Ah, good Old glass cannon Teclis. Did I mention that he was the basis of one argument in the "You did this wrong" letter my 16-year-old self sent GW re: the then-new Lizardman army list? (On the basis that Slann Mages clearly weren't "the most powerful wizards in the Warhammer World", since Teclis was Level 5, and none of theirs were above 4...) Yes, I was a git back then...
(Also, so, it's just me who thinks that fluff > rules, ontologically as well as artistically? This is why, partly, I parted company with GW, though, so...)
Coincidentally, the other race I'd collect if given the hypothetical fund-that-can-only-be-spent-on-Warhammer... That said, I do think it was a good move in the most recent Lizardmen book making all the Slann Level 4 and then being able to buy further advantages on top. Since even a Fifth Spawning Slann was probably old enough to have taught magic to ol' Dragontamer himself, they'd have to be pretty slow learners or just plain inept to only be level 1 now...
(Okay, I had to look up the word to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. And now I'm still not sure - but I do generally think that it's more satisfying to come up with the fluff first and make the crunch accordingly rather than the other way around, if that's what you're asking. It is fairly clear, if you look at their early history, that GW has done the opposite, though - for 40K anyway, I haven't seen as much material on the early days of W:F
At least GW isn't quite as blatent about twisting or outright rewriting the fluff to suit their latest big idea as Blizzard has
Indeed, and it's worth noting that pretty much every complaint or suggestion the 16yearold me made with regard to the original Lizardman list was fixed or followed up on in the new one. Other than my note that lizardmen can't play war trumpets, because they don't have lips, of course.
(And, yes, that was my intended meaning. Of course, as the WoW setting is obviously inspired by the GW setting (although with significant divergences now), one might argue that they also picked up the idea of rewriting history from the same source...)
(The incident which actually led to my parting company with GW, incidentally, was actually my issues with the Obvious Dark Twist they were planning for the Tau - personally, I'd have preferred them to just keep them as being young, expansionistic and tinged with Empire-building as a contrast to the rest of the setting - and other issues with their army list / fluff intersection.)
It amuses me how Games Workshop always feels as if they have do deconstruct anyone that even looks like they may be the good guys in 40K.
What I think they keep missing is that, in a Darker and Edgier setting like 40K, good and evil is relative. They make a big deal about the Eldar behaving as if no number of mon-keigh is worth a single Eldar life, but the Imperials don't exactly rate the lives of their own citizens highly either, and the Eldar actually do seem to care a little about the lives of non-Eldar - they'll wipe out your entire civilisation to stop a Farseer's prediction that an Eldar will stub their toe on your gutters, but otherwise they'll leave you alone. Compared to the 'kill the alien' Imperium - let alone anyone else in the setting apart from the Tau?
What's your issue with the Tau army/fluff intersection? The biggest list/fluff issue I've seen is the Necrons - the fluff says you want to throw psychics at them, but in truth they have enough anti-psychic stuff that that's the last thing you want to throw against
( ... )
Well, okay, so it was also the Necron/fluff intersection which got my goat - the only two Codices published post 2000 which I own are Necrons and Tau...
With the Tau, it was a combination of the horribly inflexible rules for the alternate O'Shovah oriented list (what, so Commander Farsight turns up to every single battle that his side fights? Really?), the (as I remember) decreased usefulness of Shield-drones with a ruling from GW on the interpretation of the rules, and the horribly out-of-character new special rules for Tau Railrifles (which garnered complaints from a lot of Tau players, not just me
( ... )
Yeah, special units and army types that require a unique character to be present are a little dodgy. So what happens when that unique character is killed, captured, or whatever? Does that army/unit/whatever just fall apart? Okay, in some cases yes, but still...
Would you be talking about the rail rifles that had a chance of killing the user? I think they've actually fixed that, but it WAS a bit weird that they ever saw the field in that form.
The Brainboyz theory was at least presented as a theory rather than fact, so it's not quite revisionism... and apart from the "brainboyz => Snotlings" part, it may not actually be that far off. It's even possible that that the Old Ones did end up as Snotlings - reading the Necron backstory implies that Slann=Old Ones, but that's not what the Lizardmen think... it may be that everyone else thinks that because the Old Ones used Slann as intermediaries. Allowing the Old Ones to have actually been greenskins, and the Krork projec tthe result of some desperate Old One breaking an injunction against
( ... )
Yes, I was a git back then...
(Also, so, it's just me who thinks that fluff > rules, ontologically as well as artistically? This is why, partly, I parted company with GW, though, so...)
Reply
(Okay, I had to look up the word to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. And now I'm still not sure - but I do generally think that it's more satisfying to come up with the fluff first and make the crunch accordingly rather than the other way around, if that's what you're asking. It is fairly clear, if you look at their early history, that GW has done the opposite, though - for 40K anyway, I haven't seen as much material on the early days of W:F
At least GW isn't quite as blatent about twisting or outright rewriting the fluff to suit their latest big idea as Blizzard has
Reply
(And, yes, that was my intended meaning. Of course, as the WoW setting is obviously inspired by the GW setting (although with significant divergences now), one might argue that they also picked up the idea of rewriting history from the same source...)
(The incident which actually led to my parting company with GW, incidentally, was actually my issues with the Obvious Dark Twist they were planning for the Tau - personally, I'd have preferred them to just keep them as being young, expansionistic and tinged with Empire-building as a contrast to the rest of the setting - and other issues with their army list / fluff intersection.)
Reply
What I think they keep missing is that, in a Darker and Edgier setting like 40K, good and evil is relative. They make a big deal about the Eldar behaving as if no number of mon-keigh is worth a single Eldar life, but the Imperials don't exactly rate the lives of their own citizens highly either, and the Eldar actually do seem to care a little about the lives of non-Eldar - they'll wipe out your entire civilisation to stop a Farseer's prediction that an Eldar will stub their toe on your gutters, but otherwise they'll leave you alone. Compared to the 'kill the alien' Imperium - let alone anyone else in the setting apart from the Tau?
What's your issue with the Tau army/fluff intersection? The biggest list/fluff issue I've seen is the Necrons - the fluff says you want to throw psychics at them, but in truth they have enough anti-psychic stuff that that's the last thing you want to throw against ( ... )
Reply
With the Tau, it was a combination of the horribly inflexible rules for the alternate O'Shovah oriented list (what, so Commander Farsight turns up to every single battle that his side fights? Really?), the (as I remember) decreased usefulness of Shield-drones with a ruling from GW on the interpretation of the rules, and the horribly out-of-character new special rules for Tau Railrifles (which garnered complaints from a lot of Tau players, not just me ( ... )
Reply
Would you be talking about the rail rifles that had a chance of killing the user? I think they've actually fixed that, but it WAS a bit weird that they ever saw the field in that form.
The Brainboyz theory was at least presented as a theory rather than fact, so it's not quite revisionism... and apart from the "brainboyz => Snotlings" part, it may not actually be that far off. It's even possible that that the Old Ones did end up as Snotlings - reading the Necron backstory implies that Slann=Old Ones, but that's not what the Lizardmen think... it may be that everyone else thinks that because the Old Ones used Slann as intermediaries. Allowing the Old Ones to have actually been greenskins, and the Krork projec tthe result of some desperate Old One breaking an injunction against ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment