Depth Guard Bloodline

[Benk]

I'm curious about that, in a "Rp" point of view, of what bloodline the depth guard vampires are from ? As Luthor (blood dragon) and Noctilus (von cartsein) have them, do you think they are blood dragons, von carstein, or both. Created by luthor or noctilus (or just mercenaries from one or both bloodlines ?)

[Bulanskovich]

I'd wager they're either part of the Blood Dragons if in service of Harkon or Von Carstein if in service of Noctilus. If I am not mistaken they were originally from Dreadfleet lore, they were the persona bodyguard of Noctilus. I don't see any mention of them being in service of Harkon, but then again the roster is really a combination of what Harkon and Noctilus would have used.

Vampires like to lead generally, the fact that they act as soldiers means they're newly turned and as such are still developing their power. It's probably safe to assume they're turned by the leader of the respective faction.

[Benk]

Thanks for the infos, really interesting, i like your vision of it too. I guess it just become more complicated with Aranessa and Cylostra having them too. Let just say that for them, their Depth Guard are from both and were not happy with their former master (Luthor or Noctilus) and wanted to see how it was elswhere lol.

[Bulanskovich]

I will admit, while I do not dislike Aranessa and Cylostra, they don't really fit the roster as much. I can't really come up with a proper explanation apart from the usual "well I guess their underlings turned them".

I have a feeling they might have initially intended to make Aranessa a vampire too, which would have made sense. As it stands she's in a dangerous spot, lorewise she's not a pushover but no martial champion champion either and a vampire, even if not havign years of experience, is quite dangerous by nature.

Which means she would risk mutiny. But they had to include 4 lords so I guess there weren't other choices really.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Bulanskovich:

I will admit, while I do not dislike Aranessa and Cylostra, they don't really fit the roster as much. I can't really come up with a proper explanation apart from the usual "well I guess their underlings turned them".

I have a feeling they might have initially intended to make Aranessa a vampire too, which would have made sense. As it stands she's in a dangerous spot, lorewise she's not a pushover but no martial champion champion either and a vampire, even if not havign years of experience, is quite dangerous by nature.

Which means she would risk mutiny. But they had to include 4 lords so I guess there weren't other choices really.

I think Cylostra sort of makes sense. I mean she is undead. I feel like she would make more sense as a hero (cause she's in a kind of similar position to Krell where theres not a good explanation for how she could be leading undead). But ofc what would be the point of making up a legendary hero, especially when they for the most part haven't been doing legendary heros.

Aranessa makes less sense than Cylostra.

The way I see it, the only thing that makes sense is both of them have intimidated/persuaded some vampires into their service. It doesn't quite make sense how they lead their own army (unless you have a vampire fleet captain in the army). But for example the other armies all have the loyaly mechanic.

Presumably when the player has loyal lords while playing as Cylostra or Aranessa, we can assume this to be the equivalent of gaining their loyalty in the same way the player did. At that point, it just needs to be explained how they lead their own army in the campaign map, but we that could be explained as they have some loyal vampire fleet captain.

[Benk]

Yeah, even if in the lore i'm pretty sure the vampires would kill aranessa to take her place instead of serving under a human mutant, and for cylostra they would submit her with magic under their control. But well, they found the nicests of the vampires i guess.

[Old Dirty Bingo Caller]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Originally posted by Bulanskovich:

I will admit, while I do not dislike Aranessa and Cylostra, they don't really fit the roster as much. I can't really come up with a proper explanation apart from the usual "well I guess their underlings turned them".

I have a feeling they might have initially intended to make Aranessa a vampire too, which would have made sense. As it stands she's in a dangerous spot, lorewise she's not a pushover but no martial champion champion either and a vampire, even if not havign years of experience, is quite dangerous by nature.

Which means she would risk mutiny. But they had to include 4 lords so I guess there weren't other choices really.

I think Cylostra sort of makes sense. I mean she is undead. I feel like she would make more sense as a hero (cause she's in a kind of similar position to Krell where theres not a good explanation for how she could be leading undead). But ofc what would be the point of making up a legendary hero, especially when they for the most part haven't been doing legendary heros.

Aranessa makes less sense than Cylostra.

The way I see it, the only thing that makes sense is both of them have intimidated/persuaded some vampires into their service. It doesn't quite make sense how they lead their own army (unless you have a vampire fleet captain in the army). But for example the other armies all have the loyaly mechanic.

Presumably when the player has loyal lords while playing as Cylostra or Aranessa, we can assume this to be the equivalent of gaining their loyalty in the same way the player did. At that point, it just needs to be explained how they lead their own army in the campaign map, but we that could be explained as they have some loyal vampire fleet captain.

How can you say "for most part havent been making legendary heroes" when they havent made a single one?

[Matayus22]

The Green Knight can be considered one. He is a mechanic but still a hero and a special one at that.

[✳Sindri Myr✳]

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

I think Cylostra sort of makes sense. I mean she is undead. I feel like she would make more sense as a hero (cause she's in a kind of similar position to Krell where theres not a good explanation for how she could be leading undead). But ofc what would be the point of making up a legendary hero, especially when they for the most part haven't been doing legendary heros.

Aranessa makes less sense than Cylostra.

The way I see it, the only thing that makes sense is both of them have intimidated/persuaded some vampires into their service. It doesn't quite make sense how they lead their own army (unless you have a vampire fleet captain in the army). But for example the other armies all have the loyaly mechanic.

Presumably when the player has loyal lords while playing as Cylostra or Aranessa, we can assume this to be the equivalent of gaining their loyalty in the same way the player did. At that point, it just needs to be explained how they lead their own army in the campaign map, but we that could be explained as they have some loyal vampire fleet captain.

How can you say "for most part havent been making legendary heroes" when they havent made a single one?

Green Knight?

[Old Dirty Bingo Caller]

Originally posted by ✳Sindri Myr✳:

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

How can you say "for most part havent been making legendary heroes" when they havent made a single one?

Green Knight?

Nah

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

I think Cylostra sort of makes sense. I mean she is undead. I feel like she would make more sense as a hero (cause she's in a kind of similar position to Krell where theres not a good explanation for how she could be leading undead). But ofc what would be the point of making up a legendary hero, especially when they for the most part haven't been doing legendary heros.

Aranessa makes less sense than Cylostra.

The way I see it, the only thing that makes sense is both of them have intimidated/persuaded some vampires into their service. It doesn't quite make sense how they lead their own army (unless you have a vampire fleet captain in the army). But for example the other armies all have the loyaly mechanic.

Presumably when the player has loyal lords while playing as Cylostra or Aranessa, we can assume this to be the equivalent of gaining their loyalty in the same way the player did. At that point, it just needs to be explained how they lead their own army in the campaign map, but we that could be explained as they have some loyal vampire fleet captain.

How can you say "for most part havent been making legendary heroes" when they havent made a single one?

The green knight and Krell are legendary heros. Although I think green knight is a lord on tabletop.

[Old Dirty Bingo Caller]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

How can you say "for most part havent been making legendary heroes" when they havent made a single one?

The green knight and Krell are legendary heros. Although I think green knight is a lord on tabletop.

They are summons, nothing more.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

The green knight and Krell are legendary heros. Although I think green knight is a lord on tabletop.

They are summons, nothing more.

They are summoned legendary heros (well at least Krell is, Green Knight might be a summoned legendary lord taking a hero slot).

I think we can agree that they are heros as they function as heros in battle and are heros on tabletop. And I think we can agree that they are legendary. Therefore, they are legendary heros even if they are not an actual legendary hero mechanic.

Its kind of a pointless semantical argument either way. My point was they wouldn't make Cylostra a hero despite it not making much sense how she's leading undead because they don't have a legendary hero mechanic.

[Old Dirty Bingo Caller]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

They are summons, nothing more.

They are summoned legendary heros (well at least Krell is, Green Knight might be a summoned legendary lord taking a hero slot).

I think we can agree that they are heros as they function as heros in battle and are heros on tabletop. And I think we can agree that they are legendary. Therefore, they are legendary heros even if they are not an actual legendary hero mechanic.

Its kind of a pointless semantical argument either way. My point was they wouldn't make Cylostra a hero despite it not making much sense how she's leading undead because they don't have a legendary hero mechanic.

There is nothing called legendary heroes or lords in TT.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

They are summoned legendary heros (well at least Krell is, Green Knight might be a summoned legendary lord taking a hero slot).

I think we can agree that they are heros as they function as heros in battle and are heros on tabletop. And I think we can agree that they are legendary. Therefore, they are legendary heros even if they are not an actual legendary hero mechanic.

Its kind of a pointless semantical argument either way. My point was they wouldn't make Cylostra a hero despite it not making much sense how she's leading undead because they don't have a legendary hero mechanic.

There is nothing called legendary heroes or lords in TT.

Named heros and lords whatever. From my understanding they have heros and they have lords, and Krell is a named hero they can take. Well I think you have to take Kemmler to get him but the green knight is a named lord right? So I guess technically you could say thats a legendary lord occupying the hero slot rather a legendary hero but thats just semantics.

[Old Dirty Bingo Caller]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Originally posted by Old Dirty Bingo Caller:

There is nothing called legendary heroes or lords in TT.

Named heros and lords whatever. From my understanding they have heros and they have lords, and Krell is a named hero they can take. Well I think you have to take Kemmler to get him but the green knight is a named lord right? So I guess technically you could say thats a legendary lord occupying the hero slot rather a legendary hero but thats just semantics.

You can have Krell without Kemmler in tt, Isabella is a hero too though, as is Throgg and Wulfrik.
Bottom line, there is no legendary heroes in tww.