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

I think CD, Khuresh and Ind are all we are getting for race packs.

1356

Comments

  • JastalllJastalll Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887
    CD and Dogs of War/Southern Realms are the only two lock-in in my opinion. I won't mentions Legions of Nagash since while I'm certain the man himself will come I'm unsure if it'll be as the head of a new race.

    After that, we may get Khuresh, or Ind, they're the most likely of the minor races. But I wouldn't get any tangible hopes up yet. Araby as a location was playable game 2 from the onset and CA never did them after all. So the inclusion of those two areas on the map is no guarantee one way or another.
  • Goatforce#6625Goatforce#6625 Registered Users Posts: 8,450

    Beargod said:

    Ind and khuresh are 99% coming. why else add their landmass to the game? CA has warped maps in the past and now they just add them for them to remain empty? i dont buy it.

    To play Devil's Advocate, why have Araby, Tilea and Estalia on the map if they don't have fleshed out playable races? Ind and Khuresh would have made a very inelegent map had they been cut out. Personally I think we'll see them as exploration and adventuring areas for a DoW race, with a smattering of existing races. I'm not against Ind and Khuresh as playable races but I think it's unlikely.
    The thing is Tilea and Estalia show that CA has also tended to shrink down out of the way areas that they have no plans for in the immediate future as well. Ind and Khuresh are massive, and whilst a map of this style had to include them, it also did not need to include them at that size, when they could have emphasised Cathay more with a smaller more vestigal Ind and Khuresh to pay lip service to the regions. But they didn't do that.
  • Kn_Gars#2718Kn_Gars#2718 Registered Users Posts: 3,275
    Makuhico said:

    Araby has political controversy connected to them. Ind and Khuresh don't.

    We have nothing to suggest that GW doesn't want to do Araby because of political controversy over that nation's past depictions. (No more than we're not getting Southlanders due to Pygmies.) On the other hand, I fully expect Chaos Dwarfs despite having observed accusations against them (that they fall into anti-semitic tropes).

    It's also hard to say what will generate political controversy. There's certainly a lot of it in India at the moment (which is beyond the scope of this board) and it wouldn't be hard for GW to step on someone's toes.

    //

    Ultimately, two things are telling:
    1. A new Campaign Pack needs to fit its lords onto both the IE map as well as the RoC map. While Ind and Khuresh have plenty of room on the IE map, they're absent from the RoC. (Or CA needs to return to doing packs with two lords and custom campaign maps - which is possible, and the best hope.)
    2. While you can argue that Andy Hall might not have been referring to a particular faction when he said that we were "probably never" going to see them, he also said that GW creating Cathay for them was "a coup" that we were unlikely to see repeated. And GW would need to do likewise for Ind, Khuresh, Nippon, Southlanders, Fishmen, etc. So that's a big point against.
    Actually factions with very little lore like Ind and Kuresh have a great set of advantages since we know people will be excited to buy them.

    The royalties for make this factions into the game will be cheaper than buy the royalties from for DoW for example, it is possible that they bought 8th rights manly hence they focus in 8th edition more and for make factions outside 8th edition they have to pay more to GW and we know GW is greedy.

    You can imagine that CD (they will come because fan support) is expensier in regarding licensing than kuresh since kuresh is basically a name couple of minis and few lines in the Lore. Same story with Ind and I think they can get more cash from DLC for factions that they can do (with GW supervision yeah), but I'm sure royalties are way lower since GW has not so many things developed on them.


    Cathay, VC, NuKislev all did great, Araby, Dogs of War, Hobgoblins even Nippon would way expensier in licensing than Ind and Kureshand if they have mainly the rights for 8th edition then every thing is not in 8th edition has another layer of negotiations over it.

    Well I'm not sure about the Licensing deals they had but here can the key.
    Khuresh will not be cheaper than any of the existing 8th edition armies since CA will have to pay GW to make the design just as they did with Cathay and Kislev. Not to mention that the royalties and licence fees are unlikely to be based on counting existing miniatures and models. GW is not going to sell a part of their IP that cheap just because they invested little effort in it when CA has the chance to make a significant amount of money from that part of the IP.
    The user formerly known as KN_Gars, thanks for the involunatry rename CA.
  • NemoTheElf101#1472NemoTheElf101#1472 Registered Users Posts: 2,994

    SerPus said:

    Both continents are starring at us in our faces.

    So is Araby.
    Araby has political controversy connected to them. Ind and Khuresh don't.
    There was never a political controversy attached to Araby to start with. You're talking about a faction that's existed since the 80's.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 21,381
    When it comes to Araby I, like most people don’t know the reasons why either CA or GW dropped Araby. Could’ve been because they simply preferred other options but it could’ve been the fact that GW originally changed it so the west won the equivalent of the crusades. As silly as that sounds to me or others companies will shy away from even the risk of causing offended. It sounds silly but, to say people objectively know the reasons behind Araby is a little far fetched.
  • Makuhico#8254Makuhico#8254 Registered Users Posts: 411
    KN_Gars said:

    Makuhico said:

    Araby has political controversy connected to them. Ind and Khuresh don't.

    We have nothing to suggest that GW doesn't want to do Araby because of political controversy over that nation's past depictions. (No more than we're not getting Southlanders due to Pygmies.) On the other hand, I fully expect Chaos Dwarfs despite having observed accusations against them (that they fall into anti-semitic tropes).

    It's also hard to say what will generate political controversy. There's certainly a lot of it in India at the moment (which is beyond the scope of this board) and it wouldn't be hard for GW to step on someone's toes.

    //

    Ultimately, two things are telling:
    1. A new Campaign Pack needs to fit its lords onto both the IE map as well as the RoC map. While Ind and Khuresh have plenty of room on the IE map, they're absent from the RoC. (Or CA needs to return to doing packs with two lords and custom campaign maps - which is possible, and the best hope.)
    2. While you can argue that Andy Hall might not have been referring to a particular faction when he said that we were "probably never" going to see them, he also said that GW creating Cathay for them was "a coup" that we were unlikely to see repeated. And GW would need to do likewise for Ind, Khuresh, Nippon, Southlanders, Fishmen, etc. So that's a big point against.
    Actually factions with very little lore like Ind and Kuresh have a great set of advantages since we know people will be excited to buy them.

    The royalties for make this factions into the game will be cheaper than buy the royalties from for DoW for example, it is possible that they bought 8th rights manly hence they focus in 8th edition more and for make factions outside 8th edition they have to pay more to GW and we know GW is greedy.

    You can imagine that CD (they will come because fan support) is expensier in regarding licensing than kuresh since kuresh is basically a name couple of minis and few lines in the Lore. Same story with Ind and I think they can get more cash from DLC for factions that they can do (with GW supervision yeah), but I'm sure royalties are way lower since GW has not so many things developed on them.


    Cathay, VC, NuKislev all did great, Araby, Dogs of War, Hobgoblins even Nippon would way expensier in licensing than Ind and Kureshand if they have mainly the rights for 8th edition then every thing is not in 8th edition has another layer of negotiations over it.

    Well I'm not sure about the Licensing deals they had but here can the key.
    Khuresh will not be cheaper than any of the existing 8th edition armies since CA will have to pay GW to make the design just as they did with Cathay and Kislev. Not to mention that the royalties and licence fees are unlikely to be based on counting existing miniatures and models. GW is not going to sell a part of their IP that cheap just because they invested little effort in it when CA has the chance to make a significant amount of money from that part of the IP.
    Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that well established characters/factions have more value, and that value is linked to the current status and projected benefits.

    If GW don't want to make ind for the old world they have no reason to have a more expensive license than Reikland.

    Pay GW for desing something after the license is agreed could be cheaper than pay way more money for a less obscure IP also the royalties porcentaje could be easier to negociante with a obscure IP.

    Would you say this gambit worked with Vampire Coast or Cathay?

  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,838
    edited August 14
    CDwarves - 2022
    DoW - 2023
    Hobgoblins - 2024
    Kneel

  • Itharus#3127Itharus#3127 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,396
    Chaos Dwarfs are guaranteed.

    Hobgoblin Khanate is very likely.

    Dogs of War is somewhat likey, either as a race or a mechanic.

    Ind and Khuresh... kinda stretch goals, at this point. Each one would be as monumental an effort as Cathay was. Worse, even, because the geography still has to be completely invented. Cathay at least had some basic details drawn already.

    Araby should be a shoe-in, you'd think... since it's already got the core of a roster made for it for Warmaster and the land is already all known... but apparently CA or GW dislikes them for some unknown reason.
  • LordSolarMach#5538LordSolarMach#5538 Registered Users Posts: 2,297
    @Makuhico I believe CA's license is for everything that falls under WHFB, which includes things that are peripheral (such as characters created for side games like WFRP or Dreadfleet, though with the latter we've seen the suggestion that GW limits them somewhat).

    So CA doesn't pay any extra to do a DLC, and there'd be no (licensing) cost to do Khuresh, Nippon, etc.

    The costs would be twofold. One, the development: when CA did Tomb Kings a majority of the art assets already existed from the tabletop (that's what CA were paying to use, afterall). Comparably, Vampire Coast had to be significantly created by CA's artists, increasing costs. Secondly, the "political cost". Anything that CA does that's not directly based on something already existing in the IP has to be okayed by GW. So if CA puts time and money into something, and GW says "no", then CA has wasted time and money.

    CA proposed Cathay (and presumably Kislev) for game three to GW. We don't know how closely they worked together on those concepts, but we do know that GW lead the way on it. Cathay was a major expansion of their IP, and GW wanted to control how that expansion occurred.

    CA could unilaterally decide to do Khuresh or Ind, but would have to get approval for every single thing that's not already stated somewhere. (ie. 99% of the design, unlike Vampire Coast which had significant sources in the WD army list, Dreadfleet, Monstrous Arcanum, etc to pull from.) Which means that if GW doesn't want to do it, it's not going to be done.

    (And that's not just a case of if GW wants to let CA do it, because that's off the table. Introducing, essentially, an entire new potential model line will mean that GW will want to do it themselves.)
  • Makuhico#8254Makuhico#8254 Registered Users Posts: 411

    @Makuhico I believe CA's license is for everything that falls under WHFB, which includes things that are peripheral (such as characters created for side games like WFRP or Dreadfleet, though with the latter we've seen the suggestion that GW limits them somewhat).

    So CA doesn't pay any extra to do a DLC, and there'd be no (licensing) cost to do Khuresh, Nippon, etc.

    The costs would be twofold. One, the development: when CA did Tomb Kings a majority of the art assets already existed from the tabletop (that's what CA were paying to use, afterall). Comparably, Vampire Coast had to be significantly created by CA's artists, increasing costs. Secondly, the "political cost". Anything that CA does that's not directly based on something already existing in the IP has to be okayed by GW. So if CA puts time and money into something, and GW says "no", then CA has wasted time and money.

    CA proposed Cathay (and presumably Kislev) for game three to GW. We don't know how closely they worked together on those concepts, but we do know that GW lead the way on it. Cathay was a major expansion of their IP, and GW wanted to control how that expansion occurred.

    CA could unilaterally decide to do Khuresh or Ind, but would have to get approval for every single thing that's not already stated somewhere. (ie. 99% of the design, unlike Vampire Coast which had significant sources in the WD army list, Dreadfleet, Monstrous Arcanum, etc to pull from.) Which means that if GW doesn't want to do it, it's not going to be done.

    (And that's not just a case of if GW wants to let CA do it, because that's off the table. Introducing, essentially, an entire new potential model line will mean that GW will want to do it themselves.)

    Sounds reasonable my good sir.

    I was wonder if they were limited just by 8th edition. But if the umbrella cover everything could be a different matter.

    Ao you know what's the deal with VC or Cathay? Will GW use the same army list for their games I heard about Cathay in the old world, but what about vampire coast are they planning to launch minis on them?
  • Arcani_4_Ever#4489Arcani_4_Ever#4489 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,813
    I dunno CA made a massive change on the Desert of Araby.

    Its a unique landmark with just 1 Building slot.
  • Shandalar#5373Shandalar#5373 Registered Users Posts: 112
    Dogs of War are going to be a ogres mercenary camp thing. Thats the only way we can see them. They had a meme army list just like a base to include the RoRs. It was pure crap.

    Also, this game doesnt need more european factions. Khuresh is most likely, and Ind may be.
  • Itharus#3127Itharus#3127 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,396
    Shandalar said:

    Dogs of War are going to be a ogres mercenary camp thing. Thats the only way we can see them. They had a meme army list just like a base to include the RoRs. It was pure crap.

    Also, this game doesnt need more european factions. Khuresh is most likely, and Ind may be.

    No need to be a racist and hate on Euros.

    I do think DoW is more likely as an Ogre Mercenaries style mechanic from WH2 though, as well.
  • Nyxilis#3646Nyxilis#3646 Registered Users Posts: 7,650
    I think you and everyone that speaks definitively on the topic are just blowing hot air.
  • Bloodydagger#9716Bloodydagger#9716 Registered Users Posts: 4,723

    SerPus said:

    Both continents are starring at us in our faces.

    So is Araby.
    Araby has political controversy connected to them. Ind and Khuresh don't.
    There was never a political controversy attached to Araby to start with. You're talking about a faction that's existed since the 80's.
    If I have to spell it out for you, then you don't need to be a part of this conversation.
  • VenefcusVenefcus Registered Users Posts: 264
    Anything beyond Chaos Dwarfs is hopium, but I am hopeful!
  • NemoTheElf101#1472NemoTheElf101#1472 Registered Users Posts: 2,994

    SerPus said:

    Both continents are starring at us in our faces.

    So is Araby.
    Araby has political controversy connected to them. Ind and Khuresh don't.
    There was never a political controversy attached to Araby to start with. You're talking about a faction that's existed since the 80's.
    If I have to spell it out for you, then you don't need to be a part of this conversation.
    I've followed Warhammer for years. There was never a controversy around them until certain people invented them.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,131
    edited August 14
    Araby doesn't have any political controversy. Lol. For some reason people love to say it, but it just doesn't match reality. For all the people saying it'll be controversial I've never, ever seen anyone criticize it for political reasons.

    Araby's absolutely not coming, but politics have nothing to do with it.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast"There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla Forum Terms & Conditions I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • JToegiTheSnotling#6624JToegiTheSnotling#6624 Registered Users Posts: 2,391

    SerPus said:

    Both continents are starring at us in our faces.

    So is Araby.
    Araby has political controversy connected to them. Ind and Khuresh don't.
    There was never a political controversy attached to Araby to start with. You're talking about a faction that's existed since the 80's.
    If I have to spell it out for you, then you don't need to be a part of this conversation.
    What controversy?? Araby is literally just a rip off of Arabian Nights. Honestly Nippon was way worser written, but their skin isn't dark enough so I guess nobody cared.

    Yall act like mentioning the middle east is this big issue like bruh. It is a land and culture that has existed for thousands of years. Their history and mythology is interesting. It has inspired tons of fantasy stories before.

    I do think if GW wants to bring back Araby it'll need some updating but honestly not much. Nippon should get a complete rewrite though. They suck in the old lore.

    Also I strongly suspect Araby was left for dead because of a few things, but mostly poor timing and being overshadowed by other races. Warhammer 2 was really there only major shot at getting in. Now that 3 is out there isn't any reason to go back since they have a bunch of other options.
  • MODIDDLY1#9212MODIDDLY1#9212 Registered Users Posts: 1,268

    1v0 said:

    I don't think we will get Ind and Khuresh - to put it short - if they add them as DLCs there will not be a palce for them on the race for the souls map = they won't add them.
    But I do expect Chaos dwarfs (that are leak confirmed). Maybe even Dogs of War.

    As for what they will put in the empty space in IE - I expect 1 Chaos Dwarfs LL and maybe placeholders and stuff like that...

    I simply can't see them addin Ind and Khuresh - maybe they will be there as part of Dogs of war (with the dreamed araby).

    I understand that your argument depends on whether or not RoC map can expand its borders (not just some rearrangement). Honestly I've asked this question in very specific terms (map borders) in literally every Rally Point, and I never got an answer. I'll keep trying though.

    For now, RoC does have the northern part of Ind in it, but admittedly nothing from Khuresh.

    Here's what I'm thinking though - consider what goes the current RoC map has space for.

    1. Southern Realms - No. I know that people like to say DoW is separate from that but let's be fair, Tilea etc are a major part of that army book, with several LLs from there.
    2. Eastern Steppes - No. The only province is already occupied.
    3. Southern and Eastern Cathay - No. This is where at least 3 LLs are supposed to be (2 dragons and Monkey King). I can see one of them moved to other parts of the map, but all three?
    4. Nagashizzar - No.

    As you can see, there will be severe map gymnastics needed to add even one more race apart from CD on RoC map, not to mention the Cathay LLs.

    I think that CA will want to add more races, whichever ones they may be. And the best way to add them to RoC is to expand its borders. I don't think we can assume that old limitations in terms of map-expansion tech still applies, which is why I'll keep asking that question so we can have a clear answer.
    So jade blooded vampire race pack confirmed?
    I hope the other bloodlines get added to Counts before CA start fleshing out the new one
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,131
    Jote191 said:

    SerPus said:

    Both continents are starring at us in our faces.

    So is Araby.
    Araby has political controversy connected to them. Ind and Khuresh don't.
    There was never a political controversy attached to Araby to start with. You're talking about a faction that's existed since the 80's.
    If I have to spell it out for you, then you don't need to be a part of this conversation.
    What controversy?? Araby is literally just a rip off of Arabian Nights. Honestly Nippon was way worser written, but their skin isn't dark enough so I guess nobody cared.

    Yall act like mentioning the middle east is this big issue like bruh. It is a land and culture that has existed for thousands of years. Their history and mythology is interesting. It has inspired tons of fantasy stories before.

    I do think if GW wants to bring back Araby it'll need some updating but honestly not much. Nippon should get a complete rewrite though. They suck in the old lore.

    Also I strongly suspect Araby was left for dead because of a few things, but mostly poor timing and being overshadowed by other races. Warhammer 2 was really there only major shot at getting in. Now that 3 is out there isn't any reason to go back since they have a bunch of other options.
    Araby's release date would have literally been alongside Aladdin. Really kills that whole "politics" narrative.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast"There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla Forum Terms & Conditions I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • SerPus#7395SerPus#7395 Registered Users Posts: 9,692

    Araby has political controversy connected to them.

    There was never any political controversy about Araby.
  • AxiosXiphos#9040AxiosXiphos#9040 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,522
    SerPus said:

    Araby has political controversy connected to them.

    There was never any political controversy about Araby.
    Yes & No. There was never any controversy because GW dropped them before any controversy could ever be considered.

    Whether adding the race back in would create controversy though is a different question.

    I mean I saw several users accuse CA of sexism because Valkia took a few hits in her trailer... So we can't just pretend Araby would be met with universal joy and acceptance (even though it absolutely should be like any other race).
  • Matador974#7139Matador974#7139 Registered Users Posts: 42
    I believe that as long as a Warhammer DLC is as profitable as any DLC from another active Total War title, it's possible to do it.
    Warhammer factions are more "collectible" than other titles, in my opinion.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,131

    SerPus said:

    Araby has political controversy connected to them.

    There was never any political controversy about Araby.
    Yes & No. There was never any controversy because GW dropped them before any controversy could ever be considered.

    Whether adding the race back in would create controversy though is a different question.

    I mean I saw several users accuse CA of sexism because Valkia took a few hits in her trailer... So we can't just pretend Araby would be met with universal joy and acceptance (even though it absolutely should be like any other race).
    Araby's no worse than Aladdin.

    It's easy to say Araby wouldn't get a worse reaction than that.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast"There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla Forum Terms & Conditions I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • SerPus#7395SerPus#7395 Registered Users Posts: 9,692

    Whether adding the race back in would create controversy though is a different question.

    Exactly, that is a different question. The point is still the same: there was never any controversy about Araby.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 21,381
    No one knows how GW feel about the narrative around Araby. There are plenty of things people get upset about these days that I have no idea about. It could be about a simple selection or it could be about GW noticing something they don't like. Unless you were at the meeting you really can't answer confidently.
  • AxiosXiphos#9040AxiosXiphos#9040 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,522
    edited August 14

    SerPus said:

    Araby has political controversy connected to them.

    There was never any political controversy about Araby.
    Yes & No. There was never any controversy because GW dropped them before any controversy could ever be considered.

    Whether adding the race back in would create controversy though is a different question.

    I mean I saw several users accuse CA of sexism because Valkia took a few hits in her trailer... So we can't just pretend Araby would be met with universal joy and acceptance (even though it absolutely should be like any other race).
    Araby's no worse than Aladdin.

    It's easy to say Araby wouldn't get a worse reaction than that.
    But if you are CA; why even bother with that? There's about a dozen other races you could do first - why risk any negative reaction; when they could just add snakemen or something (or anything else). Something no one can call out (rightly or wrongly).

    I think CA could of achieved something excellent with Araby that kept all parties happy. But I just don't see any desire to open up that particular can of worms when there is so much low hanging fruit. It's not as if there is a huge Arabic gaming community that such a DLC pack would open TWWH3 up to (like China/Cathay).
  • NemoTheElf101#1472NemoTheElf101#1472 Registered Users Posts: 2,994

    No one knows how GW feel about the narrative around Araby. There are plenty of things people get upset about these days that I have no idea about. It could be about a simple selection or it could be about GW noticing something they don't like. Unless you were at the meeting you really can't answer confidently.

    People got "upset" about the addition of Cathay over issues with China and the reinvention of Kislev over the war in Ukraine. They're both still popular and well-liked factions.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 21,381
    edited August 14

    No one knows how GW feel about the narrative around Araby. There are plenty of things people get upset about these days that I have no idea about. It could be about a simple selection or it could be about GW noticing something they don't like. Unless you were at the meeting you really can't answer confidently.

    People got "upset" about the addition of Cathay over issues with China and the reinvention of Kislev over the war in Ukraine. They're both still popular and well-liked factions.
    Cathay was created with modern sensibilities in mind and there so little created there's not so much that can be brought up. With the limited knowledge I have on Araby I can recognise the fact that the Western nations won the crusades of the WH world when in fact it was the Middle Eastern nations who won these crusades originally. Add to that there could be a number of things that the people in GW have noticed in the most recent lore that has made them think it's not worth the trouble.

    I can't speak confidently on any meetings between GW and CA because I never attended, just like the majority of this forum.



    Aladdin isn’t GW just in case anyone is confused.
Sign In or Register to comment.