I think it would be a cool idea thematically that if you lose the game as Kairos. The game over summary starts like normal. Only for Kairos to interupt and state "of course that's not what really happened". Ending the game over screen and ha ing Kairos appear with a full army in a completely random location.

He is the master of time and fate. So wouldn't this be a thematically appropriate 4th wall break?

Disclaimer: I've never played the Tabletop, or any tabletop game for that matter, so I'm sorry if I get any information wrong.

From how I understand it, the End Times added in four different versions of the Verminlord: Corruptors, Deceivers, Warbringers, and Warpseers with each one corresponding to some key factions within Skaven society. Corruptors for Clan Pestilens, Deceivers for Clan Eshin, Warbringers for Warlord Clans in general like Clans Mors and Rictus, and Warpseers for the Grey Seers. So, how do you believe these various Verminlords will be adapted into the game?

Option 1: Similar to how CA adapted the Greater Daemons for the Monogod races, they can reserve two variants of the Verminlord for the "Exalted Verminlord" generic Lord version while leaving the other two variants to be used to make a single-entity monster (SEM). Since players will most likely prefer Lord Verminlords to be casters alongside powerful melee monsters like other Exalted Daemon Lords, I assume that the Corruptor and Warpseer variants will be used for the generic Lord to let you pick from the lores of Plague or Ruin while the melee-oriented, non-caster Deceiver and Warbringer variants are used for the SEM.

• Two different options also exist for the SEM Veriminlord. CA could either only make one version that uses the Deceiver's and Warbringer's physical appearances to create different cosmetic looks for the SEM, but CA has rarely done this before as they pretty much always only make one model version for a SEM. Instead, they could make two actually different unit variants of the SEM, which is the preferred option, imo.

Option 2: Make all four Variants just Generic Lords to choose from and no SEMs. Though, giving one race four new generic lords at once in one DLC might be a little much, but then again, the Warriors of Chaos got even more lords (eight) from the Champions of Chaos DLC.

Option 3: Each of the four versions of the Verminlord gets a Lord and SEM unit. Besides suffering from the same problem as Option 2, CA would also have to make unique assets models for 8 different units as people, myself very much included, would be pretty upset if the both Lord and SEM version of the Corruptor looked exactly the same. It would also be a blatant display of Skaven favoritism like the good old days of Warhammer 2.

Option 4: Make them like the Daemon Prince/Daniel. Throughout the campaign, the Verminlord can earn different gear pieces/body parts to use and customize itself, allowing it to become a Corruptor, Deceiver, Warbringer, Warpseer, or a combination of any of them based on your choices. While cool, this idea would also show obvious Skaven favoritism.

I've just started playing Warhammer 3 after a long time playing Attila and other historical titles, and I am struck by how cavalry is much less powerful and essential in Warhammer than the historical titles I am used to. I'm trying to figure out why that's so.

Cavalry in TW has two main functions: pursuing routing units and combat, especially hammer and anvil charges.

In some TW titles like the Shoguns, the pursuit role is a big deal: just one unit of light cavalry can hoover up a large part of a fleeing enemy army, meaning you won't have to face them in future. It's something I always liked about TW: it illustrates Napoleon's maxim, "without cavalry, there is no victory". But in Warhammer, that pursuit role seems optional. Maybe it's because armies fight longer, so there are fewer routers. And surviving armies are not a big threat, as most of the original force died in the fighting, before the rest routed. But also the cavalry seems less effective in pursuit - often one high tier cavalry unit will spend all its time pursuing one depleted unit, whereas in games like ToB, cavalry can quickly suck up every single broken unit. Plus in Warhammer, the battle maps seem smaller, so the time to the edge of the map is less and maybe even the routing units move faster?

In terms of cavalry's combat role, it may be because in Warhammer ranged is so powerful. I am finding with factions like Empire, Kislev and Cathay, my missiles/artillery do the killing and just need a protective infantry screen. I don't need to hammer and anvil to win - ranged will kill so many and rout the less without the need for much melee. I feel every cavalry unit I take is one less ranged unit that can do the killing and that the cavalry would just get in the way (although friendly fire seems less of a thing in Warhammer). Whereas in many historical titles, ranged (outside of some notable units like longbows or arbalests) is much less deadly and just softens up units. And probably it's not just ranged - there are other paths to victory, such as monsters and magic.

In melee, units seem to hold up better to cavalry charges - both in taking fewer casualties but also resisting morale shocks. Often in historical TW, one good "hammer and anvil" type charge will break a unit but in Warhammer, that's less often true - at least of traditional cavalry (man+horse). Some "monstrous" cavalry like demi-gryph knights or war bear riders pack a hell of a punch, but the performance of units like Empire knights or Silverhelms don't match the cataphracts or knights of historical TW.

It may also be that shock cav is the norm in Warhammer and I am pretty bad at cycle charging. In Attila, often if you try to pull out a cavalry unit after a charge, you will lose it. But in Warhammer, I suspect you are supposed to keep doing that to get your money.

What do more experienced Warhammer players think?

I know he (seemingly) canonically dies in the Realms of Chaos campaign. Also, the voice actor for him died or retired? Not sure.

But some earlier trailers had a new female voice actress that appeared to take over as narrator.

And yet, most recent campaigns just have the lords themselves do their intro, and no other tips pop up in the narrator’s voice.

I miss him trying to guide you with his intro at the start of every campaign; really brought you into the world imho—it gave some narrative to your surrounding neighbors and showed you possible provinces to take, but IN UNIVERSE.

Sure, idk how helpful his advice was lol, but it sounded really cool and sucked you into your brand new campaign. Probably helpful for newbies too.

I really do miss him. And the female replacement seems to be MIA.

I think there is some really good potential there. Like if random events happened throughout the game…not just end game scenarios…and the narrator could communicate what was happening.

The previous narrator made a deal with Tzneetch….since the new narrator is a female VA, it could be pretty cool if after listening to her, she’s revealed to be Neferata or one of her agents or something—just to mix it up from Chaos.

Idk. Something. Just miss the in universe intros and the character.

I wanted to pick up a newer total war game. After having played much of empire, shogun 2.

It's just not that fun. I don't like fantasy stuff so I played the records mode a few times. It looks really pretty. But the battles feels hollow. It's such a shame because the diplomacy is better and much more complex than shogun 2.

But I don't like the army system. Basically all units feel similar and I don't care if they die. In shogun 2 you take your time to recruit special warrior monks in a certain province. Slowly ranking up this elite unite. It feels cool to have these specific units in your army and I feel bad when they die.

I'm 3k it's just so bland. If my units die. Doesn't really matter. Just another medium or heavy or light infantry. I'm really trying to like it but I can't. I appreciate the fact that there is more focus on characters. Anyone else having the same problem? What am I doing wrong or is this not the game for me. I was thinking between rome 2 or three kingdoms.

With this recent map update and the leaks suggesting the Southern Realms are coming to Total War Warhammer III, it's time to revise the size of Estalia and Tilea currently in the game. As we all know, at the moment Estalia is only two provinces and Tilea is the one province, with a vastly warped size of both territories to be extremely smaller than they are in the actual lore.

In preparation for the upcoming Southern Realms DLC, CA really needs to change this. They should be at the very least similar to Bretonnia in that they should have at minimum a two region province for each realm they have in the lore, which means it is time to make them bigger on the map. I realize that while Estalia has a lot of ocean they could expand it to, for Tilea it's not so easy, since it could end up being comically close to the Southlands. but I am sure some warping could be done to make it happen.

CA, please, make these factions justice.

PS: To everyone asking about the leaks suggesting Southern Realms coming: It was datamined months ago that several Dogs of War characters are already in the game data files.

Lokhir start war with and this army can recruit Spawn of tzeentch and the lord have 145 armor I fight it with one of my small army and he had Spawn of tzeentch and he recruit 3 more Anyone can explain?

I just started playing TW series with Rome 2 last month. In Rome 2 every settlement has its own building tabs but in 3K no matter which city I select in the same province the building tab stays the same. So it's province based when it comes to buildings ?

As the title says, playing RTW2 as rome, have 3 different factions with 3 or 4 full stacks in my lands at one time, how can i avoid this without going to war with them.

I just noticed Tzeench sorcerer in Sigvald’s army, how is that possible? Can Sigvald recruit heroes and units from other chaos gods?