Pablets
Joined: Nov 02, 2007
|
 Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 21:54 |
 
|
| plasmoid wrote: | Hi Pablets,
I don't know the Estalian fluff, so I don't know what would be appropriate. So please take this with a grain of salt.
Since they're women, you could model them on the witch elf, giving your berserker some finesse:
6338 or 7337 GA Frenzy, Jump Up, SideStep
- SideStep is shared with the Diestros, giving your roster a sub theme. And make them even scarier in a scrum near the sidelines.
Cheers
Martin |
Yes Plasmoid, I was also assessing do something like an elf witch. The problem is that according to the descriptions and illustrations can be seen in the Tome of salvation Fury Sisters are an order of warrior priest who wear good armor. They do not go nearly naked as the Amazons or elven witch... i would like it  so I think they should not be given AV7 nor agility skills. So the end came a mix between knight and witch. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 01:32 |
|
Hi Harvestmouse,
I said I'd reply, so here goes. I'll try to keeo it short.
Anyway, I hadn't read the whole thread, and fell into something I mistook for a discussion on how different catchers ought to be more similar. Given that the thread was about something else entirely, perhaps I should have just stayed away from it.
| Quote: | | Yes and we were doing quite well in inventing the 'runner' positional until norse. Faster, less armour than a thrower and has pass access but not pass skill. |
I'm not defending the Norse roster.
But if we also consider a Gutter Runner a Runner, then it gets a touch more complicated. That might be the reason for it(?). That would give us 2 P Runners, and 2 A Runners.
| Quote: | | What are you talking about? What heavy handed GW change? Why are you talking to me like I am a child? I know LRB4 Norse to CRP Norse change better than maybe anybody. I know the changes and what happened. Do not condescend me on this issue. |
Then I suppose you should know.
The LRB6 roster had him as a Norse Runner.
Open the CRP, and he is a Norse Catcher!
I think a position change like that is pretty heavy handed (by GW).
| Quote: | | Well know, again you miss the point. ALL catchers in 2nd ed were ag4. The difference in description would be the 'dodge' skill. This adds AG (in a catchers point of view), but in skill rather than full on agility. You clearly do not understand the transition between 2nd ed and 3rd ed. |
I did play 2nd ed. for many years, and I think I do understand.
I might not understand your take on it though.
Catchers in 2nd ed. were better at dodging (AG) and catching (CL) than linemen. That translates pretty well to Dodge skill and Catch skill. They were not better at throwing, which is what 3rd ed. AG would also do.
| Quote: | | And if it's the case that the transition isn't the way to go, why did one of the last rosters to be added (slann) use that as a transition. And the fact it did use that (along with Underworld) and that they are really interesting rosters to play, mean anything?! Surely it does. |
I don't see how the Galaks Slann team gets to define where the game ought to go, while Galaks Norse team is deplorable trash. Other than the Slann is the only Catcher that gets more AG than his lineman.
To me, wanting to stick AG4 on all catchers due to 2nd ed. stats is no less logical than sticking ST4 on all blitzers for the same reason.
CRP era stats will have to make sense to people that didn't play 2nd ed. Which is why I said that if a human catcher got AG+ over a lineman, then people would expect elf linemen to get the same.
Either way, AG4 Catchers on an AG3 team would make any thrower position totally redundant. I'd rather like to see throwers made more useful.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| plasmoid wrote: |
Then I suppose you should know.
The LRB6 roster had him as a Norse Runner.
Open the CRP, and he is a Norse Catcher!
I think a position change like that is pretty heavy handed (by GW). |
I think he's always been a runner, and still is, isn't he? |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 01:55 |
|
Nope. Not after GW got their hands on LRB6.
You can download the CRP version hosted at the NAF website.
Ulfwereners are 'Norse Werewolf'
Snow Troll is a Yeehtee
Norse Runners are Norse Catchers
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 05:04 |
|
Ok, afterwards I thought that's what you meant by GW. However it wasn't clear. Mr J, the Norse roster in Icepelt is was Galak made. However GW didn't want to go with it totally because of figure availability. So names were changed to fit the GW figure line.
| plasmoid wrote: |
I don't see how the Galaks Slann team gets to define where the game ought to go, while Galaks Norse team is deplorable trash. Other than the Slann is the only Catcher that gets more AG than his lineman. |
Well you're putting words into my mouth. I don't think the Norse roster is deplorable trash. Play-ability it's an improvement on LRB 4.
Also he converted it from a semi official source. It was made at GW and put in to one of the compendiums. It was never official though. The problem for me is that I don't believe the creator was that knowledgeable (so why use it, just because it was GW made?) and that it makes the Norse thrower even more useless.
As I said I played Norse in LRB4. They were my main League team. I also have the table top team that I used, and still play the roster privately. In all I've clocked up around 200-250 games with the previous Norse team.
By far, my favourite player on them is the catcher. My least favourite (and everybody's) the thrower. The one thing that makes the catchers great is that they don't come with dodge. Which means you get the most out of their 'A' access. So you can build good players with dt/ss/dodge that are a real pain at high TV. Human and Zon catchers on the other hand come with dodge and have the best reason for having A access already.
So the idea was to make Norse a more rounded roster. Why take away the best (in my opinion) player to skill up and leave the worst? Furthermore, you've now given the team an +MA player that's better at carry the ball than the thrower. The thrower was limited. However now you haven't got a catcher and a better ball carrier the Norse thrower is the most useless positional in the game.
| plasmoid wrote: | This may be a good idea for some. Not me:
If human catchers (or other AG3 team catchers) were bumped to AG4, then it would make their Throwers totally redundant.
Speed and AG simply makes for better ball movers. |
I think this is a good point. This is what has happened to Norse.
Look, my point wasn't 'let's make all catchers AG4'. Maybe I got sidelined down that road, but I never meant to. It's also not 'let's go back to 2nd ed'. It's more I'd like to see more uniformity between catchers as right now they're pretty out of whack.
I see what you fear, and I think it's a legitimate concern.
| plasmoid wrote: | I'm not defending the Norse roster.
But if we also consider a Gutter Runner a Runner, then it gets a touch more complicated. That might be the reason for it(?). That would give us 2 P Runners, and 2 A Runners. |
Absolutely not. Gutter 'runner' is not a positional, this is the name of his Warhammer profession. They also have Night Runners. They run in the night, the gutters of roofs to find they're quarry to assassinate. Night/Gutter runners have no relation to the positional 'Runner'. Just like Blockers the positional have no relation to the skill block.
Dark Elf and Dwarf Runners helped us define a new positional, which is great. Dark Elf especially told us the following.
A runner is a positional that replaces a thrower on teams that do not have a throwing game. They have some expertise however and come with the P access. Also they play with less armour and move quicker than a thrower would.
Isn't this exactly what Norse needed? Take away the thrower, leave the catcher and have a 7 3 3 7 Block, Sure Hands GP/SA player?
Instead the removed the A access player and replaced it with one that was slightly better, but now doesn't have catch making the thrower EVEN MORE useless. So now we have 2 Runners that have P access and this weird one made from a weird list with A access.
| plasmoid wrote: | I did play 2nd ed. for many years, and I think I do understand.
I might not understand your take on it though.
Catchers in 2nd ed. were better at dodging (AG) and catching (CL) than linemen. That translates pretty well to Dodge skill and Catch skill. They were not better at throwing, which is what 3rd ed. AG would also do. |
Yeah, I probably can't win this one. Or in fact hold my points over your points. Dodge and Block (I feel) add skill to the strength/agility, I guess like what you are saying. So where in 2nd edition you had very strong Dwarfs, in 3rd on wards they are regular strength but have 'strength dice roll skill' (I.E. making blocks) in the block skill. The exact same with Dodge. Which is all very very clever.
So we could translate that or simplify it to: ag3 with dodge is really ag 3.5 and st3 with block is really st 3.5.
So the human catcher does come with higher agility for dodging and catching in his 2 skills. I think we are agreeing there.
Problem is that the human catcher doesn't work so well. Also that catchers are all over the place with their stats. Possibly making them all ag4 (and taking dodge away) would be better? I think it's a better shout than the AV8 option, which really doesn't go well from a fluff perspective.
Not having dodge on a human catcher might make him a better buy. However I'm not sure I'm supporting that either. I think I'd have left him be and change the rules; like what you are suggesting in another topic.
quote="mister__joshua"]
It's not something I've thought about much, and you wouldn't change it as it's ingrained in the system, but I'm thinking this problem may be rooted in Throwing being based on Agility when really is isn't an Agility discipline. People can be good at throwing and catching, but not agile. And vice versa. Maybe BB should have a separate 'handling' or 'balling' stat?
[/quote]
Yeah, I think they did do a great job of translating skills to the positionals when they dropped throw and cool stats (passing/catching) for 3rd ed. I don't really see the reasoning for dropping them though. I guess because most players would almost never use their stats, it made profiles look more complex than they needed to be. Yet I think the old throwing system was more intuitive and easier to understand than the current one. So it hasn't sped up play in any way at all.
| Matthueycamo wrote: |
Where do you stand on ST3 elven catchers in that roster building environment? I don't see them as a great problem if they have ST 3. The average elf is more agile for the same ST than a human and faster than a runner for the same strength. They are usually more lightly armoured or faster over most other races. |
Well if catchers were a uniform AG4. Then they'd have to be a uniform ST2 as well. I do support the original premise of making rosters. However the HE and WE catchers really don't sit well next to each other. Maybe the HE should have been ST2/AV8........which makes me an awful hypocrite for not liking AV8 on the human catcher.
By far (well if you consider the Norse catcher a runner not a catcher) the WE catcher is the worst/weirdest in the game right now; compared to the other Elven catchers.
Making catchers ag4/st2 would benefit some rosters. It wouldn't benefit others though. It's a bit of a mess, and something that should have been addressed each time a roster is introduced.
Which is my problem with Galak's roster sourcing. Sourcing Slann from 2nd ed and Norse from a really bad time of GW not knowing what they were doing with BB is a bad idea. You end up with rosters that sit badly next to each other. I think sourcing from 2nd ed is fine, because that's how 3rd ed originally started. However by the time you got to the late 90s/early 00s those guys didn't have a clue about the original ideas....that's my take anyway.
Ok this is all off topic, but it's all related; roster design. Now specific to the Estalian roster.
I think you can go 2 ways with the faster/agile human rosters. Actually 3, as everything is so muddy on the agile player front (see above).
7337, 8247, 8237 dodge. All 3 work for humans. If you're going to call him a catcher though, go the same as the human catcher 8237 dodge (unless you're going to make it a cookie cutter roster like Norse or Zons).
So all 3 can work, and in fact could work in the same roster (see below.......no further below than that).
As for the bull/mino I kind of agree on leaving them out. Personally I hate animals on the BB pitch anyway. That ******* unicorn never should have been.
The mino is a good shout though. I'm against it for the reasons you guys have given. However it is a good shout. You could easily have the fluff. I'm sure there are bulls that could become loved by the fans, like bull riding in the US. So it could happen. The mino that killed the matadors (sorry diestro) and became a fan favourite. Maybe a Star Player?
I also think that there are SO many good positional options, you should stick with those. In fact more and more I think I have what I want to do with them (see below).
| plasmoid wrote: |
And I understand why you prefer official GW fluff over fan faction fluff.
That will make your team understandable to the most BB players. |
Sorry you are totally wrong. I'm not even going to say that's my opinion, you are simply wrong.
The official fluff is Spanish history. That is what is official. There is no official GW fluff. Fanbased stuff is equally good (if done well) because they use the same source (Spain).
2nd edition WFRP is not official. It's made by a different company. Warhammer fluff is not official as it's been written out of the game and quite frankly the amount of time spent on the 3rd ed warhammer army book was minimal. They pulled stuff out of their arse.
The only fluff I would say is official would be the DoW/Lizardman connection about going to the new world. Only that.
Other than that you are free to use and steal any Spanish historical fluff you feel would fit. It's Spain therefore it's official. That's how GW work when adding fluff to their world where there's a real world connection. So you are using the same source. So little has been done on Estalia that anything Spanish is fair game. It is important however to know what has been used before, so you don't contradict anything. That is a no no.
It doesn't make it any easier for the BB gamer. Most actually don't care. However they will fine it easier relating to Spanish history more than anything. So if they can relate to that, the players can find it understandable.
I was under the impression that you were pushed using as little official Warhammer sourcing as possible though. When the vocal minority talked you out of using Bretonnian naming for the Bretonnian roster.
BB positional names/Warhammer warrior names isn't a big issue though. It's a bit of a shame to lose some character, but just that.
So the bottom line is........that Estalian is an untapped source. As long as you read all the available information and don't contradict that; it's an open parchment. If you do it well (better than what we've had) then you're more official than anything.
So, this is what I am thinking to do with the Estalia.
Estalia is the peninsula at the most south west point of the Old World. Due to this, they find themselves protected from the worst of the Orc and Chaotic hordes.
This has meant that most of their fighting has been in-fighting, in war.......and in Blood Bowl.
Although the majority of Estalia is made up from Estalians, the people of some parts of Estalia consider themselves a different nation entirely.
This has lead to bitter rivalries between the 3 big cities. And also 3 totally different schools of thought on how to play our beautiful game.
The 3 big cities to learn your trade as a Blood Bowl player are Biballi, Tobaro and Magritta. Each view the game tactically differently to the other 2 and their view differs on how to play and which tactics are best in winning the game.
Magritta
Magritta is the capital of Estalia and has the best resources. A weakness of Estalia is generally being poorly armoured (source Estalian army book). However Magritta players generally have access to better blood bowl armour. It is also the home of the Inquisition, an order that persecutes the Estalian lower classes.
0-16 Conquistadors 6338
0-4 Diestro 6 3 3 8 Block GS
0-2 Inquisitors 5 3 3 9 or some such then frenzy maybe.
Bilballi
Bilballi's emblem is the flaming bull and it is home of the couragous bullfighters. Rather than winning games with strength, they win by speed and skill. Very light, swift players dance circles around their opponents.
0-16 Linemen 6 3 3 7
0-4 Matadors 7 3 3 7 dodge, ss GA
0-2 Picadors 8 2 3 7 dodge (claw maybe) GA
0-2 Tobaero 7/8 2 4 7 GA
Tobaro
Tobaro play Bloodbowl in a more conventional way. Here the international game is more favoured and watched on cabalvision by millions. The teams of Tobaro tend to play more like human teams from outside of Estalia.
0-16 linemen 6337
0-4 blitzers 7338 block GS
0-2 Runners 7337 sure hands GP
0-2 Guards 4429 GS (as cowheads already made the icon)
The above to all be given Spanish names.
That's all kind of off the top of my head, and what I feel from what we've been discussing. The rivalry is there, but between the 3 cities/areas. If they put their resources together, they'd have the best BB team in the world. But they don't and each suffers from not having the others resources.
Magritta-lack of speed
Biballi-lack of a strong core
Tobaro-lack of expensive armour for the linemen
Phew....that's my morning gone! |
|
|
Pablets
Joined: Nov 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 08:53 |
|
Too many points i will talk later deeply, but by now my friend Mr.Harvest i must tell you Tobaro isnt estalian city. Estalians dislike when somebody call them tileans.
And the other thing is that separating teams by cities doesnt avoid the rivalry problem. Its not only a problem between cities, is a problem between people, families, neighbors even in the same city. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 09:48 |
|
| Pablets wrote: | | Too many points i will talk later deeply, but by now my friend Mr.Harvest i must tell you Tobaro isnt estalian city. Estalians dislike when somebody call them tileans. |
Hmmmmmm That is a shame they did that (GW). In 2nd edition BB Real Tobaro was a famous team. That contradicts things a little and makes things a bit more complex. I guess the 3rd team could be changed to another city. However it takes away some of the lustre as that was the only famous team (bar the elven one) from Estalia.
| Pablets wrote: | | And the other thing is that separating teams by cities doesnt avoid the rivalry problem. Its not only a problem between cities, is a problem between people, families, neighbors even in the same city. |
Yes, but as I've said. From what I've read I disagree with your and Garion's conclusion. The only Warhammer unit from Estalia in the last 20 years was extremely well drilled and so is the conclusion of the fanbased Warhammer army book.
The animosity theme as I also said, I feel is far better suited to the Border Princes.
Edit: Well I guess that one famous unit is actually Tilean! Coming from Tabaro. However the look and the fluff is distinctly Spanish. |
|
|
Pablets
Joined: Nov 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 15:15 |
|
First of all I would like to distinguish between these three concepts. History of Spain , Estalia official history and unofficial history of Estalia.
I consider as official history of Estalia everything we can get from any official book of Warhammer, produced by GW or another.
I read at least three books armies and other book about Estalia history made ​​by fans and all seem fabulous works done with much art and love. But as I mentioned earlier in this chat I want to base only in the official history of Estalia not of Spain which is not exactly the same story.
So for me it makes no sense if the torero (or matador or Diestro) must have agility 4 or 5 or 6, because simply officially Estalia got not bullfighters or minofighters. And before in this chat I explained the difference the Diestro (Torero) or Diestro (Soldier ), Torero does not appear in the official history of Estalia only appears the Diestro(Soldier).
| harvestmouse wrote: |
The official fluff is Spanish history. That is what is official. There is no official GW fluff.
Fanbased stuff is equally good (if done well) because they use the same source (Spain).
|
Mr. Harvest, These statements are simply not true. My friend, i'm spanish and a history lover .
Warhammer is based on certain parts or things in the history of Spain to build Estalia but not everything that happens or exists in Spain happens or exists in Estalia.
Not differentiate these things it leads to errors of judgment.
| harvestmouse wrote: |
2nd edition WFRP is not official. It's made by a different company. Warhammer fluff is not official as it's been written out of the game and quite frankly the amount of time spent on the 3rd ed warhammer army book was minimal. They pulled stuff out of their arse.
|
It has nothing to do, GW does not mean Warhammer, maybe tomorrow does another company. To say that the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd edition is unofficial warhammer material is simply incredible. While this explains a lot.
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Although the majority of Estalia is made up from Estalians, the people of some parts of Estalia consider themselves a different nation entirely.
This has lead to bitter rivalries between the 3 big cities. And also 3 totally different schools of thought on how to play our beautiful game.
The 3 big cities to learn your trade as a Blood Bowl player are Biballi, Tobaro and Magritta. Each view the game tactically differently to the other 2 and their view differs on how to play and which tactics are best in winning the game.
|
Estalia is a nation, wiht non political union, but a Nation in more than a political system. I think you are thinking in the ancient Athens and Sparta or something like it.
And in that case i think you could change the tilean Tobaro for the estalian city of Zaragoz. whenever you consider official the novel "Zaragoz". |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 15:36 |
|
You know I was going to put together counter arguments to all your points, but.........it's not worth it. I kind of got sucked into this topic anyway.
I think you're being rather anal with your approach, but that's up to you. Your list is your list. I'll do my own eventually. I'll also do my own research.
The only thing I'm going to contend is this:
| harvestmouse wrote: |
2nd edition WFRP is not official. It's made by a different company. Warhammer fluff is not official as it's been written out of the game and quite frankly the amount of time spent on the 3rd ed warhammer army book was minimal. They pulled stuff out of their arse.
|
| Pablets wrote: |
It has nothing to do, GW does not mean Warhammer, maybe tomorrow does another company. To say that the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd edition is unofficial warhammer material is simply incredible. While this explains a lot. |
Yes it does explain a lot to me too. I really can't be arsed to go into detail, but will tell you this. WFRP 2nd edition is not canon. The reason being is that GW sold the rights to WFRP not the rights to the current Warhammer world.
The original WFRP was made in the mid 1980s. At the same time we had Warhammer Fantasy Battle 1st edition. The game pretty much stayed in limbo for 10 years. By this time WFB was on 4th edition and the world had totally changed. Creatures in the WFRP book differed from what was now current in WFB. So the rights were sold to world that was WFRP (based off of a much earlier version of Warhammer). So this what was updated, taking WFRP in a totally different direction and making it officially not canon. This is fact. But what does it matter, it shouldn't......but I guess that's up to you. |
|
|
Pablets
Joined: Nov 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 15:58 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Yes it does explain a lot to me too. I really can't be arsed to go into detail, but will tell you this. WFRP 2nd edition is not canon. The reason being is that GW sold the rights to WFRP not the rights to the current Warhammer world.
The original WFRP was made in the mid 1980s. At the same time we had Warhammer Fantasy Battle 1st edition. The game pretty much stayed in limbo for 10 years. By this time WFB was on 4th edition and the world had totally changed. Creatures in the WFRP book differed from what was now current in WFB. So the rights were sold to world that was WFRP (based off of a much earlier version of Warhammer). So this what was updated, taking WFRP in a totally different direction and making it officially not canon. This is fact. But what does it matter, it shouldn't......but I guess that's up to you. |
Well, I do not see that GW erase to Estalia of old world map or other things of those previous editions. Moreover they have the rights of those editions as well.
Tell me then, Imagine that tomorrow you follow a saga or serial of movies, books.... and next episode change the director, actors, producers, and everybody. What will you do? Will you format your brain like a Computer.
My friend you're confusing concepts. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| Pablets wrote: | Well, I do not see that GW erase to Estalia of old world map or other things of those previous editions. Moreover they have the rights of those editions as well.
Tell me then, Imagine that tomorrow you follow a saga or serial of movies, books.... and next episode change the director, actors, producers, and everybody. What will you do? Will you format your brain like a Computer.
My friend you're confusing concepts. |
I think you're perhaps misunderstanding each other. Mouse isn't saying that you erase the WFRP fluff from the game, he's saying that it was never official GW 'canon'.
It's like in Shadowrun recently. The game has been sold on 2 or 3 times since it's creation. Now the original creators have re-acquired the original rights and created a game set 25 years before the latest tabletop version. Which is Canon?
I think Canon is a weird term for Blood Bowl anyway as the Blood Bowl Old World is 'officially' not the same as the Warhammer Old World, and differs in a number of ways.
In general terms I agree with mouse's original sentiment. Estalia is based on Spain (like Bretonnia is France; Tilea Italy; Albion England and the Empire Germany). Any Spanish themed fluff is acceptable in Estalia, and will be as good and as relate-able as any 'official' fluff. Spain is the original source material in this sense.
That doesn't mean you have to use it though. you use whatever you want to and ignore what you don't. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Pablets
Joined: Nov 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 18:46 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
I think you're perhaps misunderstanding each other. Mouse isn't saying that you erase the WFRP fluff from the game, he's saying that it was never official GW 'canon'.
I think Canon is a weird term for Blood Bowl anyway as the Blood Bowl Old World is 'officially' not the same as the Warhammer Old World, and differs in a number of ways.
In general terms I agree with mouse's original sentiment. Estalia is based on Spain (like Bretonnia is France; Tilea Italy; Albion England and the Empire Germany). Any Spanish themed fluff is acceptable in Estalia, and will be as good and as relate-able as any 'official' fluff. Spain is the original source material in this sense.
That doesn't mean you have to use it though. you use whatever you want to and ignore what you don't. |
Well, you are talking about legal concepts. These are issues related to trade issues and patents. Per example, if the first comics of Superman were made by Action Comics and later make it DC what said Action Comics about Superman for me is "Official" information about Superman even DC doesnt mention it again.
What is certain is that the material of the fans is unofficial and consider any spanish fluff as official is another mistake, especially when there are people who have a concept of that Spain quite stereotyped and very little resemblance to what it was.
Seeing the concepts that I speak some people should see well the following roster based on not "official" information of Warhammer and typical and topical Spain.
0-16 Guitarrista 6 3 3 7
0-2 Torero 7 2 4 7 dodge, Side Step GA
0-2 Bailaor Flamenco 7 2 4 7 Sure feet, leap GA
0-2 Bandolero 6 3 3 8 Stab G
0-1 Minotauro Miura 6 5 2 8 Might Blow, wild animal.....
 Fiesta y toros, that´s Spain for many people. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
I don't think you're seeing how it's different, so I'll use your example.
In your example both are Canon. But say years later Action Comics decides to continue its line from where it left off, essentially ret conning the DC comics. Who's canon then?
In this example GW sold off the WFRP line but kept the world and continued it. WFRP 2nd edition was after the sale, so not part of the material ever published by GW.
The point still stands though... do what you want with it |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Pablets
Joined: Nov 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 20:32 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | I don't think you're seeing how it's different, so I'll use your example.
In your example both are Canon. But say years later Action Comics decides to continue its line from where it left off, essentially ret conning the DC comics. Who's canon then?
In this example GW sold off the WFRP line but kept the world and continued it. WFRP 2nd edition was after the sale, so not part of the material ever published by GW.
The point still stands though... do what you want with it |
Mate GW bases its wahammer in previous warhammer, same world, same map, same gods, same races, and while new books doesnt contradict anything in the past we must respect what Old Warhammer say.
Another thing is that GW would say in a new book that Diestros or Myrmidia orders do not exist, then yes we should accept that change in the new warhammer. And remember, Warhammer is the world of BB. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Use whatever fluff you want. I don't mind. I'm just explaining mouse's position a bit. The fan made stuff is also based on the original Warhammer fluff. How is the third party stuff ok to use and the fan stuff not? If anything the fan stuff is a lot more complete and better researched than a couple of pages in a 3rd party rpg book. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
