Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
Boney said:
the Wolfenburgians who somehow invented Gnosticism and say that there's only two Gods, one good and one evil, and that Sigmar is the good one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think you've conflated Gnosticism with Manichaeism. While Manichaeism has Gnostic elements, it also incorporated elements from other religions such as Zoroastrianism - notably, the Zoroastrian supreme evil being, Ahriman. Other strains of Gnosticism do not necessarily have a corresponding evil figure; while the demiurge may be presented as evil, in other conceptions they may simply be flawed, and the evils in their creation are a product of their flaws rather than of malevolence.
 
Droman said:
Remind me, was it the army of the Kazad? Because you know, I was gonna suggest we keep a keen eye out for signs of hidden Dwarf settlement underneath Laurelorn...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You mean the Hill Dwarves? I think they actively fought against the idea of getting into a fight with Elves, since they were coexisting side by side with them. Their hometowns were destroyed and they had to come back to the Karaz Ankor in shame. The Middle Mountain Dwarves also refused to join the war. The army that attacked Laurelorn was a Karaz Ankor Dwarf army I'm pretty sure.
 
Mopman43 said:
Wasn't Tobaro, it was the city-state of Vedenza, an entity that, to the best of my knowledge, has never appeared outside of the Monstrous Arcanum.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Interesting thing came up on the WFRP 4e discord today. Firstly, Vedenza and Tobaro are the same city. However, the guy who wrote the wiki article on Vedenza mistakenly though they were different cities around the same area; he says he got confused because of the little information in Monstrous Arcanum.

WFRP 4e: The Imperial Zoo clarified that Vedenza and Tobaro are the same city, but Up in Arms missed that and used the wiki instead, listing them as two separate cities.

Props to the wiki author for noticing what happened and laying everything out with sources included.
 
Andres said:
Interesting thing came up on the WFRP 4e discord today. Firstly, Vedenza and Tobaro are the same city. However, the guy who wrote the wiki article on Vedenza mistakenly though they were different cities around the same area; he says he got confused because of the little information in Monstrous Arcanum.

WFRP 4e: The Imperial Zoo clarified that Vedenza and Tobaro are the same city, but Up in Arms missed that and used the wiki instead, listing them as two separate cities.

Props to the wiki author for noticing what happened and laying everything out with sources included.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
4th Edition authors use the wiki?

I... don't know what to say to that.
 
Yeah, not like GW has an internal database they make accessible to their authors with things indexed by edition and book and all that.

Because I would absolutely pay cash money to access said database.
 
Codex said:
4th Edition authors use the wiki?

I... don't know what to say to that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Authors are only human, and need some way of checking previously established canon. For a property like Warhammer, that's hellishly difficult without a wiki of some sort, and because there was no way GW would ahve one, a publically sourced one is the next best thing, especially if it cites sources so you can check stuff if you think it's questionable. It's not like this is bahaviour unique to WFRP authors either. Mercedes Lackey, professional author, has said she uses wikis and google to remember details of her own books. It's much much easier than trying to dig through all the actual books, especially when any number of them aren't searchable.

Droman said:
Yeah, not like GW has an internal database they make accessible to their authors with things indexed by edition and book and all that.

Because I would absolutely pay cash money to access said database.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why would they? They came up with an excuse to not maintain that sort of database ages and ages ago. Which I imagine is easier on them, but does make establishing any kind of internally consistent worldbuilding on the level of an RPG absolute hell.
 
Andres said:
Interesting thing came up on the WFRP 4e discord today. Firstly, Vedenza and Tobaro are the same city. However, the guy who wrote the wiki article on Vedenza mistakenly though they were different cities around the same area; he says he got confused because of the little information in Monstrous Arcanum.

WFRP 4e: The Imperial Zoo clarified that Vedenza and Tobaro are the same city, but Up in Arms missed that and used the wiki instead, listing them as two separate cities.

Props to the wiki author for noticing what happened and laying everything out with sources included.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Vedenza and Tobaro being the same city doesn't really make any sense, but all right.
 
deathofrats0808 said:
Authors are only human, and need some way of checking previously established canon. For a property like Warhammer, that's hellishly difficult without a wiki of some sort, and because there was no way GW would ahve one, a publically sourced one is the next best thing, especially if it cites sources so you can check stuff if you think it's questionable. It's not like this is bahaviour unique to WFRP authors either. Mercedes Lackey, professional author, has said she uses wikis and google to remember details of her own books. It's much much easier than trying to dig through all the actual books, especially when any number of them aren't searchable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't take issue with checking wikis. I take issue with the concept Andres suggested of taking the wiki at its word instead of checking the source directly. Playing Telephone with the source material is likely to create inconsistencies.

But I guess GW doesn't care about that. Everything's canon after all.
 
... Rereading my copy of MA and Vedenza is def not meant to be Tobaro in that vingette. its fine that they retconned it but the original text def means for you to take it as just a minor city/city-state that is to small to show up on maps to make the world feel bigger.
 
Fayhem said:
I think you've conflated Gnosticism with Manichaeism. While Manichaeism has Gnostic elements, it also incorporated elements from other religions such as Zoroastrianism - notably, the Zoroastrian supreme evil being, Ahriman. Other strains of Gnosticism do not necessarily have a corresponding evil figure; while the demiurge may be presented as evil, in other conceptions they may simply be flawed, and the evils in their creation are a product of their flaws rather than of malevolence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not at my computer, but the other details of it given in the 2e religion book line up very closely with Gnosticism.
 
Nurgle said:
Ok so what magic wizard in Estalia or Tilea would be worth Mathilde's time to recruit?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
None described in canon.

(Estalia especially, but there's no prominent magic tradition I've ever seen in Tilea- apart from, possibly, the beast-binders of Vedenza, but that was just people using Scrolls of Kadon)

(Lucrezzia Belladonna is a sorcereress, but I haven't seen anything describing her as part of any kind of tradition, and her specialty is poisons, so not terribly relevant to Waystones)
 
Last edited:
Mopman43 said:
(Lucrezzia Belladonna is a sorcereress, but I haven't seen anything describing her as part of any kind of tradition, and her specialty is poisons, so not terribly relevant to Waystones)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
5th Edition was very different to 6th and above and the magic system of the Eight Winds was practically non existent. So Lucrezzia was a Level 4 "Battle Mage" with access to "Battle Magic". When she was updated to 6th Edition as part of a supplement for Dogs of War, she was a Level 4 Mage that could choose either the Lore of Death or Shadow. She's not a part of any tradition that I know of, but there's that going on for her.
 
When CA asked GW to give them lore for Cathay to build on for Total Warhammer 3, GW made a full lore book in the style of 8th Edition and made it available as a physical copy such that Andy Hall, one of the writers, was literally perusing it in the middle of a podcast to answer questions. This is despite the fact that a good portion of that lore wouldn't end up in the game. And while it is indeed likely that they're going to be reusing that lore in the official publication for the Old World, I have some serious doubts on if they ever planned on that before CA asked them for authorisation to use Cathay.

Why can't they do the same for other factions? Just create a lore book to consult? I have no idea. My suspicions is that GW has priorities and 4th Edition WFRP is bottom of the list compared to stuff like 40k and Age of SIgmar. Even Old World is being dripfed with a single piece of small news every 4-5 months.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top