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

How could they implement factions without army books? (estalia, vampire coast, amazons)

ChazdoitChazdoit Registered Users Posts: 120
It's my understanding that these factions never got any army book in any version of Warhammer Fantasy, so how would CA implement such factions if they have almost nothing to work with?

Comments

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,538
    Eastlian, Tilean and Border Prince units were represented in the Dogs of War mercenary armybook, so CA wouldn't have to work from scratch.


  • ChazdoitChazdoit Registered Users Posts: 120

    Eastlian, Tilean and Border Prince units were represented in the Dogs of War mercenary armybook, so CA wouldn't have to work from scratch.

    That sounds good because it bothers me that they are just placeholder factions and Empire clones, same with Kislev, at least Kislev did have an army book in old version of the tabletop game so CA would have something to work with.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,405
    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.
  • ChazdoitChazdoit Registered Users Posts: 120

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    Well Rome and Suebi didn't have army books but CA somehow made their army. Maybe they use art, lore, history, andpeople resources to to make units. A great resource would be their GW partnership.

    mmmmmkay? :smile:
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,405
    Chazdoit said:

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
    But some had units and models in campaign books, creating those units and factions wouldn't be the problem the thing is CA has a license for WH:FB 8th Edition and I'm pretty sure everything beyond that needs extra confirmation from GW. Brets didn't had an army book in 8th edition but at least they had some rule updates.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,613

    Chazdoit said:

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
    But some had units and models in campaign books, creating those units and factions wouldn't be the problem the thing is CA has a license for WH:FB 8th Edition and I'm pretty sure everything beyond that needs extra confirmation from GW. Brets didn't had an army book in 8th edition but at least they had some rule updates.
    GW approves or denies everything about licensed content before it gets released. Where have you read that anything not from 8th ed. requires "extra confirmation."
    ò_ó
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    Chazdoit said:

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
    Amazons had units from a period before Army Books were a thing.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,405
    Well if they even want to confirm 8th Edition stuff that's new to me but well its GW. :smiley: The thing is if you have a license for specific stuff and want to use something that isn't included in that license its normal business practice that you have to ask for it and get a confirmation before you use it.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,820
    edited March 2017
    az88 said:

    Chazdoit said:

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
    Amazons had units from a period before Army Books were a thing.
    Yeah but those thing are barley useable anymore are they.

    Generally speaking I would approach this the way I would creating navies:
    try to get the essence of a race and design the units around that.

    Example: Amazons.

    You have lightly armored, not as strong as Orcs or armored as Empire troops women fighting in a exotic environment.

    That leads to a mainly skirmishing force, with perhaps some monsters/animals thrown in. Good in movement and damage but poor in terms of staying power.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,405
    There are navies they don't need to be created, but its another franchise called Man O'War and there is a game for that already.
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    SiWI said:

    az88 said:

    Chazdoit said:

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
    Amazons had units from a period before Army Books were a thing.
    Yeah but those thing are barley useable anymore are they.
    .
    Why not? Their stats are very similar to 4th edition units and their weapons directly translate. Anything you can use in 4th could be made to work in later editions with minor adjustments.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,820
    az88 said:

    SiWI said:

    az88 said:

    Chazdoit said:

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
    Amazons had units from a period before Army Books were a thing.
    Yeah but those thing are barley useable anymore are they.
    .
    Why not? Their stats are very similar to 4th edition units and their weapons directly translate. Anything you can use in 4th could be made to work in later editions with minor adjustments.
    I not mean as much the rules, the whole style of things...
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    SiWI said:

    az88 said:

    SiWI said:

    az88 said:

    Chazdoit said:

    They would have to ask GW what they can use from older Editions like they did with some bret infantry units.

    I think a some of the factions people are asking for (amazons) never had an army book in ANY edition.
    Amazons had units from a period before Army Books were a thing.
    Yeah but those thing are barley useable anymore are they.
    .
    Why not? Their stats are very similar to 4th edition units and their weapons directly translate. Anything you can use in 4th could be made to work in later editions with minor adjustments.
    I not mean as much the rules, the whole style of things...
    I think there's enough reasonable fluff for CA to go at. The trouble, I think, would be the work involved and whether they'd see it as remotely worth it. They'd have to invent some units and modernise some things and it's not like people are dying to throw money at CA for Amazons. They might be more bother than they're worth.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    Making units for non TT armies? no problem.

    Making the race/faction unique to the others in game, gameplay wise?.... May require some effort and thinking to say the least. But it will be worth it despite naysayers.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,362
    Many of those Minor Factions have units from the White Dwarf Magazine, and CA might be able to work with the Bretonnia's Armybook Writer on totally new units not only for Bretonnia.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,189
    edited March 2017

    Well Rome and Suebi didn't have army books but CA somehow made their army. Maybe they use art, lore, history, andpeople resources to to make units. A great resource would be their GW partnership.

    mmmmmkay? :smile:

    Exactly it seems like the Warhammer fans forgot that CA has made hundreds or atleast dozens of factions before Warhammer ever came out.
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    CnConrad said:

    Well Rome and Suebi didn't have army books but CA somehow made their army. Maybe they use art, lore, history, andpeople resources to to make units. A great resource would be their GW partnership.

    mmmmmkay? :smile:

    Exactly it seems like the Warhammer fans forgot that CA has made hundreds of factions before Warhammer ever came out.
    That's not really the issue. The issue is that it feels like the time investment in creating fluffy units would be somewhat more than if you are lifting units from army books. I don't doubt for a second that they could create factions and units, it's whether it'd be worth the time for them to do so for factions that might have to be FLC releases anyway.

    Perhaps it'd be easier than making armies based on the army books, though. Maybe if you can just formulate a functional TW army and then add the fluff aspects later that'd actually be a simpler method. I don't know what CA's process would be.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,189
    az88 said:

    CnConrad said:

    Well Rome and Suebi didn't have army books but CA somehow made their army. Maybe they use art, lore, history, andpeople resources to to make units. A great resource would be their GW partnership.

    mmmmmkay? :smile:

    Exactly it seems like the Warhammer fans forgot that CA has made hundreds of factions before Warhammer ever came out.
    That's not really the issue. The issue is that it feels like the time investment in creating fluffy units would be somewhat more than if you are lifting units from army books. I don't doubt for a second that they could create factions and units, it's whether it'd be worth the time for them to do so for factions that might have to be FLC releases anyway.

    Perhaps it'd be easier than making armies based on the army books, though. Maybe if you can just formulate a functional TW army and then add the fluff aspects later that'd actually be a simpler method. I don't know what CA's process would be.
    I have absolute faith in them making Eastlian, Tilean, Araby, Border Prince, and Kislev units. They are based on real life civilizations that's their bread and butter. I would be a bit concerned about new monsters.
  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,041
    edited March 2017
    CnConrad said:

    I have absolute faith in them making Eastlian, Tilean, Araby, Border Prince, and Kislev units. They are based on real life civilizations that's their bread and butter. I would be a bit concerned about new monsters.

    Do you really? I bet you ten cents (or whatever your local currency of choice is) that they Won't do estalia, tilea, araby, or the border princes in any meaningful way.

    I do still hold out hope for Kislev though (they had a pretty legit army list in both warmaster and WH Fantasy during the Storm of Chaos and, I mean, they already have a voice actor in diplomacy).

    But I'd be shocked if all these lists that were never meaningfully included in game got significant love. I mean, how much hate has there been just about foot knights (er, squires, whatever) for Bretonnia? And foot knights for Bretonnia were a legit rule-based thing you could take with legit models you could buy much more recently than a lot of this stuff.

    Can CA make historical-human armies? Yeah, absolutely. That's in their skill set, I'm 100% sure no one will disagree with you. But will they shoehorn them into a GW fantasy game? I'll lay down that dime.
  • FrancisFrancis Member Registered Users Posts: 505
    I think Kislev and a DoW roster for TEBP are likely. Araby is plausible. I doubt they will do anybody else, but any extra faction we get would be great.
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    Valeli said:

    CnConrad said:

    I have absolute faith in them making Eastlian, Tilean, Araby, Border Prince, and Kislev units. They are based on real life civilizations that's their bread and butter. I would be a bit concerned about new monsters.

    Do you really? I bet you ten cents (or whatever your local currency of choice is) that they Won't do estalia, tilea, araby, or the border princes in any meaningful way.

    I do still hold out hope for Kislev though (they had a pretty legit army list in both warmaster and WH Fantasy during the Storm of Chaos and, I mean, they already have a voice actor in diplomacy).

    But I'd be shocked if all these lists that were never meaningfully included in game got significant love. I mean, how much hate has there been just about foot knights (er, squires, whatever) for Bretonnia? And foot knights for Bretonnia were a legit rule-based thing you could take with legit models you could buy much more recently than a lot of this stuff.

    Can CA make historical-human armies? Yeah, absolutely. That's in their skill set, I'm 100% sure no one will disagree with you. But will they shoehorn them into a GW fantasy game? I'll lay down that dime.
    Whilst you may well be correct about not getting those factions, I'm not sure anyone would kick up a fuss about them as they did about Bretonnia getting certain units. The issue for the people who objected to foot squires was that it altered how they felt Bretonnia should 'feel', based upon their recent TT armies. That wouldn't be an issue for factions that haven't actually had a WFB release in the modern (since 3rd edition) era.
  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,041
    edited March 2017
    Oh, yeah, don't misunderstand me.

    I'd love to get (most) of these factions. However, what I'd really like is to have them around and distinguished VERY slightly from the empire - primarily by means of temperament and voice acting. A little inspiration from the old DoW units could certainly be cool too.

    But if we get Tilea or Estalia I want them to be very similar to the Empire. Reskin some stuff so they don't have reiksguard... give them a unit of pikes (I wouldn't be shocked if HEs get some sort of pike mechanic, maybe you can base it off that once it's in game two). Maybe a fancy artillery piece. Take away the steam tank.

    It would be too distracting to me if we got fully fleshed out factions based on like, 2nd edition mentions though.

    Again, I feel Kislev is an exception. They were very well fleshed out in both Warmaster and WH Fantasy, and they were fleshed out significantly more recently than (apparently) when amazons were a thing.
  • SultschiemSultschiem Registered Users Posts: 2,709
    They are allowed to make up stuff, BUT it must work with the lore, for example they cannot just simply make a group of Chaos Dragon Grail Knights for Estalia, without there having to be a lore reason that isn't garbage.

    There are descriptions of the Estalian and Tilean military and on top of that there are a few Dogs of War regiments who are specific to Tilea/Estalia which gives you a good impression of that faction.

    Ca could take these lore and dogs of war bits and make a faction out of it BUT!!!! every single unit, every single lord and model must be approved by games workshop.

    They HAVE the option to BEND the lore a bit by creating special circumstances.

    The dwarves in Warhammer Online were allowed to have a gyrocopter-backpack as a mount because the high king decided "**** is about to go down boys, go get malakai makaisson and let that sob into the engineer's guilds vaults and get all that secret **** out on the field" and he did.

    That is in fact possible, so given that example, there would be no "issue" in adding a squad of gyrocopter-backpacked miners who throw down explosive charges...IN THEORY.
  • OrkfaellerOrkfaeller Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,329
    The Zombie Pirates of the Vampire Coast had a fully playable army list - they're not on the level of Amazons or Estalians.
  • mcar110mcar110 Member United KingdomRegistered Users Posts: 450
    edited March 2017
    Chazdoit said:

    It's my understanding that these factions never got any army book in any version of Warhammer Fantasy, so how would CA implement such factions if they have almost nothing to work with?

    There are fan made army books and probably unfinished/ unused lore that GW have for these factions, but changes will have to be run by GW for their approval
  • boyfightsboyfights Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,023
    Valeli said:

    Oh, yeah, don't misunderstand me.

    I'd love to get (most) of these factions. However, what I'd really like is to have them around and distinguished VERY slightly from the empire - primarily by means of temperament and voice acting. A little inspiration from the old DoW units could certainly be cool too.

    But if we get Tilea or Estalia I want them to be very similar to the Empire. Reskin some stuff so they don't have reiksguard... give them a unit of pikes (I wouldn't be shocked if HEs get some sort of pike mechanic, maybe you can base it off that once it's in game two). Maybe a fancy artillery piece. Take away the steam tank.

    It would be too distracting to me if we got fully fleshed out factions based on like, 2nd edition mentions though.

    Again, I feel Kislev is an exception. They were very well fleshed out in both Warmaster and WH Fantasy, and they were fleshed out significantly more recently than (apparently) when amazons were a thing.

    Agreeing with all of this and I'm glad I'm not the only one
    boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality
    or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
    stop your gladiator love for agressions.
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    Why would lore-friendly minor faction releases be "distracting"?
  • Berg_Of_The_WestBerg_Of_The_West Registered Users Posts: 601
    They could possibly do a Border Prince mercenary campaign with Morgan Bernhardt. I'd imagine they could do a campaign that is similar to "total war Attila: The Last Roman" campaign.

    Morgan Bernhardt and his mercenary Grudgebringer bands could act like a semi-horde faction and conquer land in the name of the Border Princes. They could have a campaign mechanic where Morgan Bernhardt can select from a list of random generated contracts... and they would automatically have to fight X number of armies or take X settlement from X faction, etc.

    Their economy could be primarily based on the completion of contracts.

    In the game "Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat" The mercenary units have their own armor aesthetics and design. To be honest.. these games are somewhat similar in some aspects. CA could definitely get some inspiration for a Border Princes Mercenary faction and campaign design with this game.

  • boyfightsboyfights Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,023
    az88 said:

    Why would lore-friendly minor faction releases be "distracting"?

    I think if they stuck to 95% official units it wouldn't be distracting at all, but if they have to take time to design and develop a lot of new units it could end up taking away from the main factions

    I'd much rather see CA work with the official units and keep the rosters fairly limited, like some of the Rome 2 minor tribes
    boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality
    or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
    stop your gladiator love for agressions.
Sign In or Register to comment.