|
Someone a long time ago made a post about Grimgor written like a passage from The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus that inspired me to replay a Grimgor campaign. Greenskins loving rule
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
I asked the guy I've been talking to about a Bretonnia revamp since the thread and discord's been talking about it, this was his response:quote:This isn't the kind of thing I see much about, but from the sounds of it CA is looking more at reworking how the Bretonnian campaign and general battlefield stuff works rather than looking at adding new units. Carcassone shepherds are something people at CA and GW both like as part of the Bret roster, but I haven't heard of anything else getting the green light.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
We must imagine Grimgor to be happy, or he will krump us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
jokes posted:Someone a long time ago made a post about Grimgor written like a passage from The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus that inspired me to replay a Grimgor campaign. They do, pity poor Grimgor lives only for hate at this point, instead of being able to revel in that which he already has. Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:We must imagine Grimgor to be happy, or he will krump us. I'm pretty sure he will krump us anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I asked the guy I've been talking to about a Bretonnia revamp since the thread and discord's been talking about it, this was his response: im happy with that
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Changes to bret campaign mechanics are a whole different kettle of fish that I also will not argue about. The non-grail vows, for instance, all need some work. Rework Beastmen first tho holy dang Edit: Alberic and Repanse shouldn't get guns but alberic absolutely should get a coastal bombardment ability from his giant and highly advanced navy
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
If that guy isn't for real, man is he taking this gamer Deep Throat role pretty far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Brettonian Grail Knight defeats Kislevite Bear Cavalry, but as the latter lies vanquished it's rider thinks of Katarin and cries out "Oh, my lady, I have failed you!" The Knight is stunned. "Ze Lady! Why did you mention her?!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Greenskins are fun as long as they're not up against a missile heavy army. Which is lovely when several of the top tier late game factions are missile heavy. Getting into melee with Greenskins is a bad move unless you want your head split by a Blorc, mobbed by Grom's super gobbos or stabbed to bits and poisoned by Skarsnik night gobbos. But they really need a way to counter missile spam. So far the only option they have is artillery with the range scrap upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Movement speed buffs (not quite Savage orc speed but close) is a good start. Or more speed and MA for Boar Boyz because lmao 22 MA on a BB Bigun are you loving serious CA.
Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I asked the guy I've been talking to about a Bretonnia revamp since the thread and discord's been talking about it, this was his response: Interesting. It does explain why Lost Sons of Bretonnia aren't really a consideration despite (barely) existing in previous lore and being an obvious choice for a more magic/ghostly themed cavalry with bound spells. At least anecdotally, I've heard of Bretonnia being a gateway faction for historical total war players who were unsure about the setting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I asked the guy I've been talking to about a Bretonnia revamp since the thread and discord's been talking about it, this was his response: this take is really interesting to me, because it means GW thinks that knights with trebuchets is more culturally accessible than orks and elves. i seriously doubt that is still true since the LOTR craze. i am 100% certain that more people know what an orc is than know what a trebuchet is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
GW liked Brettonia so much they axed the faction completely for Age of Sigmar
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Greenskins are fun as long as they're not up against a missile heavy army. Which is lovely when several of the top tier late game factions are missile heavy. i mean spider riders and stalk-equipped melee but that goes out the window against helves who field mass armies of lothern seaguard
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:GW liked Brettonia so much they axed the faction completely for Age of Sigmar It always amazes me that Beastmen made it over Brettonia or Tomb Kings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
I dont know posted:It always amazes me that Beastmen made it over Brettonia or Tomb Kings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Bretonnia is extremely no fuss, no muss. Pin with infantry, flank with cavalry, shoot whatever isn't engaged at the time. You have magic, you have lords and heroes well suited to duels. Your arty doesn't need direct fire LoS to work. And in late-mid to endgame, you can just start spamming more horses, super horses, flying horses, and literally just attack move to victory. I totally get the idea that they're like, the beginner faction for a tactical wargame playstyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Yeah I can get this, cool. I think that's where I stand too. As someone posting "more is good" thanks for the direct reply to what I was asking to people on that side, but to follow-up: Isn't going by raw numbers kind of a bad way to look at it? Because not only does that ignore the fuzziness of some units being variants (as someone else posted, this actually brings the Brett (and other faction) roster down a fair few units) but also it just seems kinda'... Arbitrary? I asked "where is the line" to anyone arguing that "having more toys is always a plus" because it seems to me that since nobody is really arguing for making every faction all-rounders then additions do need some kind of justification. This entire line of discussion seems to be dead-ending tho if it turns out CA are getting the literally cold shoulder on this one from GW; I guess with the upcoming Fantasy reboot GW wants any army in TW:WH that will have a table-top equivalent to be as close to that (in planning?) roster, all the better to synergize for future sales?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
I dont know posted:It always amazes me that Beastmen made it over Brettonia or Tomb Kings. There's a reason people think Chaos is GW's pet faction. On Brettonia being a sop to historical players, it makes sense, although I'd be surprised if there's many who haven't made the jump over. After Three Kingdoms and Troy even the hardiest grognards on TWC must see which way the wind is blowing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:This entire line of discussion seems to be dead-ending tho if it turns out CA are getting the literally cold shoulder on this one from GW; I guess with the upcoming Fantasy reboot GW wants any army in TW:WH that will have a table-top equivalent to be as close to that (in planning?) roster, all the better to synergize for future sales? The line of discussion is definitely a dead end to some extent just because I doubt CA is making design decisions based on our posts in this dead forum, but it's still probably best to take those leaks with a grain of salt until we see if reality lines up with some of their predictions. It's fun to speculate, and maybe they're real, but going straight from hearsay to assuming that's what's going on seems premature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Lmfao this is the time line: GW asserts control over the WHFB franchise GW fucks up, prompting people to lose interest GW thinks WHFB is trash and bad so they literally blow it all up GW licenses what they believe to be old garbage to a bunch of studios, including CA, who make a bunch of video games based on them-- some of which are VERY good The video games spark interest in WHFB and it becomes way, way more popular GW decides to bring back WHFB GW asserts control over the WHFB franchise <------ we are here GW fucks up, prompting people to lose interest GW thinks WHFB is trash and blows it all up
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Wouldn't an army unit mounted on bears be called Ursalry instead of Bear Cavalry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Bearback Riders
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
jokes posted:GW asserts control over the WHFB franchise <------ we are here Seems like a weird take when GW is working with CA to expand Kislev and Cathay for game 3. There's no reason to believe GW is suddenly going to start pulling stupid poo poo here--involvement doesn't have to be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Nah, let me just pepe silvia my way into more internet cynicism points
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Vagabong posted:On Brettonia being a sop to historical players, it makes sense, This is my stance, personally. I have no idea if this guy is just bullshitting or not, and Bretonnia is not my cup of tea personally, but I think it's completely reasonable and fine if GW is consciously trying to make Bretonnia a faction to appeal to historical wargame fans. Warhammer Fantasy does a pretty good job of offering a wide variety of aesthetics and playstyles, and I think there's nothing at all wrong with offering a faction that's historical knights in shining armor and peasant archers (with a few mages and pegasi).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
i don't really care what gets added or changed so long as its fun and interesting and the game itself remains fun and interesting. truffle hounds included.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
There's no Brets, you gotta be kidding me, I got boxes full of Brets
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:There's no reason to believe GW is suddenly going to start pulling stupid poo poo here I mean, aside from everything they've ever done
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Foul Fowl posted:There's no Brets, you gotta be kidding me, I got boxes full of Brets you collect hitman merch too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:There's no reason to believe GW is suddenly going to start pulling stupid poo poo here--involvement doesn't have to be a bad thing. And yet it's GW
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Foul Fowl posted:There's no Brets, you gotta be kidding me, I got boxes full of Brets Breton Crackers will stand up longer than a peasant frontline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
The Nerds are telling me that Age of Sigmar is doing very well so supposedly GW figured out a way to make fantasy stuff popular. We'll see if they can do it with The Old World as well
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:Bearback Riders I think this is the one here
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
jokes posted:And yet it's GW We already have two extremely successful and good collaborations in this series to point to them being able to work well with others now, but sure I guess they could suddenly go back to incompetent leadership and gently caress everything up for 3 despite every indication so far being that everyone's still on good terms. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Yeah I can get this, cool. I think that's where I stand too. for me, the line would be "is there any scenario that would stump any possible army comp from this faction?" like, if they were literally 100% cavalry and therefore couldn't siege walls, that would clearly be an issue. it's less about whether you have e.g. flying cavalry or not, but whether your army has tools that cover that missing unit type's functions (flank, attack backline, move over walls). that doesn't sound like a problem brets have!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
gently caress it I'm starting another Repanse game
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Like, gently caress, I don't even like AoS but by all accounts it's doing great for them so 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Yeah I can get this, cool. I think that's where I stand too. I wasn't talking about any one specific race. I just wanted to give context that while the number of units does have a weak relationship to how "generalist" a faction is perceived, it's not the only factor. Tomb Kings are very low on the list but very flexible, while Lizardmen are quite high but have noteworthy weaknesses. I know this will sound controversial (/s), but it turns out that what the units are matters a lot more than how many units there are. There are plenty of toys that can be given out to a faction without compromising their primary strengths or weaknesses. Ultimately I think that claiming that CA will run out of possible new units for any given faction because "it'll ruin their identity!" is absurd. Bretonnia isn't some special snowflake here; I don't see anyone claiming that a new Dwarf DLC would have to add cavalry or that the Vampire Counts would need to get archers since each those factions have run out of development space. Could it happen? I mean sure I guess if every race had 100 units. Is it likely within what's reasonable to actually occur? Not a chance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:I asked the guy I've been talking to about a Bretonnia revamp since the thread and discord's been talking about it, this was his response: very nice of GW to be policing the aesthetics of the faction they deleted
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 21:01
|
|
