New races, recon of old/existing races characters, making new characters/races and making them canon (like with Cylostra). 

Just an expansion of lore. 

I think they should first fill the big gaps: DoW to replace the placeholders in TEB, then add Ind/Khuresh, too bad to have these big empty landmasses teasing us.

Then add missing "official" stuff (like the missing knights orders for the Empire), or semi official like Monkey King and Li Dao.

When everything is done, they could invent new stuff if they want. But the map will be more than full. 

So I'd rather see them fine tune some mechanism which are not that great.

No, because the objective is to represent the setting as of 8th edition lore and TT. Any new lore not independently created by GW will always feel forced and have sole purpose in attempting to legitimize decisions within the game largely based on video-game-logic, not that of GW's independent vision with the franchise, with no regard for previous established canon.

Such as the attempted legitimization of Ku'Gath in the Dragon Isles. Or the inconsistant mess that was and still is Ostankya.

Or the ultimate expression, forcing a colonial narrative conflict between the Empire and Lizardmen where none existed before.

​

TheWattman#7460 wrote:

No, because the objective is to represent the setting as of 8th edition lore and TT. Any new lore not independently created by GW will always feel forced and have sole purpose in attempting to legitimize decisions with the game largely based on video-game-logic, with no regard for previous established canon.

Such as the attempted legitimization of Ku'Gath in the Dragon Isles. Or the inconsistant mess that was and still is Ostankya.

Or the ultimate expression, forcing a colonial narrative conflict between the Empire and Lizardmen where none existed before.

Neuther Cathay nor Kislev were created "independantly", because they were creared for the game.

I'm not sure what you mean by forcing things. Would Games Workshop make lore for Kislev and Cathay if not for this game? I don't think so. But, many people are probably happy they have...

CA are not legitimising anything by placing characters where they want to in their own sandbox game. You're once again viewing things through the incorrect lenses. 

I don't like Wulfharts narrative personally because it's not anything interesting, but does that mean CA can't make a narrative for a game in which you make your own story? serious question. 

Pretty vague topic here. What new lore are you interested in?

Game 3 has already rapresented a massive drop of new lore with both Kislev in part, but majorly Cathay which was a humongous, brand new lore dump we had never gotten before. Was pretty much a historical moment for GW that hadn't happened in years/decades. I can't see anything even remotely close to this happening in the forseeable future.

Araby is gone, it's best we stop bringing it up. Most we'll get is the Al Mukhtar DoWs, which might mention Araby lore in their unit description. Ind and Kuresh lore might be mentioned with the addition of some local landmarks when/if those lands get opened up. Nippon might have some mentions in quests or something if/when we get Yin Yin and the Eastern Provinces, but i wouldn't even count on it. Andy Hall couldn't even mention the Name back when he had that Cathay revael Q&A.

Other new lore we'll get comes in the form of Li Dao and Monkey King which will introduce a bunch of new things for Cathay. 

This is realistically the extent of anything "new" we could expect in the forseeable future. Nothing more than this. Everything else will be elements from the TT/lore we already know. 

There is nothing CA can do without GWs approval, and im confident GW are currently happy with launching Cathay which will be the novelty in the upcoming years. 

​

TheWattman#7460 wrote:

​

KhaineIncarnate#6730

 wrote:Neuther Cathay nor Kislev were created "independantly", because they were creared for the game.

I'm not sure what you mean by forcing things. Would Games Workshop make lore for Kislev and Cathay if not for this game? I don't think so. But, many people are probably happy they have...

That's a different situation. Cathay and Kislev are for the first time really brought into the fold of major races, so in a sense its their first creation. But even then, the wealth of lore we've had on Kislev didn't really need to be changed in such drastic ways as it has been in some places. Cathay was a success, while the redesign of Kislev has been mired by lore inconsistencies, blandization and unsatisfactory design choice compared to earlier lore.

KhaineIncarnate#6730

 wrote:CA are not legitimising anything by placing characters where they want to in their own sandbox game. You're once again viewing things through the incorrect lenses. 

I don't like Wulfharts narrative personally because it's not anything interesting, but does that mean CA can't make a narrative for a game in which you make your own story? serious question. 

Creating new lore in for the specific purpose of explaining a WH3 game-decision results in non-legitimate lore in my eyes. You can view Ku'Gath's new story in his intro blog. Prior to WH3, he never went anywhere near the Dragon Isles and him being put there is in aberration compared to the previous lore of the Dragon Isles, which are supposed to be an untouched jungle of wild-ized Lizardmen, not a host to Nurgle's filth. This is new lore created specifically to try to motivate in many cases arbitrary game-logic-influenced decisions. Ku'Gath has far better and more loreful places to be than in the Dragon Isles.

Now as to The Marshal That Must Not Be Named, not only was the whole narrative about significant Imperial colonization of Lustria a straight up forgery from nowhere with no significant basis in the lore what so ever (the Imperial colonial efforts are in the Southlands, not Lustria), but they also corrupted his personality into a perversion of what it was. He is supposed to be a selfless hero only out for the protection of his fellow provincials, but he was corrupted into gold-greedy lackey of the Emperor, sent on a mission of plunder half a world away from where he is supposed to be.

For these reasons (and more, such as placing Aranessa in Vampire Coast), I am distinctly against inventing new lore, especially if such have no more purpose than to try to legitimize WH3-based decisions that have no regard for the previous setting. Such as CA's "explanation" for placing Ostankya in Naggaroth, because "Kislev needs diverse starting positions". The one big problem is that it makes no sense for it to be Ostankya that is outside Kislev proper (rather than Boris), neither according to the previous lore about Baba Yaga and the Hags of Kislev, nor according to her own lore about being the Guardian of the Motherland.

I guess that is understandable if you're mainly focused on what the lore says. Its an insult to what you know. Got it. I personally think that, if CA is making a sandbox in which players make their own story, even if it is set during reign of Karl Franz, they can make a narrative that which is distinct from the lore and make certain adaptations so that what they have is flexible in their hand and since players are literally able to make their own story, different to lore stories, its fine. Neither do I think that making things one way in this game will by default mean that Games Workshops own lore is changed...was it ever changed, because CA did things one way not the other? 

I guess its also confusing if CA say they want to deliver authentic experience and make certain decisions in their own game, which contradict that. Sure. 

And you also seem to be ok with lore additions if they are successfull. 

​

KhaineIncarnate#6730

 wrote:And you also seem to be ok with lore additions if they are successfull. 

Im only ok with it if doesn't contradict previous established canon about both the location, race or character that are involved with it. The Warhammer Trilogy is supposed to represent the setting as of 8th edition TT and lore. We shouldn't have to go beyond that (and the lore does offer many different ways to be diverse, if you just look for it).

​

KhaineIncarnate#6730

 wrote:But you do realise that CA are making a game here, not a direct translation? Which makes certain decisions mandatory over what lorebooks say? 

Also - has GW own lore changed in any way because CA did things their own way? So, has Wulfharts character actually changed in lorebooks, has Kugath changed location in lore?

The aim should be to make as close a translation as possible, to represent the setting for what it is, not try to change, add tropes to or ignore it for the sake of game-logic.

And that depends on your perspective. 8th edition itself was ended more than 10 years ago and as such can't really be changed. But Warhammer Fantasy lives on in the form of The Old World, which now features among other things neuKislev and revamped Cathay (to which it even whispers of potential content for WH3). Which isn't surprising since CA and GW designed them together with WH3 in mind as much as TOW.

And its this cooperation in which lies the danger imo. While it is unlikely that some changes would make it to the printed lore, such as the changes to The Marshal That Must Not Be Named simply because it takes place 200 years before he was born, others may. Because at the end of the day, GW okays everything that CA puts out in WH3, which one could very well interpret as a tacit admissal of canonicity.

Especially when it comes to the newly designed races, where the cooperation is strongest. And while CA may not consult GW on exactly where to, say, place Ostankya in IE, it may very well give inspiration in the wrong direction, not only for CA to continue to pervert the setting, but also influencing GW in their decisions. Who knows, maybe the intro blogs of WH3 are now considered fully canon, even without GW-produced material corroborating it. And that could potentially be very bad. A major Kislevite figure in Naggaroth, to those with deep lore-knowledge and care for the setting, is simply preposterous given that nation's previous history and character as the beleaguered bulwark against Chaos that can barely hold the line even with Empire's help.

What Im saying is that we shouldn't let CA have free reign over the lore. And while they shouldn't be slaves to it, ignoring or altering it should not be foremost in their minds.