them share a gimmick but they have unique mounts, cool appearances, and potential for unique mechanics. Gotrut Spume has a neat appearance and potentially a playstyle and focus not shared by any other chaos champion. And this is ignoring some of the older dark horses people are backing.

    Do I think any of these Nurgle characters deserve a spot more than Tamurkhan? Generally no. The Glottkin is probably gonna happen regardless of my thoughts and I can't say I'll be too mad about it. However when discussing all of these options that are very clean fits for standard warriors of chaos I think Tamurkhan is going to be far enough down the list that I'd be concerned. Currently only Slaanesh has a representative in the game as a playable legendary lord. If Tamurkhan isn't the first representative for Nurgle and Khorne and Tzeentch get their representatives we're at 6 lords for WoC. At that point continuing to show lords in WoC will just overcrowd the faction and DoC aren't likely to take a dude wearing corpses on a weird beastie. Norsca has plenty of slots, no representatives for any of the Gods, and Tamurkhan has a compelling lore connection with regions that will be relevant in game 3. Seems like an easy sell.

    I see, than my question would be what is the point of Norsca if it's just WoC? Norsca being undivided and WoC having a heavy focus on Aligned units would help the two stand out far more as distinct races then just WoC with some different units and LLs. I was implying WoC should get 2 Aligned characters per god, I don't think that's unreasonable with how much Chaos has missing. DoC seem likely to get at least 9 LLs imo, 2 per god and Belakor for undivided. We have a long way to go before this trilogy is done and I much prefer trying to get as many characters as possible for each race. We know Skaven will have 7 with Throt and Thanquol and LM and HE are expected to have one more DLC for their missing 8th units (or unit) so 9 or 11 is not much more of a stretch.

    The Glottkin is a terrible choice for LL imo since it's just a Mary Sue plot device. It's the best monster and the best caster and the best warrior because it's 3 LLs in one so it's just good at everything and thus is only unique in that it's perfect. Trash.
    Sycla's more of a LH anyway and shouldn't lead armies since he's a chaos spawn.

    I'd argue the use of undivided vs aligned is a pretty weak differentiating factor at this point. WoC have a huge number of core units for an unaligned army currently, with most of the missing stuff being God specific. Simply adding the God specific units won't do much to differentiate followers of the same god since they'll still be playing with the same roster at base. Beyond that WoC have a relatively limited number of unit focuses that aren't already taken.

    WoC have great heavy infantry, great monsters, and great heavy cavalry to break down their core elements of strength. They are a rush faction with some staying power, wanting to get into combat and hold the enemy in place until they inevitably beat them to death. Currently they have a lord who focuses on dragon ogres (Kholek), a lord who focuses on heavy infantry (Archaon) and a lord who is really waiting for game 3 where he can get a real focus (Sigvald). This does leave room for a cavalry lord which you could argue Tamurkhan could fill, but I'd argue that's both a waste of his Kurgan background, and more reasonably that a Nurgle lord focusing on cavalry is kind of against them. The slowest, steadiest, tankiest of the 4 monogod factions focusing on cavalry? Seems a little strange.

    If instead of trying to differentiate the WoC and Norsca but God alignment you instead focus on adapting the features of each chaos god to multiple rosters you can create notably different playstyles that still use the same base features. In this case, Norsca having the mark of Nurgle helps improve their tankiness but can lead to a different kind of grind. Instead of pinning and slugging it out you could attempt a slow kite, where you use beefy hard to remove infantry and monsters to delay the enemy while using your greater range to slowly damage an enemy, relying on your regeneration to carry the day.

    I will acknowledge that I do not share your faith in the number of chaos characters we will be receiving. I'm guess 6 WoC, 7 DoC, 5 BM, 4 Norscan. With that chaos would have 22(!) representatives in the game which is a staggering amount relative to any other faction. Currently we have 62 total legendary lords, of which 8 of them are chaos based. That means I'm expecting 14 more legendary lords for chaos which I think is a conservative estimate. Currently we are getting between 6 and 9 legendary lords a year. When factoring in all of the other factions that need legendary lords I find it difficult to expect the numbers you are suggesting.

    Not gonna fight you on the Glottkin as I'm not fond of the character(s), but GW is clearly invested in them and they would definitely provide a unique lord choice in a faction that has a lot of samey options.

    As an aside, I noticed your suggestion of Lord Mortkin previously and wanted to acknowledge that. To be brief I think he has some similar problems to Crom, simply not being mechanically interesting. A lot of chaos champions have that problem frankly. Plenty are great warriors or great casters, but many of them are differentiated by their lore, which while cool doesn't help make a compelling campaign. He fits nicely into the FLC category but he like a lot of chaos lords who are humanoid on a cavalry or monstrous cavalry mount run into the issue of competing with either Archaon if on the warriors of chaos, or Wulfrik in Norsca. Granted competing with Wulfrik isn't the hardest thing currently but I suspect he'll get a rework that makes him more threatening off of his mammoth. Adding more lords that are essentially marauder chieftain+ seems like an unlikely outcome.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 869

    @kasunrathnatunga

    I'm thinking of doing a post like this for Bretonnia, though I'm not convinced their problems need DLC to address rather than unit reworks. However this match up seems unlikely primarily due to regional placement. Bretonnia is a little far west and frankly I'm not sure if they'll even be represented in the game 3 map. However with the idea of mortal empire only FLC (a good decision on CA's part as it frees up expansion to where it is needed most on the map, rather than limiting to what regions can fit what factions) I'm expecting at least one other Bretonnian addition over the games lifespan.

    the thing their issue is lack of ways to play and their ability to support knights, but that require few units, some heroes, new lores of magic, a good rework, ror. while few of them will fix them, it requires budget, budget only dlc can bring, but yes I do agree if CA is generous they could do them for free. but i doubt their generosity
    I don't know. I go back and forth on whether units are the answer. A lot of discussions I see talk about adding redundant units that don't fix problems, like hounds which clash in price and purpose with mounted yeomen, or knights on questing beasts which don't fix any of the underlying weakness of bretonnia, just give them more expensive cavalry. Or there are discussion about ap missiles which open up a playstyle, but one that is supposed to differentiate them from the empire.

    Currently I think their problems are their infantry is too unreliable and their cavalry is too squishy and pays for abilities that aren't worthwhile. Foot squires in particular are abyssmal. They can't perform their purpose as a super limited anti-infantry anti-armor option because they have low health, no missile block chance, and one of the worst melee defense of any infantry unit in the game. 20 is absurdly low for a unit that is only able to effectively fight infantry. Men at arms without shields have more melee defense. Skaven slaves have the same melee defense (with strength in numbers active)! Like, screw adding in unmounted knights just make foot squires able to last slightly longer in melee. I recall hearing that they were way too cost effective on release but I wasn't as connected to the balance state of the game around their release. Currently the only reliable infantry they have are battle pilgrims who at least stick manage to stick around.

    As for the cav problem, I suspect that their high end stuff would be better served by losing perfect vigor and getting better stats. Cav often take losses limiting their performance early on and so have their greatest impact early in the game. Perfect vigor only starts to be useful after you've been fighting for some time meaning grail knights and grail guardians are paying for an ability that is only useful after a few minutes of fighting. Every other cav in the game is paying for stats they can use immediately. I also think higher melee defense on the shock cav of Bretonnia would go a long way to improving their performance since in terms of damage they definitely punch above their price range.

    I do think they could benefit from some way to control the movement of other factions since they are so depending on positioning to be effective but I'm not sure of how to provide that to them (other than lore of light I guess). Do take these musing with a grain of salt of course. I have spent far less time considering these implications than necessary to make any statements with certainty.
  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,494

    I'd argue the use of undivided vs aligned is a pretty weak differentiating factor at this point. WoC have a huge number of core units for an unaligned army currently, with most of the missing stuff being God specific. Simply adding the God specific units won't do much to differentiate followers of the same god since they'll still be playing with the same roster at base. Beyond that WoC have a relatively limited number of unit focuses that aren't already taken.

    WoC have great heavy infantry, great monsters, and great heavy cavalry to break down their core elements of strength. They are a rush faction with some staying power, wanting to get into combat and hold the enemy in place until they inevitably beat them to death. Currently they have a lord who focuses on dragon ogres (Kholek), a lord who focuses on heavy infantry (Archaon) and a lord who is really waiting for game 3 where he can get a real focus (Sigvald). This does leave room for a cavalry lord which you could argue Tamurkhan could fill, but I'd argue that's both a waste of his Kurgan background, and more reasonably that a Nurgle lord focusing on cavalry is kind of against them. The slowest, steadiest, tankiest of the 4 monogod factions focusing on cavalry? Seems a little strange.

    If instead of trying to differentiate the WoC and Norsca but God alignment you instead focus on adapting the features of each chaos god to multiple rosters you can create notably different playstyles that still use the same base features. In this case, Norsca having the mark of Nurgle helps improve their tankiness but can lead to a different kind of grind. Instead of pinning and slugging it out you could attempt a slow kite, where you use beefy hard to remove infantry and monsters to delay the enemy while using your greater range to slowly damage an enemy, relying on your regeneration to carry the day.

    I will acknowledge that I do not share your faith in the number of chaos characters we will be receiving. I'm guess 6 WoC, 7 DoC, 5 BM, 4 Norscan. With that chaos would have 22(!) representatives in the game which is a staggering amount relative to any other faction. Currently we have 62 total legendary lords, of which 8 of them are chaos based. That means I'm expecting 14 more legendary lords for chaos which I think is a conservative estimate. Currently we are getting between 6 and 9 legendary lords a year. When factoring in all of the other factions that need legendary lords I find it difficult to expect the numbers you are suggesting.

    Not gonna fight you on the Glottkin as I'm not fond of the character(s), but GW is clearly invested in them and they would definitely provide a unique lord choice in a faction that has a lot of samey options.

    As an aside, I noticed your suggestion of Lord Mortkin previously and wanted to acknowledge that. To be brief I think he has some similar problems to Crom, simply not being mechanically interesting. A lot of chaos champions have that problem frankly. Plenty are great warriors or great casters, but many of them are differentiated by their lore, which while cool doesn't help make a compelling campaign. He fits nicely into the FLC category but he like a lot of chaos lords who are humanoid on a cavalry or monstrous cavalry mount run into the issue of competing with either Archaon if on the warriors of chaos, or Wulfrik in Norsca. Granted competing with Wulfrik isn't the hardest thing currently but I suspect he'll get a rework that makes him more threatening off of his mammoth. Adding more lords that are essentially marauder chieftain+ seems like an unlikely outcome.

    What do you mean? Marked units and stuff like Hellstriders and Skullcrushers would be huge and remember since one is more focused on god alligned units that would mean mixing god units would be more encouraged, wheras Norsca would be more limited by focusing on one god. I wouldn't mind marked units for Norsca but Marked LLs go against the campaign, so I don't see why if they added Tamurkhan they can't just put him in his correct faction.

    I would argue Tamurkhan should focus on monstrous Nurgle units, while Festus focuses on Marked Nugle Warriors, but cavaly would be interesting also, but it'd still have to be Nurgle themed. Be odd to have him buffing Marked Tzeentch Cavalry.
    The other thing is we already have a viable Kurgan in Sayl the Faithless once more. Sayl is also a pure spellcaster so he'd bring unaligned caster Lords which Norsca desperately need along with Kurgan stuff.

    I seriously doubt they'd give an uneven amount of god specific LLs to a race, but that's based on an assumption so can't really argue that, but counting BM as Chaos LLs is not the same imo. Beastmen are completely different at this point (also they should have 7 LLs imo). Ultimately we're both just guessing how many races get how many LLs, but I stand by unaligned makes sense for Norsca and not WoC with what's missing for both races. Remember too that Chaos Dwarfs and Ogres have only around 6 truly unique LLs so having an uneven amount of LLs is fine. Elves are 3 races and will have 18 once the WE DLC comes out so I don't see this as an issue.

    I feel like if we got the Glottkin any other LL is pointless. Why bother adding unique characters when the Glottkin is the best at everything and can fight better than anyone else?

    You have wounded me sir! Reason I go for Mortkin is because he's a Norscan and an 8th character (not LL) with a ton of lore from WHFB 8th rulebook. I wouldn't mind FLC for him as Sayl is my got to guy for DLC, but Lord Mortkin VS Cult of Ulric I still see as a really awesome matchup. Wulfrik shouldn't even have a mount in the first place as his character is entirely about being a 1v1 challenger so that's what he should be. I don't think we should discount LLs with mounts for Norsca because CA shoehorned Wulfrik into a role he shouldn't be playing.

    Crom the Conquerer is also beta compared to the alpha Lord Mortkin.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,505

    @kasunrathnatunga

    I'm thinking of doing a post like this for Bretonnia, though I'm not convinced their problems need DLC to address rather than unit reworks. However this match up seems unlikely primarily due to regional placement. Bretonnia is a little far west and frankly I'm not sure if they'll even be represented in the game 3 map. However with the idea of mortal empire only FLC (a good decision on CA's part as it frees up expansion to where it is needed most on the map, rather than limiting to what regions can fit what factions) I'm expecting at least one other Bretonnian addition over the games lifespan.

    As for foot knights i sincerely doubt they give unit for free.

    the thing their issue is lack of ways to play and their ability to support knights, but that require few units, some heroes, new lores of magic, a good rework, ror. while few of them will fix them, it requires budget, budget only dlc can bring, but yes I do agree if CA is generous they could do them for free. but i doubt their generosity
    I don't know. I go back and forth on whether units are the answer. A lot of discussions I see talk about adding redundant units that don't fix problems, like hounds which clash in price and purpose with mounted yeomen, or knights on questing beasts which don't fix any of the underlying weakness of bretonnia, just give them more expensive cavalry. Or there are discussion about ap missiles which open up a playstyle, but one that is supposed to differentiate them from the empire.

    Currently I think their problems are their infantry is too unreliable and their cavalry is too squishy and pays for abilities that aren't worthwhile. Foot squires in particular are abyssmal. They can't perform their purpose as a super limited anti-infantry anti-armor option because they have low health, no missile block chance, and one of the worst melee defense of any infantry unit in the game. 20 is absurdly low for a unit that is only able to effectively fight infantry. Men at arms without shields have more melee defense. Skaven slaves have the same melee defense (with strength in numbers active)! Like, screw adding in unmounted knights just make foot squires able to last slightly longer in melee. I recall hearing that they were way too cost effective on release but I wasn't as connected to the balance state of the game around their release. Currently the only reliable infantry they have are battle pilgrims who at least stick manage to stick around.

    As for the cav problem, I suspect that their high end stuff would be better served by losing perfect vigor and getting better stats. Cav often take losses limiting their performance early on and so have their greatest impact early in the game. Perfect vigor only starts to be useful after you've been fighting for some time meaning grail knights and grail guardians are paying for an ability that is only useful after a few minutes of fighting. Every other cav in the game is paying for stats they can use immediately. I also think higher melee defense on the shock cav of Bretonnia would go a long way to improving their performance since in terms of damage they definitely punch above their price range.

    I do think they could benefit from some way to control the movement of other factions since they are so depending on positioning to be effective but I'm not sure of how to provide that to them (other than lore of light I guess). Do take these musing with a grain of salt of course. I have spent far less time considering these implications than necessary to make any statements with certainty.
    Well the things mounted yeoman and hounds don't really clash in fact they complement each other.

    Apart from norscan ice wolves all hound units are infantry sized so they are not subject to bonus vs large, while mounted yeoman are large size so they are subject to it.
    This allow new level of switch tactics. For example both units are used to harass back line. But depending on whats guarding back line it become rather difficult to attack or kill units. Now if you combine the two units together and charge in same control group then you basically negate things like charge defence since a unit only has it until its in combat. So if you have enemy defending back line spears just charge it with hound then charge it with yeoman essentially circumvent some of the weakness of either unit.

    Now in campaign hounds and mounted yeoman are useless because of buff stacking. But thats campaign balance issue. Not unit redundancy issue.

    Same with most units discussed in fourms, they are all allow new tactics to brets or improve existing tactis. And still require much more skill to use to get the best value. Which is how brets are supposed be played.


    Only truly redundant thing to add to bretonnia is more shock cavalry because bretonnia already have 6 shock cavalry types.

    But i encourage you to look around all bret discussion here in general fourm and in balance fourm. We have essentially covered every single possible unit to bretonnia and how to use them in spades

    As for balancing imo.

    As foot squires in general they have to get 4 or 5 more md and ability to use their sheild to get missile block chance and they will be fine for their cost.
    But these are fifth eddition unit so technically they in 5th eddition had the abilty to use longbow, so adding non ap shade type archer for bret will make their back line way better. Technically a another weapon varient

    Mounted yeoman just need more ws,

    As for grail tier units they need to shed models and respeced to 24 model units so that each model gets more hp doesn't get one shot by cannons , sem, spells..etc. grail gurdians need more weapon strength as well. Perfect vigot is kind of wasted on units that won't survive with full combat potential till late game. Which is why they need less models and more hp.

    RHK need perfect vigor as well, and a price hike to account for the buff.

    None of these balance changes won't completely remove the core issues of bretonnia which is ability to support their cav. In battlefield wise.
    In campaign wise they need to make few improvements to vow system incoparte bret virtues to then, abiliy spend chivalry on units buildings, calling errantry war, getting a skill tree and wuest line to unlock green knight ..etc.

    Basically they need more lore of magic, and more hero or untis that can buff without using magic.

    Brets can have four hero choices imo bretonnia bards, hermit paladin , faceless, and son of bretonnia melee caster hybrid.
    Of all of these insay bard and son of bret hero is important.
    Because bard will have buff which does not require magic, and son of bretonnia caster will be a lore ful way to get more magic lores since damsel can't use any lore out side of the current three.

    And there are not just buffs but i also have nerfs as well to bretonnia. But that is if they get dlc in first place.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 869

    I'd argue the use of undivided vs aligned is a pretty weak differentiating factor at this point. WoC have a huge number of core units for an unaligned army currently, with most of the missing stuff being God specific. Simply adding the God specific units won't do much to differentiate followers of the same god since they'll still be playing with the same roster at base. Beyond that WoC have a relatively limited number of unit focuses that aren't already taken.

    WoC have great heavy infantry, great monsters, and great heavy cavalry to break down their core elements of strength. They are a rush faction with some staying power, wanting to get into combat and hold the enemy in place until they inevitably beat them to death. Currently they have a lord who focuses on dragon ogres (Kholek), a lord who focuses on heavy infantry (Archaon) and a lord who is really waiting for game 3 where he can get a real focus (Sigvald). This does leave room for a cavalry lord which you could argue Tamurkhan could fill, but I'd argue that's both a waste of his Kurgan background, and more reasonably that a Nurgle lord focusing on cavalry is kind of against them. The slowest, steadiest, tankiest of the 4 monogod factions focusing on cavalry? Seems a little strange.

    If instead of trying to differentiate the WoC and Norsca but God alignment you instead focus on adapting the features of each chaos god to multiple rosters you can create notably different playstyles that still use the same base features. In this case, Norsca having the mark of Nurgle helps improve their tankiness but can lead to a different kind of grind. Instead of pinning and slugging it out you could attempt a slow kite, where you use beefy hard to remove infantry and monsters to delay the enemy while using your greater range to slowly damage an enemy, relying on your regeneration to carry the day.

    I will acknowledge that I do not share your faith in the number of chaos characters we will be receiving. I'm guess 6 WoC, 7 DoC, 5 BM, 4 Norscan. With that chaos would have 22(!) representatives in the game which is a staggering amount relative to any other faction. Currently we have 62 total legendary lords, of which 8 of them are chaos based. That means I'm expecting 14 more legendary lords for chaos which I think is a conservative estimate. Currently we are getting between 6 and 9 legendary lords a year. When factoring in all of the other factions that need legendary lords I find it difficult to expect the numbers you are suggesting.

    Not gonna fight you on the Glottkin as I'm not fond of the character(s), but GW is clearly invested in them and they would definitely provide a unique lord choice in a faction that has a lot of samey options.

    As an aside, I noticed your suggestion of Lord Mortkin previously and wanted to acknowledge that. To be brief I think he has some similar problems to Crom, simply not being mechanically interesting. A lot of chaos champions have that problem frankly. Plenty are great warriors or great casters, but many of them are differentiated by their lore, which while cool doesn't help make a compelling campaign. He fits nicely into the FLC category but he like a lot of chaos lords who are humanoid on a cavalry or monstrous cavalry mount run into the issue of competing with either Archaon if on the warriors of chaos, or Wulfrik in Norsca. Granted competing with Wulfrik isn't the hardest thing currently but I suspect he'll get a rework that makes him more threatening off of his mammoth. Adding more lords that are essentially marauder chieftain+ seems like an unlikely outcome.

    What do you mean? Marked units and stuff like Hellstriders and Skullcrushers would be huge and remember since one is more focused on god alligned units that would mean mixing god units would be more encouraged, wheras Norsca would be more limited by focusing on one god. I wouldn't mind marked units for Norsca but Marked LLs go against the campaign, so I don't see why if they added Tamurkhan they can't just put him in his correct faction.

    I would argue Tamurkhan should focus on monstrous Nurgle units, while Festus focuses on Marked Nugle Warriors, but cavaly would be interesting also, but it'd still have to be Nurgle themed. Be odd to have him buffing Marked Tzeentch Cavalry.
    The other thing is we already have a viable Kurgan in Sayl the Faithless once more. Sayl is also a pure spellcaster so he'd bring unaligned caster Lords which Norsca desperately need along with Kurgan stuff.

    I seriously doubt they'd give an uneven amount of god specific LLs to a race, but that's based on an assumption so can't really argue that, but counting BM as Chaos LLs is not the same imo. Beastmen are completely different at this point (also they should have 7 LLs imo). Ultimately we're both just guessing how many races get how many LLs, but I stand by unaligned makes sense for Norsca and not WoC with what's missing for both races. Remember too that Chaos Dwarfs and Ogres have only around 6 truly unique LLs so having an uneven amount of LLs is fine. Elves are 3 races and will have 18 once the WE DLC comes out so I don't see this as an issue.

    I feel like if we got the Glottkin any other LL is pointless. Why bother adding unique characters when the Glottkin is the best at everything and can fight better than anyone else?

    You have wounded me sir! Reason I go for Mortkin is because he's a Norscan and an 8th character (not LL) with a ton of lore from WHFB 8th rulebook. I wouldn't mind FLC for him as Sayl is my got to guy for DLC, but Lord Mortkin VS Cult of Ulric I still see as a really awesome matchup. Wulfrik shouldn't even have a mount in the first place as his character is entirely about being a 1v1 challenger so that's what he should be. I don't think we should discount LLs with mounts for Norsca because CA shoehorned Wulfrik into a role he shouldn't be playing.

    Crom the Conquerer is also beta compared to the alpha Lord Mortkin.
    To the point about marked lords going against the base Norsca campaign, that's a good thing. Recent DLC have worked to establish objectives that are unrelated to the base race objectives. This means making a Norsca campaign themed purely around completing Nurgle's will is both a new experience for older players, and also following the pattern CA has set. Without that assumption my reasoning is weakened, but I did clarify that I was assuming we could expect that trend to continue. Personally I think in any game where replaying a similar scenario is assumed to be the norm the developer should work to maximize differentiation between playthroughs.

    To elaborate on the differentiation, Fetus and Tamurkhan both being in warriors of chaos means you could essentially play them with the exact same army. Sure in each case the individual unit performance would be different but the overall army composition is limited by the roster and the WoC having a relatively clear style of play that isn't super flexible. The God specific stuff basically flavors your rush. Norsca having a different roster could entirely shift the playstyle even when looking at two monogod armies, though that would require additional units. Frankly Tamurkhan could reasonably be placed within the warrior of chaos roster without too much fuss. He's a unique lord in general and is unlikely to fill a niche held by someone else regardless of implementation, though I think he has more potential to expand Norsca than the warriors. It's not often I come up with a reasonable justification for a Toad Dragon that isn't Bubebolos. o:)

    While I do think Hellstriders and Skullcrushers are going to be exciting additions they aren't going to be unique selling point when trying to compare two lords devoted to the same god. Hell they'll even be available to generic characters, likely even outside of the WoC even if only in limited circumstances. They create differentiation within the roster, but within monogod armies you won't get as much variation. Now marked units have some similar problems, but if you transplant them across rosters you can end up with wildly different outcomes. Gors with the mark of Slaanesh for instance seem like they'll have huge synergy that you won't get with the WoC roster. As for mixing units from different gods making rosters distinct, that will partially depend on the implementation of DoC, but I'd lean towards suggesting that mixing units should be available to all of the factions, with some sub factions pushing the player in a certain direction. Maximum differentiation to my mind means given the option to play a chaos undivided armor, or a monogod army of any of the 4 with the WoC, the DoC, Norsca, and if we're lucky the Beastie boys though at this point I just want them to have their full roster.

    As for even representation of the servants of each god, I imagine we'll see at least 1 servant per army, with an even number when considering Norsca, WoC, and DoC if for no other reason than the disproportionate representation some of the gods got on tabletop. However you are correct that this is all speculation at this point.

    Hot take: I'm gonna guess the Glottkin will be substantially less impressive in total war warhammer than the table top incarnation due to both the proliferation of mounts, the expense of caster melee hybrids, and the inherent weakness of slow missile sponges. Based on how the game plays I'd almost guess they'll be dead on arrival in multiplayer. In campaign they'll probably be fine, but short of being Tretch it's kind of hard to be bad in campaign.

    I don't mean to wound! :D I started my brain storming with weird monsters, Kurgan, and characters who were not in the 8th edition army book for reference, so Crom warranted a mention despite being less interesting. I doubt a Kurgan or Hung race pack is possible so expanding Norsca is about the only meaningful way to expect their presence. If it were a FLC choice I think Mortkin is another solid pick, and personally one I'd prefer just based on the art. He'd definitely produce a more traditional Norsca campaign though which is kind of meh.

    I did acknowledge that I have some bias against Sayl that's not entirely fair. I just think the guy is so boring despite the fact that'd he'd be serviceable. I don't think he'd do much to move a DLC but Norsca is a flexible roster and you could cobble something together that would be thematic and would have units worth getting excited about. Still I'd feel like it was a missed opportunity. After all the lord added by a DLC is only related to the legendary lord about half the time.

    I'm sure Cult of Ulric is coming at some point, but they can be matched with almost any chaos faction so it'll be exciting to see who they get paired with.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 5,209
    Disagree.


    The basic norscan mechanic is the "choose your god" mechanic. You basically try to gain the gods favour. Tamurkhan, the toad dragon and plague ogres make no sense, they are distinctively Nurgle units, to be used as part of a Nurgle heavy army. Plus it's a complete waste of one of the best WoC characters. Tamurkhan > Festus and the Glottkin.

    The Kurgan units make 0 sense. They would completely overlap with already existing units. Norsca already have short range skirmishers, and skirmish cavalry, and the equivalent to light cavalry (ice wolves). It lacks heavy cavalry but you are not even proposing to add that (which by the way, is what is actually distinctive in the Kurgans battle style, as most chaos knights are Kurgan). Literally roster bloat.

    Sayl the faithless. As his name implies, he is a good candidate for the norsca mechanic, plus nightmaw does make him unique enough. Specially if it was added as an actual part of the model, like skarnisk. I do agree that he is probably better as a
Sign In or Register to comment.