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.

2»

Comments

  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,494

    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.

    Problem is I think limiting the player and forcing them to go down a god path is less mechanically interesting than choosing one and building from there. If I play Tamurkhan I have to play Nurgle so there's no real decision's to be made and I'll always have an enemy of Tzeentch and more importantly I'll have a much more limited Nurgle theme then WoC. All the marked stuff is WoC and if all that's added to Norsca to give Tamurkhan more stuff to use, then we're back to my initial problem of them becoming the same. If their not added then why add Nurgle themed units to a race that only Tamurkhan and LLs dedicated to Nurgle should be able to use instead of the unified WoC? It seems to me there is a way it could work but god themed units would have to be much more restrictive than WoC would be and mix matching god blessed units would be a major no.
    Thinking about it my conclussion is I think it's an intersting idea, but Tamurkhan is not the right guy for it. He's way too WoC type for Norsca and throwing my bias in he's the best WoC Nurgle LL. I think a more obscure character like Valnir the Reaper would be better for experementing with as he's more of a blank slate and could show the differences between a Nurgle Norsca LL and WoC if they got Festus as they're pretty similar. Tamurkhan is in his own league of LL and I think being apart of Norsca would limit him too much.

    I'm probably not explaining clearly, but the massive difference I see if we wanted a God marked LL for Norsca is to keep WoC LLs able to recruit any unit but with penalties if marked and Norsca unable to. This means Norsca retains it's identity as focusing on 1 god like it's mechanics already endorse. Let's say Norsca and WoC get Skullcrushers, the idea would be you can't recruit Skullcrushers as a Norscan Tamurkhan, but you can as WoC Festus It means they aren't the same as I think your idea turns Norsca into. I guess this makes Norsca more monogodish but that's the only way I see adding alligned LLs being different from WoC ones.

    Yeah that's also an issue when considering TT. DoC 8th had what, 3 Tzeentch characters and not one Slannesh LL? They had N'kari what were they doing? Anyway part of my reason for aiming so high is I think CA should add 4 DoC LLs on launch of game III. Each gods 8th Greater Daemon and N'kari. This way it's more fair for everyone as each god is playable for "free" and undivided comes in the form of FLC Belakor. This is what I expect and so I go off that basis, but if I'm wrong that throws this all into turmoil. What I'm saying is I don't think we should force Marked LL's into places that are unfitting (imo) until we see what happens with WoC rework and DoC.

    I think my hot take of Glottkin being trash is far more spicy, but I'd honestly prefer that then being the uber powerfull things there supposed to be. Either that or force them to focus on one aspect so it can be a great caster, great fighter or great monster, but not all 3. CA should balance it right, but we'll see. Tretch can be great in campaign also, just have him lead from the rear like a true Skaven would.

    Ah it's all opinion (mostly) anyway so it's fine. I do agree that Norsca should become a more minor warriors of chaos race, so Norsca is Wulfrik and so on. You acknowledge the OBJECTIVE FACT! that Mortkin is better than Crom so we pretty much on the same team. FLC would probably fit the most, I just have to much of a raging {CENSORED} to pass up a Mortkin DLC. It's a case where I argue for personal reasons rather than an actual argument as to why he's mechaniclly better, unlike say arguing Throt > Skweel.

    Yes, my bad. I kinda see why you think he's boring, but I highly disagree with him being unable to sell DLC. Just being a pure caster LL for only race without a caster Lord is huge and as the character is treacherous in nature he is easy to make mechancis around. He also has his unique Gobbla-esque chaos spawn Nightmaw and that alone makes him more interesting on a visual level than most other than Tamurkhan obviously, and still allows for a monstrous theme, like Lord level fimir. I also don't think Norsca is limited to one DLC but I could be wrong.

    Realisically Cult of Ulric could go up against any Chaos Lord, but as a Mordkin fanatic I'd love to see that, even if most wouldn't.

  • _Mad_D0c__Mad_D0c_ Registered Users Posts: 1,503

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

    Exavtly. He get meout of the cave with his long introduction, because at that time it sounds like he want to introduce beorg bearstruck. I was fine but surprised with the introductionof the kurgan but he lost me completly by Toad dragon...

    What was that introduction of the unfavoured bythe gods and then you go with Tamurkhan blessed by Nurgle and through and through Nurgle aligned WoC LL.
    I want Tamurkhan for sure, but for WoC with all that nurgle WoC stuff.

    Beorg Bearstruck is the fusion of monster and monster hunting, werebears, fimir matriarch (mage lords) and so on.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 850
    Pocman said:

    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

    I'd argue the choosing element is not central to Norsca's mechanic. It's the option to raze settlements for the glory of a god. That and the monster hunts. Something that fits nicely with Tamurkhans background. Admittedly the Throne of Chaos lore is a bit weird given it contradicts a lot of the standard rules GW had made for chaos, the everchosen, etc. but at it's base Tamurkhan is given a mission to complete to prove himself worthy of the mantle of leadership of the forces of chaos upon the earth. His campaign is not divinely ordained in the same manner as an Everchosen where all of chaos is brought together to join forces underneath a single commander. However this is a matter of fluff and background which I think it's fair to say was not something GW was particularly concerned about keeping consistent. I can definitely see the argument that Tamurkhan would be better suited for WoC, though I personally disagree.

    As for the units being roster bloat I am struggling to see the argument. Norsca having short range skirmishers (javelins) does not preclude the addition of a mid range skirmisher (archers). With the horse archer units this distinction is even stronger given that 140 is both a substantial increase over the horsemen, but it matches the skirmish potential of every other horse archer in the game (with the exception of glade riders). As for Ice Wolves vs Kurgan Raiders, the difference in stats makes one a unit designed for more sustained conflict and would provide a more useful option for targeting higher mass units (impact damage is negligible on units of the same or large size, and Ice Wolves have pretty poor sustained combat stats). You could argue that the units I selected won't do enough to open up a new playstyle to Norsca, but they are certainly not completely overlapping.

    Chaos Knights being ethnically Kurgan is lore doesn't really do much to provide the nomadic tribesmen flavor described and shown in the fluff. WoC has a very strong aesthetic and theme which is clearly WoC. Adding a Chaos Knight equivalent to Norsca not only creates an aesthetic clash, but it provides a unit that is clearly better equipped than the average Northmen. A Chaos Knight is a Chaos Knight first and foremost.

    From what I've read Kurgan (and Hung) battle tactics are cavalry focused but not distinctly called out as exclusive to any particular tactic. I've found passage indicating power charges and instances of harrying, raiding, hell even artwork with archery shows up. Point being I don't think it's possible to make the claim their is only one way to represent the Kurgan. This however does suggest that my argument for limiting any melee cav to the light category was somewhat arbitrary. In practice the distinction I'm looking for is lightly armored when compared to Chaos Knights. Decreasing their stats and increasing mass could be used to create that shock element without otherwise altering the units appearance or purpose.

    Thank you for the feedback and the discussion though. I appreciate the time.

  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 850
    edited October 2020

    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.

    Problem is I think limiting the player and forcing them to go down a god path is less mechanically interesting than choosing one and building from there. If I play Tamurkhan I have to play Nurgle so there's no real decision's to be made and I'll always have an enemy of Tzeentch and more importantly I'll have a much more limited Nurgle theme then WoC. All the marked stuff is WoC and if all that's added to Norsca to give Tamurkhan more stuff to use, then we're back to my initial problem of them becoming the same. If their not added then why add Nurgle themed units to a race that only Tamurkhan and LLs dedicated to Nurgle should be able to use instead of the unified WoC? It seems to me there is a way it could work but god themed units would have to be much more restrictive than WoC would be and mix matching god blessed units would be a major no.
    Thinking about it my conclussion is I think it's an intersting idea, but Tamurkhan is not the right guy for it. He's way too WoC type for Norsca and throwing my bias in he's the best WoC Nurgle LL. I think a more obscure character like Valnir the Reaper would be better for experementing with as he's more of a blank slate and could show the differences between a Nurgle Norsca LL and WoC if they got Festus as they're pretty similar. Tamurkhan is in his own league of LL and I think being apart of Norsca would limit him too much.

    I'm probably not explaining clearly, but the massive difference I see if we wanted a God marked LL for Norsca is to keep WoC LLs able to recruit any unit but with penalties if marked and Norsca unable to. This means Norsca retains it's identity as focusing on 1 god like it's mechanics already endorse. Let's say Norsca and WoC get Skullcrushers, the idea would be you can't recruit Skullcrushers as a Norscan Tamurkhan, but you can as WoC Festus It means they aren't the same as I think your idea turns Norsca into. I guess this makes Norsca more monogodish but that's the only way I see adding alligned LLs being different from WoC ones.

    Yeah that's also an issue when considering TT. DoC 8th had what, 3 Tzeentch characters and not one Slannesh LL? They had N'kari what were they doing? Anyway part of my reason for aiming so high is I think CA should add 4 DoC LLs on launch of game III. Each gods 8th Greater Daemon and N'kari. This way it's more fair for everyone as each god is playable for "free" and undivided comes in the form of FLC Belakor. This is what I expect and so I go off that basis, but if I'm wrong that throws this all into turmoil. What I'm saying is I don't think we should force Marked LL's into places that are unfitting (imo) until we see what happens with WoC rework and DoC.

    I think my hot take of Glottkin being trash is far more spicy, but I'd honestly prefer that then being the uber powerfull things there supposed to be. Either that or force them to focus on one aspect so it can be a great caster, great fighter or great monster, but not all 3. CA should balance it right, but we'll see. Tretch can be great in campaign also, just have him lead from the rear like a true Skaven would.

    Ah it's all opinion (mostly) anyway so it's fine. I do agree that Norsca should become a more minor warriors of chaos race, so Norsca is Wulfrik and so on. You acknowledge the OBJECTIVE FACT! that Mortkin is better than Crom so we pretty much on the same team. FLC would probably fit the most, I just have to much of a raging {CENSORED} to pass up a Mortkin DLC. It's a case where I argue for personal reasons rather than an actual argument as to why he's mechaniclly better, unlike say arguing Throt > Skweel.

    Yes, my bad. I kinda see why you think he's boring, but I highly disagree with him being unable to sell DLC. Just being a pure caster LL for only race without a caster Lord is huge and as the character is treacherous in nature he is easy to make mechancis around. He also has his unique Gobbla-esque chaos spawn Nightmaw and that alone makes him more interesting on a visual level than most other than Tamurkhan obviously, and still allows for a monstrous theme, like Lord level fimir. I also don't think Norsca is limited to one DLC but I could be wrong.

    Realisically Cult of Ulric could go up against any Chaos Lord, but as a Mordkin fanatic I'd love to see that, even if most wouldn't.

    I do see how providing a hard limitation to one faction while letting the other mix and match units would create a clear distinction between the two. Just shoving all of the Nurgle themed units into a Tamurkhan sub faction would essential just created a blended roster. It's possible to use a mechanic similar to Markus Wulfhart's imperial shipments to avoid that in campaign, where showing devotion to Nurgle lets you recruit some units from WoC and DoC as long as they are Nurgle themed. Ultimately I'm more in favor of having the armies represent their devotion in different ways and with different units. Basically a Norscan Nurgle faction and WoC Nurgle faction would be differentiated not just from the base units but through only having a limited number of Nurgle units on each roster at base. Plague Ogres being an example, just shoving them in WoC after adding chaos ogres and marks runs into some questions on distinction. Putting them into Norsca would side step this problem. Though I would like to note that I have some serious concerns about Plague Ogres specifically. Like Bile Trolls I don't think they'll be different enough to warrant the resources but I wanted to make note of the possibility. Also I just love the Plague Ogre art.

    I'm expecting Subfactions and campaign mechanics to go much farther in the future. Imperial Regiments and Waaagh! units demonstrate that CA is working to find a way to give cool features to races that go beyond the base roster. It may be a bit ambitious to argue for Tamurkhan to be used in this manner, though given Nurgle has so many named champions they are most likely to get shafted by attempts at even representation. :s There is a practical argument to my selection, in that I'm more worried about him not making the cut if only WoC is on the table.

    Granted I think this is mostly a difference of philosophy. Allow WoC to better mix and match marks while limiting Norsca to a single God devotion in later sub factions would definitely achieve my goal of variation. CA can reach a good outcome through a lot of paths, and I do not mean to imply my ideas are the only way forward. And I definitely agree that without more information on DoC or the WoC it's impossible to determine the best way to implement something like this. While I think your hopes may be a tad ambitious I can see the logic you are working from. If we have the openings for lords then forcing a lord to fit is unnecessary.

    I will totally admit to being unfair to Sayl. Him having a chaos spawn as a selling point is one of the things I don't like about him actually. I just don't think they are a unit worth writing home about compared to some of the god specific designs in the game. More practically, while it leads to some potentially interesting visuals it locks him into being a slow foot lord caster which from a gameplay perspective just frustrates me. It's definitely more subjective but I would personally be frustrated having to pay for him. However my personal disdain does not mean he couldn't be done in a manner that would be worth the cost.

    Frankly it's nice to see people passionate about characters who come from beyond 8th edition army books. That's provided some of the coolest expansions to the game and I'm always happy to see people pushing for going above and beyond with what total war warhammer can be. So you won't hear any kink shaming from me on that front. Fly your Mortkin flag high and proud. :tongue:

    Also on a more serious note, I appreciate your willingness to put time into discussing these ideas and I want to thank you for your detailed replies. :smile:
  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Registered Users Posts: 1,865
    My only hope for Norsca is a fix to their mechanics. The "suddenly decide to declare for a single god" thing doesn't make any sense for most people, but least of all the two leaders they chose (Wulfrik is literally a pawn of all four gods, and there's no way Slaanesh or Tzeench would accept the sole patronage of Throgg). I want them to fix that first and foremost. At the same time, maybe do an Unaligned Lord like Sayl the Faithless (My preference) or Crom (I wouldn't hate this, just don't have much interest in a third melee Lord for the roster).

    Then, they can absolutely add monogod-aligned Legendary Lords like Tamurkhan, Surtha Ek and the like as monogods come down the pipeline, without screwing up the unloreful mechanic they've implemented.
  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,494

    I do see how providing a hard limitation to one faction while letting the other mix and match units would create a clear distinction between the two. Just shoving all of the Nurgle themed units into a Tamurkhan sub faction would essential just created a blended roster. It's possible to use a mechanic similar to Markus Wulfhart's imperial shipments to avoid that in campaign, where showing devotion to Nurgle lets you recruit some units from WoC and DoC as long as they are Nurgle themed. Ultimately I'm more in favor of having the armies represent their devotion in different ways and with different units. Basically a Norscan Nurgle faction and WoC Nurgle faction would be differentiated not just from the base units but through only having a limited number of Nurgle units on each roster at base. Plague Ogres being an example, just shoving them in WoC after adding chaos ogres and marks runs into some questions on distinction. Putting them into Norsca would side step this problem. Though I would like to note that I have some serious concerns about Plague Ogres specifically. Like Bile Trolls I don't think they'll be different enough to warrant the resources but I wanted to make note of the possibility. Also I just love the Plague Ogre art.

    I'm expecting Subfactions and campaign mechanics to go much farther in the future. Imperial Regiments and Waaagh! units demonstrate that CA is working to find a way to give cool features to races that go beyond the base roster. It may be a bit ambitious to argue for Tamurkhan to be used in this manner, though given Nurgle has so many named champions they are most likely to get shafted by attempts at even representation. :s There is a practical argument to my selection, in that I'm more worried about him not making the cut if only WoC is on the table.

    Granted I think this is mostly a difference of philosophy. Allow WoC to better mix and match marks while limiting Norsca to a single God devotion in later sub factions would definitely achieve my goal of variation. CA can reach a good outcome through a lot of paths, and I do not mean to imply my ideas are the only way forward. And I definitely agree that without more information on DoC or the WoC it's impossible to determine the best way to implement something like this. While I think your hopes may be a tad ambitious I can see the logic you are working from. If we have the openings for lords then forcing a lord to fit is unnecessary.

    I will totally admit to being unfair to Sayl. Him having a chaos spawn as a selling point is one of the things I don't like about him actually. I just don't think they are a unit worth writing home about compared to some of the god specific designs in the game. More practically, while it leads to some potentially interesting visuals it locks him into being a slow foot lord caster which from a gameplay perspective just frustrates me. It's definitely more subjective but I would personally be frustrated having to pay for him. However my personal disdain does not mean he couldn't be done in a manner that would be worth the cost.

    Frankly it's nice to see people passionate about characters who come from beyond 8th edition army books. That's provided some of the coolest expansions to the game and I'm always happy to see people pushing for going above and beyond with what total war warhammer can be. So you won't hear any kink shaming from me on that front. Fly your Mortkin flag high and proud. :tongue:

    Also on a more serious note, I appreciate your willingness to put time into discussing these ideas and I want to thank you for your detailed replies. :smile:

    Interesting idea that is, I see how it could work better now, but I think the issue becomes Norsca would need a rework to it's main mechanics first as I still think adding a Marked LL works against it in the end, but a rework to support the addition of Marked LLs and unaligned LLs makes most sense. Norsca you can switch gods whenever but at a cost, but a Marked would be locked in so it needs more than just thematic units imo. I guess ultimately I see how it can work, but we need WoC updated and DoC added before I'd be willing to say it's a good idea. I also think Norsca still needs more unaligned content if it wants to support pure Blessed LLs, so stuff like Unaligned Lord casters and infantry/cavalry as you suggested in OP, so I stand by that Norsca's first LP should be an unaligned caster be it Sayl or someone else.

    I'd argue Bile Trolls fit Norsca more than Ogres because of the obvious Throgg connection, but I could also easily see CA opting to replace Marked Ogres with Plague Ogres and so on. I base this of the Soul Grinder which had to be a Daemon of (blank) on 8th DoC yet also had 4 upgradeable weapon variants. Easy solution is make 4 units for each god and tie them to a weapon variant. So for example Soul Grinder of Tzeentch is the Baleful Torrent upgrade and SG of Nurgle is the Phelgm Bombardment upgrade. Same way they've done Snotling Pump Wagons essentially. So you don't get Ogres of Nurgle, you get Plague Ogres and same with Bile Trolls. Kills two birds with one rock.

    Ambition is good to strive for, but I find in CA's case it can easily backfire like with Nakai's mechanics which I still maintain is the worst experience I've had playing this game even over playing Malagor with his starting area giving him attrition damage. Execution is key. Problem we have also is we view Tamurkhan's status very differently. The number one Nurgle WoC LL is Festus simply because he's in WoC 8th and CA does prioritise those with very rare exceptions and those exceptions came after a bunch of 8th LLs and LHs were in already like with Nakai. Nurgle has no LLs in 8th so naturally this would mean a Nurgle LH is a logical chocie and WoC 8th had only one in Festus. Problem is like Sigvald Festus is not a very interesting character compared to a bunch of other choices so it seems likely to me he'd be part of the FLC update like a WE character is going to be. Our other options include Tamurkhan who has a lot going for him including unique units, model, mount and more importantly is an 8th supplement character. His main competition are ET characters but even you said only one is paricullary interesting in the Glottkin, but I see Tamurkhan winning out for a DLC mostly because he's one LL and mount, not 3 LL models in one. Each brother is a character like the Sisters of Twilight but unlike them their not twins so you can't copy paste them, you have to make each model unique and that is far more costly than Tamurkhan's one. The mount also is easily recycleable unlike the glottkin since Toad Dragons had rules like you said. The "mount" is a character so it can't be recycled as easily. I don't agree with recycling Toad Dragons, I'm saying CA likes to recycle, so it makes Tamurkhan a more attractive prospect. I think Tamurkhan is a safe bet for DLC.

    I never thought you were saying you you were correct. You seem open to discussion and differing opinions so I quite like that, we just disagree on this matter, but thinking about it it could work, just require a ton of effort on CA's part to get it right and if we can't get 2 LLs per god like I expect it's an ok comprimise. Once we see the DoC LL lineup I think that will help cement what the best path is, but for now I stay my course of blind faith.

    I think it's fine if you don't like a character I really don't like Valkia the Bloody for example, and I can't argue against personal preference. I disagree majorly on Nightmaw though, I love Chaos Spawn as their basically John Carpenter's the Thing, but a unit. From an objective point of view a Foot caster running around with a Chaos Spawn in his model does really help the LL stand out as we've never gotten a "Skarsnik but Caster" type of LL and while foot casters are not entirely unique, as Norsca is without a pure caster LL like Teclis it adds more to him. Obviously there are more characters they can use to fill that niche and from a WoC standpoint I think he would have little chance, but from a current Norsca pov he fits perfectly. We can agree to disagree on him though as personally I love footcasters as unlike melee footlords they can be quite strong and it requires me to put more effort into keeping them alive than say Mazdamundi w/Zlaaq or Malekith on mounts.

    Lol, I appreicate the stroking of my ego obviously, but I do need to point out Mordkin is technically from 8th even if not an army book. If we want to talk about charcters I love passionately from older edtions, we have an easy trio of Zacharias the Everliving, Egrimm van Horstmann and Mallobaude though it's very easy to argue why they'd be great adds besides my personal bias unlike Mordkin. Does Moonclaw count since BM never got an 8th either? Anyway I'll argue always for as much content as possible. I'll ask you, what characters do you have a passion for who aren't in yet?

    Don't know if I'd call my responses detailed, but I enjoy talking/arguing different perspectives and I can write forever as I enjoy it too much. Really you should thank yourself for engaging my long ass posts arguing about this stuff cause I ramble on forever as this very post proves.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 850

    I do see how providing a hard limitation to one faction while letting the other mix and match units would create a clear distinction between the two. Just shoving all of the Nurgle themed units into a Tamurkhan sub faction would essential just created a blended roster. It's possible to use a mechanic similar to Markus Wulfhart's imperial shipments to avoid that in campaign, where showing devotion to Nurgle lets you recruit some units from WoC and DoC as long as they are Nurgle themed. Ultimately I'm more in favor of having the armies represent their devotion in different ways and with different units. Basically a Norscan Nurgle faction and WoC Nurgle faction would be differentiated not just from the base units but through only having a limited number of Nurgle units on each roster at base. Plague Ogres being an example, just shoving them in WoC after adding chaos ogres and marks runs into some questions on distinction. Putting them into Norsca would side step this problem. Though I would like to note that I have some serious concerns about Plague Ogres specifically. Like Bile Trolls I don't think they'll be different enough to warrant the resources but I wanted to make note of the possibility. Also I just love the Plague Ogre art.

    I'm expecting Subfactions and campaign mechanics to go much farther in the future. Imperial Regiments and Waaagh! units demonstrate that CA is working to find a way to give cool features to races that go beyond the base roster. It may be a bit ambitious to argue for Tamurkhan to be used in this manner, though given Nurgle has so many named champions they are most likely to get shafted by attempts at even representation. :s There is a practical argument to my selection, in that I'm more worried about him not making the cut if only WoC is on the table.

    Granted I think this is mostly a difference of philosophy. Allow WoC to better mix and match marks while limiting Norsca to a single God devotion in later sub factions would definitely achieve my goal of variation. CA can reach a good outcome through a lot of paths, and I do not mean to imply my ideas are the only way forward. And I definitely agree that without more information on DoC or the WoC it's impossible to determine the best way to implement something like this. While I think your hopes may be a tad ambitious I can see the logic you are working from. If we have the openings for lords then forcing a lord to fit is unnecessary.

    I will totally admit to being unfair to Sayl. Him having a chaos spawn as a selling point is one of the things I don't like about him actually. I just don't think they are a unit worth writing home about compared to some of the god specific designs in the game. More practically, while it leads to some potentially interesting visuals it locks him into being a slow foot lord caster which from a gameplay perspective just frustrates me. It's definitely more subjective but I would personally be frustrated having to pay for him. However my personal disdain does not mean he couldn't be done in a manner that would be worth the cost.

    Frankly it's nice to see people passionate about characters who come from beyond 8th edition army books. That's provided some of the coolest expansions to the game and I'm always happy to see people pushing for going above and beyond with what total war warhammer can be. So you won't hear any kink shaming from me on that front. Fly your Mortkin flag high and proud. :tongue:

    Also on a more serious note, I appreciate your willingness to put time into discussing these ideas and I want to thank you for your detailed replies. :smile:

    Interesting idea that is, I see how it could work better now, but I think the issue becomes Norsca would need a rework to it's main mechanics first as I still think adding a Marked LL works against it in the end, but a rework to support the addition of Marked LLs and unaligned LLs makes most sense. Norsca you can switch gods whenever but at a cost, but a Marked would be locked in so it needs more than just thematic units imo. I guess ultimately I see how it can work, but we need WoC updated and DoC added before I'd be willing to say it's a good idea. I also think Norsca still needs more unaligned content if it wants to support pure Blessed LLs, so stuff like Unaligned Lord casters and infantry/cavalry as you suggested in OP, so I stand by that Norsca's first LP should be an unaligned caster be it Sayl or someone else.

    I'd argue Bile Trolls fit Norsca more than Ogres because of the obvious Throgg connection, but I could also easily see CA opting to replace Marked Ogres with Plague Ogres and so on. I base this of the Soul Grinder which had to be a Daemon of (blank) on 8th DoC yet also had 4 upgradeable weapon variants. Easy solution is make 4 units for each god and tie them to a weapon variant. So for example Soul Grinder of Tzeentch is the Baleful Torrent upgrade and SG of Nurgle is the Phelgm Bombardment upgrade. Same way they've done Snotling Pump Wagons essentially. So you don't get Ogres of Nurgle, you get Plague Ogres and same with Bile Trolls. Kills two birds with one rock.

    Ambition is good to strive for, but I find in CA's case it can easily backfire like with Nakai's mechanics which I still maintain is the worst experience I've had playing this game even over playing Malagor with his starting area giving him attrition damage. Execution is key. Problem we have also is we view Tamurkhan's status very differently. The number one Nurgle WoC LL is Festus simply because he's in WoC 8th and CA does prioritise those with very rare exceptions and those exceptions came after a bunch of 8th LLs and LHs were in already like with Nakai. Nurgle has no LLs in 8th so naturally this would mean a Nurgle LH is a logical chocie and WoC 8th had only one in Festus. Problem is like Sigvald Festus is not a very interesting character compared to a bunch of other choices so it seems likely to me he'd be part of the FLC update like a WE character is going to be. Our other options include Tamurkhan who has a lot going for him including unique units, model, mount and more importantly is an 8th supplement character. His main competition are ET characters but even you said only one is paricullary interesting in the Glottkin, but I see Tamurkhan winning out for a DLC mostly because he's one LL and mount, not 3 LL models in one. Each brother is a character like the Sisters of Twilight but unlike them their not twins so you can't copy paste them, you have to make each model unique and that is far more costly than Tamurkhan's one. The mount also is easily recycleable unlike the glottkin since Toad Dragons had rules like you said. The "mount" is a character so it can't be recycled as easily. I don't agree with recycling Toad Dragons, I'm saying CA likes to recycle, so it makes Tamurkhan a more attractive prospect. I think Tamurkhan is a safe bet for DLC.

    I never thought you were saying you you were correct. You seem open to discussion and differing opinions so I quite like that, we just disagree on this matter, but thinking about it it could work, just require a ton of effort on CA's part to get it right and if we can't get 2 LLs per god like I expect it's an ok comprimise. Once we see the DoC LL lineup I think that will help cement what the best path is, but for now I stay my course of blind faith.

    I think it's fine if you don't like a character I really don't like Valkia the Bloody for example, and I can't argue against personal preference. I disagree majorly on Nightmaw though, I love Chaos Spawn as their basically John Carpenter's the Thing, but a unit. From an objective point of view a Foot caster running around with a Chaos Spawn in his model does really help the LL stand out as we've never gotten a "Skarsnik but Caster" type of LL and while foot casters are not entirely unique, as Norsca is without a pure caster LL like Teclis it adds more to him. Obviously there are more characters they can use to fill that niche and from a WoC standpoint I think he would have little chance, but from a current Norsca pov he fits perfectly. We can agree to disagree on him though as personally I love footcasters as unlike melee footlords they can be quite strong and it requires me to put more effort into keeping them alive than say Mazdamundi w/Zlaaq or Malekith on mounts.

    Lol, I appreicate the stroking of my ego obviously, but I do need to point out Mordkin is technically from 8th even if not an army book. If we want to talk about charcters I love passionately from older edtions, we have an easy trio of Zacharias the Everliving, Egrimm van Horstmann and Mallobaude though it's very easy to argue why they'd be great adds besides my personal bias unlike Mordkin. Does Moonclaw count since BM never got an 8th either? Anyway I'll argue always for as much content as possible. I'll ask you, what characters do you have a passion for who aren't in yet?

    Don't know if I'd call my responses detailed, but I enjoy talking/arguing different perspectives and I can write forever as I enjoy it too much. Really you should thank yourself for engaging my long ass posts arguing about this stuff cause I ramble on forever as this very post proves.
    Yeah speculation without seeing how CA is adjusting the existing elements of chaos and how they are implementing the Daemons is based on a whole lot of assumptions. CA has a lot of flexibility in how to approach this and it's nice to see multiple outcomes that would be solid are available. Not to mention CA has a pretty decent track record so far.

    For my personal character hills to die on?

    Zacharias the Everliving is kind of cliche but I love the evil cabal of wizards with the apprentice working to steal the masters secrets. Adding vampirism and zombie dragons is just a plus. Beyond that not being a Von Carstein is nice. Necrachs and Strigoi have more of a nosferatu vibe which I've grown more and more fond of the longer I've consumed vamipre media. Unfortunately the Strigoi characters in warhammer never quite captured me.

    Dechala has a solid backstory (even if a few elements are, we'll say dated) plays into the dark side of elves in a manner that isn't super edgy, and looks like a Marilith from DnD (not to imply that this representation is particularly original, but that was my first exposure to that particular interpretation and I've been fond of it ever since). Not to mention she's a fairly exciting way to hide the fact that she's mostly a foot character. :tongue: Still, fast moving blender lord who provides an option beyond dude in armor for the WoC is always nice.

    Ariel. To be frank I prefer her over the sisters because I just enjoy the inclusion of avatars of Gods. Her old model and art can be inconsistent, her rules are super outdated, and a lot of her backstory just annoys me. Despite all of that I really like the core idea of godlike beings taking to the field. She's basically the definition of underutilized.

    I go back and forth on moonclaw myself. I love his backstory and his descriptions but his art just didn't click with me and his abilities are rather tame all things considered. If he was fused with his mount like a Nucklavee I would be totally on board with him, especially in comparison to Ghorros who I like, but can't say it's a hill I'd die on.

    Those would be the 3 forgotten characters I would personally like to see represented in game regardless of their inconsistent portrayal on tabletop specifically. Most of my favorite races that are in game are pretty well represented at this point.
  • JastalllJastalll Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,443
    I don't think Norsca even needs new units to be honest. Their roster is very well designed and well balanced, with practically no bloat whatsoever and useful units all around save maybe for vanilla Trolls. IMO all they need are new LLs and thus start positions (Lord Mortkin and Sayl the Faithless would be my go-tos) and another generic Lord choice, a monstrous one such as a Lord level Fimir.

    Even if they MUST get new units because Lord Pack I've no idea what they should get TBH.
  • The_RadudeThe_Radude Registered Users Posts: 373
    I think they should add a Fimir warlord as a new lord choice.

    It sucks having only one lord choice: the Maradeur chieftain.

    I want more monstrous lords yo join Throgg's monstrous horde!


    Also add Doombulls to Beastmen!
  • MarkerMarker Registered Users Posts: 1,922
    saweendra said:

    norsca has strong rivalry with bretonnia.

    I agree, however, Wulfric is bullying Bretonnia atm and the other two are against vampires / beastmen / vampirates.
Sign In or Register to comment.