Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
There's a bit of overlap in some units, but I guess that was intentional because they could be given different weapons. (Such as Crossbowmen and Dark Elf Warriors vs Bleakswords/Darkshards)
You're entitled to your opinion, but as the person who spent months on these lists then I know that you're wrong. Some units are stock units with differing names, but the vast majority aren't.
This. If we are going to do the Empire Knightly Orders CA would have to delay the next DLC to 2018...
The vast majority of these are different, sure some will be similar. There are a lot of knightly orders in the Empire, and many of them likely fall under the branch of a man in heavy armour, with barding, lance and shield. But there are loads of very interesting variants such as the Knights of the Verdant Field who are heavily armoured archer knights, Knights of the Fist who are female sigmarite knights, Knights of the Sacred Scythe who hunt the undead and do not fear them. There are loads more units that are interesting or unique, which can give a lot of flavour to people working on mini-factions.
If its not useful to either of you that's fine, but I've had a lot of positive feedback about these lists.
lad, i'm goin' through the dwarf list and TRUST ME when i say that is a field i have expertiese in. there's a signifigant "same unit with local name" thing goin' on lad.
Dwarves are pretty awful for differing units though, mostly because of their stubborn nature lorefully which has applied to their tabletop rules too. Their units haven't changed much over the years and haven't been expanded as much either. Bretonnia were another faction I struggled with in that way, as they didn't get as much lore development as you'd expect. Take a look at factions like Chaos, Empire, Araby, Dogs of War, etc. There is a great deal of variety in those. It might not look it in my descriptions though.
Not that it's untrue. Many of those on the list are practically the same units, they are a waste of space, adds little to the game and takes away development time. People reading that list will ♥♥♥♥♥ about how so and so units aren't in the game, cry it's so damn awesome, except it's at best a reskin even in the lore.
@Sigmar's Faitfhul: When you say many of the units on the list are practically the same, I'd say you're wrong. I've worked on these for months. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But as someone who has been reading vast amounts of the lore, you'd be surprised just how much variety of units I have found. You might not have seen it on your read through, but they are there.
@Leri-Welll [FRA]: Don't worry about it :)
So from me a thumb's up :-) - and to the "concerns" - people will ALWAYS think CA cheated on them with units, prices, factions, it is natural and this list will not change this for the worse of better...
If you liked the Kislev list I'd suggest looking at the Dogs of War. Some of those are very obscure units from the lore, I had to dig pretty deep to find them.
If rumours are right - it is actually kinda likley they will populate Lustria with them. I mean, if game 2 has this continent, and all there is are Lizardmen?? How boring would that be? I could even see Albion added in game two, though both not as full factions to play, but at least represented by AI-factions