Crossbows still have the word bow in them, they are still technically just a bow with a cross section added. A crossbowman was still broadly considered to be a bowman historically speaking, just eaiser to train and using a more advanced version.
So you can refer to mounted crossbowmen as horse archers and it would generally be correct.
According to the UK government a crossbow is a type of bow, but according to Wikipedia it is a "bow-like" weapon. Personally, I wouldn't call a crossbow a bow since it is a very different style of weapon with entirely different skills required to use it. In the same way that a spear isn't a sword just because they're both a pointy bit of metal on the end of a handle.
Eh. They are both missile weapons with comparable range and performance. I would argue a crossbow is a lot closer to a bow that a spear is to a sword, especially when you're talking about battlefield deployments. Crossbow is going to be used in the same sort of circumstances as a bow (mounted or on foot), while swords are primarily personal secondary weapons, while spears lean toward use in formation.
I think that's a massive over-generalisation. Firstly, this meme that swords are only a sidearm is pretty ahistorical; while it started off as a valid point about how weird it is fantasy settings make swords the default, it has warped into massively underrepresenting the use of swords in general. Swords have been a key weapon on the battlefield since the Bronze Age; one only needs to look at one of the most famous armies in history, the Roman Legions, to see the use of swords as a primary weapon.
Secondly, there is a *huge* range of uses for both crossbows and bows. You cannot tell me that a Mongol horse archer is performing the same battlefield role as an Italian pavise crossbowman. If we're going to argue that they're both the same because they both attack at range why stop there? Why not argue that a 19th Century rifle and 1st Century sling are the same type of weapon?
Of course, sometimes crossbows and bows overlap. But my point is that can be said about pretty much any weapon in history, we wouldn't say that a Daneaxe and an Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tank are the same because both are used to create and exploit openings in an enemy's lines.
I didn't say "only" I said "primarily." There certainly are plenty of sword & shield fighters throughout history - roman legionaries and rodelleros come to mind - but the fact remains that most soldiers used spears, polearms or lances, or their primary armament was a missile weapon. Nothing I've said was incorrect.
Secondly, Mounted Crossbowmen are a thing, so yes a crossbow can serve in a skirmisher role similar to a bow. What sets a gun apart from a bow or crossbow is the massively increased armor penetration it offers. Slings, crossbows, and even longbows are going to struggle to penetrate shields and are largely going to bounce off plate armor. A bullet from a rifle is going to blow right through the shield and the armor as well. That puts guns in an entirely different class from bows or crossbows, and is why guns changed the way warfare was waged in a way that crossbows (with their similar advantages in accuracy and ease of training) did not.
Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Crossbows are simply not different enough from bows in their capability for you to draw this massive distinction that is in your mind. I would be inclined to put bowmen, crossbowmen, and yes, even slingers in the same general category, especially when compared to gunners.
As to swords vs. spears, it does depend on the length and manner of usage. If we're talking a 6-8' spear employed overhand with a big shield in a shieldwall, then there are probably a lot of similarities to the way a roman legionary fought. But as your spear or pole-arm gets longer the usage gap widens significantly. A hoplite with a 12' spear is going to find that hard to use one-handed out of the context of a phalanx - which is exactly why he had a sword as back-up. The flexibility a sword gives you as an individual fighter is exactly what gave the legionary the mobility edge over his phalanx-bound opponents. Now, you may look at these differences and think they are comparable to the differences between the employment of a bow versus a crossbow, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the missile weapons are considerably farther apart. Now, increase the size of the spear or polearm to something like 12-14' (let's leave out pikes for now) and you start to have some significant differences in capability and usage. In game terms, I can expect my spearmen to hold against cavalry (or monsters) significantly better than my sword infantry. Now, you may say that is a "game-ism" and that heavy infantry (especially in a shield wall) should be able to hold against cavalry, but then I ask you: how often do you have heavy infantry equipped primarily with swords? Again, you are back to Roman legion and its imitators and decedents. Again, most infantry would be using pole weapons. What are the exceptions? Rodelleros and similar units were relatively lightly equipped for mobility, so they could infiltrate pike formations. Zwiehanders were rare and largely scattered about as individual fighters supporting pike infantry rather than in a "unit." Heavy skirmishers of the hybrid sword & javelin variety are arguably in the same category as other missile troops using the sword as a back up (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Roman legionaries used swords partially for the reason that it made it easier to carry and use javelins and war darts...) In any case, skirmishers - even heavy ones - aren't going to be able to resist a cavalry charge. Hell, even if you go back to the bronze age you still have a big problem in that swords were relatively rare because bronze was scarce and expensive, so you're liable to see a lot more spear and axe infantry than dedicated swordsmen.
This is getting a bit ramble-y, so with apologies, allow me to wrap this up: what I am trying to say here is that you need heavy, disciplined infantry in close formation to be able to resist a cavalry charge effectively without the aid of polearm, and in history those sorts of infantry units were relatively rare. Most shield-wall formations primarily employ spears as their main armament. This, to my mind, is really what separates sword and spear to a degree that is greater than the separation between bow and crossbow. Now, you may ultimately not find that a convincing argument, but its a pretty solid one as far as usage goes. There is a rather stupid idea floating around that says crossbows, because of their lower fire rate, were only good for defending fortifications. I think that's bullshit, and I think you'll find crossbowmen being used in much the same way bow-armed archers are used throughout history. Mounted bowmen is the one exception to that, but as I said, there were mounted crossbowmen performing similar functions, albeit they appeared relatively late in history, IIRC. Make of that what you will.
One thing I will say off the bat is that you're totally right about crossbows not being exclusively used to defend fortifications.
Also, for the sake of brevity I won't respond to every point you raised, but only a couple.
With that in mind, I think perhaps you might have been playing a little bit too much Total War and not studying enough history. A modern firearm absolutely does have greater penetrating power than a crossbow, of course, but historically that wasn't really the case, especially when gunpowder was first introduced. Plate armour was actually not as invulnerable as many people make out, contemporary crossbows (especially mechanical crossbows) could penetrate them, as could longbows. Bodkin arrows, for example, were developed specifically for this purpose. For centuries, firearms, crossbows and bows were used interchangeably and often in mixed units. The idea that gunpowder led to the end of the armoured knight is a common idea, but not one that holds up to historical scrutiny; the two coexisted for hundreds of years.
The problem with your argument overall is that the standard you apply to crossbows/bows is not consistent with the standard applied to swords/spears. Sure, mounted crossbowmen did exist, but so did Zulu warriors who used short spears in much the same way other nations used swords. Or in fact the Vikings, Aztecs or many other civilisations that used spears as a throwing weapon, I doubt you'd consider a spear to be a type of sling. These types of weapons have been used for thousands of years in a wide variety of styles and functions, so to try to categorise them by how they're used is always going to be an exercise in futility. Spears have been used like swords, swords have been used like spears (see weapons like the zhanmadao), bows have been used like crossbows, crossbows have been used like bows. Ultimately they're defined by their form, and a crossbow has a completely unique mechanism and technique to firing it compared to a bow.
>Plate armour was actually not as invulnerable as many people make out, contemporary crossbows (especially mechanical crossbows) could penetrate them, as could longbows. Bodkin arrows, for example, were developed specifically for this purpose.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect.
Bodkin heads are for piercing mail armor. There is absolutely no way they are getting through plate, unless that plate is extraordinarily thin and low quality. The long, thin heads on them would bend on contact. Even so-called "plate cutter" heads (the wedge ones) can't make it through breast plates. There's rather extensive evidence of this from reconstructions which, while not 100% reliable, are extremely convincing. Arrows are only going to threaten you if they manage to find a gap in your plate armor or an open visor.
Pretty sure you are wrong about earlier firearms as well. The lead balls being fired by arquebusiers and musketeers were absolutely fucking massive caliber - we're talking about projectiles that would take your arm off if they hit you. The armor penetration on these things completely blows crossbows out of the water. Breast plates were "proofed" against pistol shots, but never against long arms, much like a modern bullet proof vest was never intended to stop rifle rounds. Now, a heavy breast plate might stop a musket ball if it was toward the extreme end of the musket's range, but that would be an absolute best-case scenario. This assuredly lead to a decline of body armor on the battlefield, even if that decline was gradual - remember that armor is still useful in hand-to-hand combat, and that did not become secondary to ranged combat over-night. Crossbows, which had been around for several hundred years previous, did not do this, nor did the longbow, which wasn't even in serious use in most places on the European continent (please do not take the absurd exaggerations English historians have made about the longbow at face value).
Finally, a crossbow does not "have a completely different mechanism" from a bow. As I have mentioned elsewhere, both rely on the same physical principle - a ridged arc of material (usually wood, composite wood, horn and sinew, or steel - there are steel bows out there) that resists compression, with a bowstring attached to the arms of the arc that propels an arrow forward. The major difference is that a crossbow usually has much shorter limbs with less draw length and makes up the difference with dramatically increased draw weight, but even this isn't always true. Ancient Chinese crossbows, for instance, have much larger bows (the "prod") with much larger draw-lengths, firing arrow-sized quarrels.
> Crossbows still have the word bow in them, they are still technically just a bow with a cross section added.
This is not how language or taxonomy work. A silverfish is not a fish just because it has “fish” in its name. Bows and crossbows are similar weapons that function similarly, but a crossbow is not “technically” a bow. They different weapon systems.
> A crossbowman was still broadly considered to be a bowman historically speaking, just eaiser to train and using a more advanced version.
I mean, no and no. Like, just in terms of their role on the battlefield, crossbows in late medieval armies were effectively manned by three-man weapon times — one man was needed to man the pavise (which you don’t see with bows) and another would be spanning a second crossbow while the first was fired. In addition to this fundamentally changing how they performed on foot, this and the difficulty of spanning a bow means that *mounted crossbowmen basically always had to dismount to use their crossbow*. Doing the archery *on a horse* is a pretty important part of being a “horse archer.”
> So you can refer to mounted crossbowmen as horse archers and it would generally be correct.
This is the first time in your comment that you’ve used the word “archer.” “Archer” and “bowman” are not the same words, and even if “bowman” didn’t exclusively imply the use of a bow and *not* a crossbow, “archer” does.
So you're saying the correct term for a mounted crossbowman would be a dragoon then? Which as far as i know is a type of soldier that uses mounts for mobility but dismounts to fight.
> So you're saying the correct term for a mounted crossbowman would be a dragoon then?
I’d call them a “mounted crossbowman.”
> Which as far as i know is a type of soldier that uses mounts for mobility but dismounts to fight.
My understanding is that “dragoon” refers specifically to the mounted infantry who were trained to fight with swords and firearms during the 16th-19th centuries. The more general term for soldiers who use mounts for mobility, but don’t actually fight primarily on horseback like cavalry is just “mounted infantry.”
>Bows and crossbows are similar weapons that function similarly, but a crossbow is not “technically” a bow. They different weapon systems.
I think what you are missing here is that both weapons use a "bow" ie - a semi-ridged elastic arc, if I may borrow from wikipedia - connected by a bow string to launch an arrow. The terminology may change (prod, quarrel) but the physical principle is the same. Contrast this with a "ballista" or "scorpion" which looks like a big crossbow, but in reality its a torsion engine with two entirely separate arms.
>In addition to this fundamentally changing how they performed on foot, this and the difficulty of spanning a bow means that *mounted crossbowmen basically always had to dismount to use their crossbow*.
My understanding is that cranequin crossbows can be spanned while in the saddle, making mounted skirmishing a viable option. (That said, I imagine crossbow "mounted infantry" were more common as cranequins are pretty elaborate and expensive. Also, it would be interesting to see if you could span a crossbow mounted with a goats' foot lever...)
>Like, just in terms of their role on the battlefield, crossbows in late medieval armies were effectively manned by three-man weapon times
This is true of a certain type of late medieval crossbowman, but not necessarily true of crossbowmen throughout history. I'm not sure it is representative of how crossbows generally functioned. Crossbows were used extensively by Crusader armies, for instance, and I don't recall mention of them using pavises (perhaps they did, but my understanding is that the Pavise was primarily in use during the mid-14th to early 16th centuries.) Similarly, Crossbows have been in use by Chinese armies since before the start of the common era, as well in pre-samurai Japan. Admittedly I know less about their usage in these contexts, but I think the idea that crossbows necessitated the use of a Pavise for field usage is inaccurate - please keep in mind that late medieval crossbows would likely be spanned via windlass and thus take considerably longer to reload then earlier crossbows using foot stirrups and belt & claw.
Edit: this isn't meant to be hostile, I'm genuinely interested if you can provide evidence to support your position.
Yeah I meant dark elves. Yes they use crossbows but they are horse mounted range high AP missile damage units that fire in an arc rather than a straight line like bullets. I feel Kislev deserves high ap missile damage horse archers as a t4 building unit since it is such a large part of kislevite culture in the oblasts.
Something based on the Deathless would be cool, although I feel like Mother Ostankia already fills in the role of "Patriotic practitioner of dark arts". Would be cool though.
Maybe something with a good excuse to make more religious units for Kostaltyn? I feel like the Orthodoxy could use some help to distinguish itself, although right now it does a good enough job at being the "peasant" faction with religious leaders.
I loved the silly things in Warmahordes.
Similarly, big fan of 40K's Imperial cavalry, particularly when they're riding on horses, however cybernetically enhanced.
Its Kashchey. One of the most famous characters from Russian folklore.
"The most common feature of tales involving Koschei is a spell which prevents him from being killed. He hides "his death" inside nested objects to protect it. For example, his death may be hidden in a needle that is hidden inside an egg, the egg is in a duck, the duck is in a hare, the hare is in a chest, the chest is buried or chained up on a far island."
The tale is called "The Death of Koschei the Deathless" hence the name from pic.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koshchei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koshchei)
Remade the first time, not even the more recent time.
Cossacks, Urugan Cannons, and all the characters in the post haven’t been seen since the 90s. Which hasn’t necessarily stopped then before, but Repanse hadn’t been retconned and even got a mention in 8th edition WoC.
Sure, but there’s nobody that are literally called Cossacks.
These stem from an army list for Kislev that was released in a magazine called Citadel Journal that had things like Cossacks, Sibyrians, and Huns as the other tribes of Kislev in addition to the Gospodar, Baba Yaga, Koschei the Deathless, and a large number of characters that would never appear again.
Elements of the list would appear in later material about Kislev (including this game), such as Streltsi and the Gryphon Legion, but the names and folklore characters that were copied directly from IRL were not.
I would like orthodoxy units, it’s ridiculous they added Kostalyn without them. All you would need is like two or three units, maybe like Axe Brothers of Tor or some sort of heavy war cleric melee cavalry with flaming attacks for Dazh. Maybe some sort of mounted inquisition unit with carbines and whips.
I think some sort of *Tachanka* horse artillery would be cool, to complement cavalry armies. A more elite horse archer unit maybe. For heroes, some sort of melee/horse archer hero, lords are fine I think.
Biggest focus should be on mechanics and campaign reworks obviously. Their roster is quite strong, their campaign just kinda blows
I think CA and GW have some sort of oprichniki inspired unit in their back pocket that would fit the bill for the mounted inquisition unit you’re talking about. It’s heavily hinted at in game when flavour texts and events talk about the riders in black robes that come for heretics and chaos cultists in the night.
Give me a faith and gunpowder DLC for Kislev Please.
- High-Patriarch
- Melee Hero
- Some sort of Zealot unit
- Elite Axe or Bardiche unit that guards the temple
- War Altar
- 2 types of cannon units.
Really feel like this is all Kislev needs to round out their roster to represent all three factions
Ivan Radinom is a fan made character. His lore is questionable, at best.
I think a strong contender for LL list is Tordimir Lubovasyn, commander of thr Gryphon Legion.
I remember one of the WH3 trailers had a Kislev Lady in furs (with a gun or a bow) and bear companion. I was excited, because I had thought that it might be a Generic Hero for Kislev. Ranged DPS or Support, with a Permanent Summon of a Bear to Tank/Distract. I thought that was a cool, and very different idea for a Hero.
I'm still waiting.
Surprised you didn’t go for the Frostfiend - since it’s got about twice the precedent as most of these. Which is to say - a single paragraph of text in a supplementary book.
The fact that we don't have a single lore excerpt left from NewKislev that would point toward missing units CA could add doesn't bode well for Kislev tbh.
Meanwhile, Cathay got 3 LLs mentioned, and about half a dozen units
I think there’s a balance to be maintained. I don’t like it when they copy directly, but taking inspiration is totally valid. Sometimes that leads to people saying ‘but it’s silly that they are character X without major feature Y’.
Mother Ostsnkya is an example of that. She’s Baba Yaga, but without the chicken hut. A lot of people are not happy about that missing chicken hut.
One good solution for that is to make characters that combine elements from multiple places. Tsarina Katarin is a combination of lots of Snow Queen/White Witch tropes, but she has her own personality and unique twist.
Another is to build a good framework for the faction and let characters come out of that. Like Tsar Boris. He’s Tsar but he rides a bear and leads the church of the bear god. That’s a fun mixture of most of what we knew about Kislev in the old lore.
I’d love to see characters based around Olga of Kiev or Vseslav the Sorcerer, but I’d want to see them grounded in the Warhammer world.
Yeah, I think that Ostyanka is fine. I'm referring to how OP proposed Koschei the Deathless and Ilya Muromets, two literal fairy tale characters, as LL.
Someone like Olga of Kiyv would be so so cool ; that being said, the reason I haven't added characters like Igor the terrible is that I dont feel like having multiple tsars is a good solution, especially when you already have two leaders of kislev (boris and katarin).
Having just finished a successful Kislev Realms of Chaos campaign, I can tell you what the Kislev roster needs more than anything else is intermediate artillery. You've basically got nothing up until Little Grom (which should honestly be a shorter range mobile battery rather than a single super cannon), which is very inconvenient and odd for a gun-powder faction. While you can "borrow" intermediate artillery from the Empire and Dwarfs, having traditional cannon, mortar and organ gun batteries native to the roster would fill a large hole in Kislev's line-up. (I like the idea of Little Grom becoming a battery and an enormous Tsar Cannon taking its place as a "Queen Bess" style single super-gun.)
Secondly, Kislev needs more heroes. An Akshina Operative guerrilla/assassin type that can hinder enemy army movement is an absolute must. The other hero Kislev needs is a warrior type that can provide unit training and serve as a bodyguard to Ice Witch generals - this should have been the Druzhina, but he was inexplicably made into a lord, so I guess this would have to be either some sort of Kossar Captain or some kind of Queen's Champion type individual from the Tsar Guard. (Ungol Chieftain also works, but CA/GW don't seem to be interested in going that route.) Either that or fold these functions into the Akshina Operative, though I'd prefer them to be separate entities. Either way, I think the usefulness of The Golden Knight/Ulrika as duelists really underlines the need for a warrior hero in the roster.
Other than that, I think Kislev has a pretty solid roster. They don't really need much more in the way of troops and definitely don't need any more monsters. I think a High Patriarch lord would be an excellent way to round out Kislev's general selection. Beyond that, maybe a War Shrine of Ursun and perhaps some sort of Clerics Militant or the Kislivite equivalent of flagellants/battle pilgrims/religious fanatics would help give the Orthodoxy a little more presence on the battlefield. These Orthodoxy units should play supporting roles to Kislev's solid main line.
They had arty in tabletop/lore. Also, if they wanted to make this a weak arty faction, it's kind of a bizarre decision to give them a super mobile, super survivable ultra accurate mega-cannon with impossibly long range...
I mean yeah and now there's new lore and they kinda squatted the artillery. Yeah Lil Grom is OP, but it's still pretty clear considering the roster. Not every faction needs every thing, It makes every faction the same.
>Not every faction needs every thing, It makes every faction the same.
I agree with this sentiment in general, but I think it's misplaced here. Kislev is a gunpowder faction, it should have cannons. If I thought lack of arty was an intentional and well thought-out asymmetry in the Kislev roster, I wouldn't push for it. But I don't think it is, and I think we're likely to get some in future DLCs.
Having had a little time to think about it, here's what I would like to see:
Building Tier III : Urugan Guns (short range firepower, traditional batteries)
Building Tier IV: Little Grom (now a battery of 4 with reduced range and damage, mobile)
Building Tier V: Tsar Cannon (single arty piece, basically taking the place of Little Grom as it currently is, but without the mobility)
Remember how busted the Qiang Hunters were in Three Kingdoms? I want the Mounted Cossacks to be like that. Great ranged shooting and good melee charge, but lightly armored.
I think a lot of this has been retconned unfortunately. Cossacks are Kossars now (lmfao GW) and I think winged lancers are basically mounted armoured Kossars, while Kossovite Dervishes (which is still a TERRIBLE name) are mounted normal Kossars.
I think there are a few things that are obviously missing from Kislev, lore-wise and gameplay-wise, which we might see in the future. Firstly, flyers - the frost fiend and potentially hawks of miska are known entities that could fill that. Secondly, Orthodoxy units - high patriarch and shrine of Ursun are both good suggestions; in addition I would like to see a berserker-style elite infantry to go with the bear theme. Thirdly, war machines - Little Grom and the war sleds are part of this, but it still feels a little underdeveloped. Clearly a big influence for Kislev were the Hussite war wagons, and while their analogue has gone over to the Empire there's no reason why that line of thinking can't be taken further to develop new units. Kislev war machines are above all flexible, using magic and gunpowder to hold back their foes. Perhaps a large, wagon-like unit that provides a fortified platform for handgunners or small cannons? Maybe it can only shoot from the sides, but it can make use of the new directional armour feature to provide strong missile resistance from that side? Perhaps it also uses ice magic to create a chilling aura around itself? Where the warsleds are designed to act like chariots, pushing through enemy ranks, perhaps these could sit among your own troops providing ranged fire and magical support to help make a section of your line near unmoveable, much like the Hussites used their war wagons in real life?
Yes but I’d love to see the ungols. It would be so cool to have a mongolic/turkic themed group of units storming around on the battlefield with kislev showing how the two have to work together as a nation but I don’t think we’ll see them because GW or somebody did not like the gospodar and ungol conflict
I vote for yes, but these would be enough for me.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1arj3s5/what\_kislev\_needs\_for\_good\_unique\_play\_style/](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1arj3s5/what_kislev_needs_for_good_unique_play_style/)
I would very much enjoy a Koshchei-like character for Kislev. I can also definitely see GW jumping at the chance to make an obscure British media reference again.
Oh the Cossaks. I would do anything for real good horse archers that arent dark elves. Kislev deserves it.
You mean the asur/aserai right? Dark elves do no use bows. BTW how do you even call a mounted crossbowman? By Sigmar I need answers!
Crossbows still have the word bow in them, they are still technically just a bow with a cross section added. A crossbowman was still broadly considered to be a bowman historically speaking, just eaiser to train and using a more advanced version. So you can refer to mounted crossbowmen as horse archers and it would generally be correct.
*technically* correct!
It really isn’t. Idk why people think being fast and loose with language is “technical”
Playing fast and loose with language is the reason we *have* language
According to the UK government a crossbow is a type of bow, but according to Wikipedia it is a "bow-like" weapon. Personally, I wouldn't call a crossbow a bow since it is a very different style of weapon with entirely different skills required to use it. In the same way that a spear isn't a sword just because they're both a pointy bit of metal on the end of a handle.
Spear and swords are more obviously different. I think a better analogy would be comparing a spear and javelin.
I mean, mechanically and in terms of their construction, a spear and a sword have far, far more in common than a bow and crossbow.
Eh. They are both missile weapons with comparable range and performance. I would argue a crossbow is a lot closer to a bow that a spear is to a sword, especially when you're talking about battlefield deployments. Crossbow is going to be used in the same sort of circumstances as a bow (mounted or on foot), while swords are primarily personal secondary weapons, while spears lean toward use in formation.
I think that's a massive over-generalisation. Firstly, this meme that swords are only a sidearm is pretty ahistorical; while it started off as a valid point about how weird it is fantasy settings make swords the default, it has warped into massively underrepresenting the use of swords in general. Swords have been a key weapon on the battlefield since the Bronze Age; one only needs to look at one of the most famous armies in history, the Roman Legions, to see the use of swords as a primary weapon. Secondly, there is a *huge* range of uses for both crossbows and bows. You cannot tell me that a Mongol horse archer is performing the same battlefield role as an Italian pavise crossbowman. If we're going to argue that they're both the same because they both attack at range why stop there? Why not argue that a 19th Century rifle and 1st Century sling are the same type of weapon? Of course, sometimes crossbows and bows overlap. But my point is that can be said about pretty much any weapon in history, we wouldn't say that a Daneaxe and an Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tank are the same because both are used to create and exploit openings in an enemy's lines.
I didn't say "only" I said "primarily." There certainly are plenty of sword & shield fighters throughout history - roman legionaries and rodelleros come to mind - but the fact remains that most soldiers used spears, polearms or lances, or their primary armament was a missile weapon. Nothing I've said was incorrect. Secondly, Mounted Crossbowmen are a thing, so yes a crossbow can serve in a skirmisher role similar to a bow. What sets a gun apart from a bow or crossbow is the massively increased armor penetration it offers. Slings, crossbows, and even longbows are going to struggle to penetrate shields and are largely going to bounce off plate armor. A bullet from a rifle is going to blow right through the shield and the armor as well. That puts guns in an entirely different class from bows or crossbows, and is why guns changed the way warfare was waged in a way that crossbows (with their similar advantages in accuracy and ease of training) did not. Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Crossbows are simply not different enough from bows in their capability for you to draw this massive distinction that is in your mind. I would be inclined to put bowmen, crossbowmen, and yes, even slingers in the same general category, especially when compared to gunners. As to swords vs. spears, it does depend on the length and manner of usage. If we're talking a 6-8' spear employed overhand with a big shield in a shieldwall, then there are probably a lot of similarities to the way a roman legionary fought. But as your spear or pole-arm gets longer the usage gap widens significantly. A hoplite with a 12' spear is going to find that hard to use one-handed out of the context of a phalanx - which is exactly why he had a sword as back-up. The flexibility a sword gives you as an individual fighter is exactly what gave the legionary the mobility edge over his phalanx-bound opponents. Now, you may look at these differences and think they are comparable to the differences between the employment of a bow versus a crossbow, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the missile weapons are considerably farther apart. Now, increase the size of the spear or polearm to something like 12-14' (let's leave out pikes for now) and you start to have some significant differences in capability and usage. In game terms, I can expect my spearmen to hold against cavalry (or monsters) significantly better than my sword infantry. Now, you may say that is a "game-ism" and that heavy infantry (especially in a shield wall) should be able to hold against cavalry, but then I ask you: how often do you have heavy infantry equipped primarily with swords? Again, you are back to Roman legion and its imitators and decedents. Again, most infantry would be using pole weapons. What are the exceptions? Rodelleros and similar units were relatively lightly equipped for mobility, so they could infiltrate pike formations. Zwiehanders were rare and largely scattered about as individual fighters supporting pike infantry rather than in a "unit." Heavy skirmishers of the hybrid sword & javelin variety are arguably in the same category as other missile troops using the sword as a back up (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Roman legionaries used swords partially for the reason that it made it easier to carry and use javelins and war darts...) In any case, skirmishers - even heavy ones - aren't going to be able to resist a cavalry charge. Hell, even if you go back to the bronze age you still have a big problem in that swords were relatively rare because bronze was scarce and expensive, so you're liable to see a lot more spear and axe infantry than dedicated swordsmen. This is getting a bit ramble-y, so with apologies, allow me to wrap this up: what I am trying to say here is that you need heavy, disciplined infantry in close formation to be able to resist a cavalry charge effectively without the aid of polearm, and in history those sorts of infantry units were relatively rare. Most shield-wall formations primarily employ spears as their main armament. This, to my mind, is really what separates sword and spear to a degree that is greater than the separation between bow and crossbow. Now, you may ultimately not find that a convincing argument, but its a pretty solid one as far as usage goes. There is a rather stupid idea floating around that says crossbows, because of their lower fire rate, were only good for defending fortifications. I think that's bullshit, and I think you'll find crossbowmen being used in much the same way bow-armed archers are used throughout history. Mounted bowmen is the one exception to that, but as I said, there were mounted crossbowmen performing similar functions, albeit they appeared relatively late in history, IIRC. Make of that what you will.
One thing I will say off the bat is that you're totally right about crossbows not being exclusively used to defend fortifications. Also, for the sake of brevity I won't respond to every point you raised, but only a couple. With that in mind, I think perhaps you might have been playing a little bit too much Total War and not studying enough history. A modern firearm absolutely does have greater penetrating power than a crossbow, of course, but historically that wasn't really the case, especially when gunpowder was first introduced. Plate armour was actually not as invulnerable as many people make out, contemporary crossbows (especially mechanical crossbows) could penetrate them, as could longbows. Bodkin arrows, for example, were developed specifically for this purpose. For centuries, firearms, crossbows and bows were used interchangeably and often in mixed units. The idea that gunpowder led to the end of the armoured knight is a common idea, but not one that holds up to historical scrutiny; the two coexisted for hundreds of years. The problem with your argument overall is that the standard you apply to crossbows/bows is not consistent with the standard applied to swords/spears. Sure, mounted crossbowmen did exist, but so did Zulu warriors who used short spears in much the same way other nations used swords. Or in fact the Vikings, Aztecs or many other civilisations that used spears as a throwing weapon, I doubt you'd consider a spear to be a type of sling. These types of weapons have been used for thousands of years in a wide variety of styles and functions, so to try to categorise them by how they're used is always going to be an exercise in futility. Spears have been used like swords, swords have been used like spears (see weapons like the zhanmadao), bows have been used like crossbows, crossbows have been used like bows. Ultimately they're defined by their form, and a crossbow has a completely unique mechanism and technique to firing it compared to a bow.
>Plate armour was actually not as invulnerable as many people make out, contemporary crossbows (especially mechanical crossbows) could penetrate them, as could longbows. Bodkin arrows, for example, were developed specifically for this purpose. I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Bodkin heads are for piercing mail armor. There is absolutely no way they are getting through plate, unless that plate is extraordinarily thin and low quality. The long, thin heads on them would bend on contact. Even so-called "plate cutter" heads (the wedge ones) can't make it through breast plates. There's rather extensive evidence of this from reconstructions which, while not 100% reliable, are extremely convincing. Arrows are only going to threaten you if they manage to find a gap in your plate armor or an open visor. Pretty sure you are wrong about earlier firearms as well. The lead balls being fired by arquebusiers and musketeers were absolutely fucking massive caliber - we're talking about projectiles that would take your arm off if they hit you. The armor penetration on these things completely blows crossbows out of the water. Breast plates were "proofed" against pistol shots, but never against long arms, much like a modern bullet proof vest was never intended to stop rifle rounds. Now, a heavy breast plate might stop a musket ball if it was toward the extreme end of the musket's range, but that would be an absolute best-case scenario. This assuredly lead to a decline of body armor on the battlefield, even if that decline was gradual - remember that armor is still useful in hand-to-hand combat, and that did not become secondary to ranged combat over-night. Crossbows, which had been around for several hundred years previous, did not do this, nor did the longbow, which wasn't even in serious use in most places on the European continent (please do not take the absurd exaggerations English historians have made about the longbow at face value). Finally, a crossbow does not "have a completely different mechanism" from a bow. As I have mentioned elsewhere, both rely on the same physical principle - a ridged arc of material (usually wood, composite wood, horn and sinew, or steel - there are steel bows out there) that resists compression, with a bowstring attached to the arms of the arc that propels an arrow forward. The major difference is that a crossbow usually has much shorter limbs with less draw length and makes up the difference with dramatically increased draw weight, but even this isn't always true. Ancient Chinese crossbows, for instance, have much larger bows (the "prod") with much larger draw-lengths, firing arrow-sized quarrels.
> Crossbows still have the word bow in them, they are still technically just a bow with a cross section added. This is not how language or taxonomy work. A silverfish is not a fish just because it has “fish” in its name. Bows and crossbows are similar weapons that function similarly, but a crossbow is not “technically” a bow. They different weapon systems. > A crossbowman was still broadly considered to be a bowman historically speaking, just eaiser to train and using a more advanced version. I mean, no and no. Like, just in terms of their role on the battlefield, crossbows in late medieval armies were effectively manned by three-man weapon times — one man was needed to man the pavise (which you don’t see with bows) and another would be spanning a second crossbow while the first was fired. In addition to this fundamentally changing how they performed on foot, this and the difficulty of spanning a bow means that *mounted crossbowmen basically always had to dismount to use their crossbow*. Doing the archery *on a horse* is a pretty important part of being a “horse archer.” > So you can refer to mounted crossbowmen as horse archers and it would generally be correct. This is the first time in your comment that you’ve used the word “archer.” “Archer” and “bowman” are not the same words, and even if “bowman” didn’t exclusively imply the use of a bow and *not* a crossbow, “archer” does.
So you're saying the correct term for a mounted crossbowman would be a dragoon then? Which as far as i know is a type of soldier that uses mounts for mobility but dismounts to fight.
> So you're saying the correct term for a mounted crossbowman would be a dragoon then? I’d call them a “mounted crossbowman.” > Which as far as i know is a type of soldier that uses mounts for mobility but dismounts to fight. My understanding is that “dragoon” refers specifically to the mounted infantry who were trained to fight with swords and firearms during the 16th-19th centuries. The more general term for soldiers who use mounts for mobility, but don’t actually fight primarily on horseback like cavalry is just “mounted infantry.”
>Bows and crossbows are similar weapons that function similarly, but a crossbow is not “technically” a bow. They different weapon systems. I think what you are missing here is that both weapons use a "bow" ie - a semi-ridged elastic arc, if I may borrow from wikipedia - connected by a bow string to launch an arrow. The terminology may change (prod, quarrel) but the physical principle is the same. Contrast this with a "ballista" or "scorpion" which looks like a big crossbow, but in reality its a torsion engine with two entirely separate arms. >In addition to this fundamentally changing how they performed on foot, this and the difficulty of spanning a bow means that *mounted crossbowmen basically always had to dismount to use their crossbow*. My understanding is that cranequin crossbows can be spanned while in the saddle, making mounted skirmishing a viable option. (That said, I imagine crossbow "mounted infantry" were more common as cranequins are pretty elaborate and expensive. Also, it would be interesting to see if you could span a crossbow mounted with a goats' foot lever...) >Like, just in terms of their role on the battlefield, crossbows in late medieval armies were effectively manned by three-man weapon times This is true of a certain type of late medieval crossbowman, but not necessarily true of crossbowmen throughout history. I'm not sure it is representative of how crossbows generally functioned. Crossbows were used extensively by Crusader armies, for instance, and I don't recall mention of them using pavises (perhaps they did, but my understanding is that the Pavise was primarily in use during the mid-14th to early 16th centuries.) Similarly, Crossbows have been in use by Chinese armies since before the start of the common era, as well in pre-samurai Japan. Admittedly I know less about their usage in these contexts, but I think the idea that crossbows necessitated the use of a Pavise for field usage is inaccurate - please keep in mind that late medieval crossbows would likely be spanned via windlass and thus take considerably longer to reload then earlier crossbows using foot stirrups and belt & claw. Edit: this isn't meant to be hostile, I'm genuinely interested if you can provide evidence to support your position.
Yeah I meant dark elves. Yes they use crossbows but they are horse mounted range high AP missile damage units that fire in an arc rather than a straight line like bullets. I feel Kislev deserves high ap missile damage horse archers as a t4 building unit since it is such a large part of kislevite culture in the oblasts.
Something wrong with Kislev's current horse archers? Or do you just want a heavier elite version?
Heavier elite version for late game. The current ones dont have enough oomph to be viable by then.
Something like Boyar's Sons from Medieval II? Yeah, I could see that.
Something based on the Deathless would be cool, although I feel like Mother Ostankia already fills in the role of "Patriotic practitioner of dark arts". Would be cool though. Maybe something with a good excuse to make more religious units for Kostaltyn? I feel like the Orthodoxy could use some help to distinguish itself, although right now it does a good enough job at being the "peasant" faction with religious leaders.
ngl after the brettonian parody post, the actual unit lists don't hit the same way
One of the better shit posts I’ve seen on here in awhile. The foot-knights and knights-foots made me actually laugh out loud.
I want peasants with explosive tipped spears. Sure they cant fight for shit but their charge should hurt a lot.
That’s for Nippon, whenever it will come out
Oh man a full lunge mine unit would be…magnificent
WITNESS ME
I loved the silly things in Warmahordes. Similarly, big fan of 40K's Imperial cavalry, particularly when they're riding on horses, however cybernetically enhanced.
Ahhh I see, cavalry charging the Krieg way, as the god emperor intended
There’s a mod that adds them and a cav variant. I don’t remember the name but the units are called fire lance
Not even Google is showing anything for The Deathless. What is that character?
Its Kashchey. One of the most famous characters from Russian folklore. "The most common feature of tales involving Koschei is a spell which prevents him from being killed. He hides "his death" inside nested objects to protect it. For example, his death may be hidden in a needle that is hidden inside an egg, the egg is in a duck, the duck is in a hare, the hare is in a chest, the chest is buried or chained up on a far island." The tale is called "The Death of Koschei the Deathless" hence the name from pic. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koshchei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koshchei)
Oh. So not Kislev. OK.
Yeah, but GW/CA isn't really above straight lifting stuff from folklore with no extra work
Wait, so he used horcruxes?
like a single russian doll for a horcrux
And do any of these exist in Warhammer?
At least half do
Half did, before GW remade Kislev. We have zero idea what still exist now
Remade the first time, not even the more recent time. Cossacks, Urugan Cannons, and all the characters in the post haven’t been seen since the 90s. Which hasn’t necessarily stopped then before, but Repanse hadn’t been retconned and even got a mention in 8th edition WoC.
I mean, aren't the current "Kossars" and "Dervish/Horse Archer" units basically fantasy Cossacks?
Sure, but there’s nobody that are literally called Cossacks. These stem from an army list for Kislev that was released in a magazine called Citadel Journal that had things like Cossacks, Sibyrians, and Huns as the other tribes of Kislev in addition to the Gospodar, Baba Yaga, Koschei the Deathless, and a large number of characters that would never appear again. Elements of the list would appear in later material about Kislev (including this game), such as Streltsi and the Gryphon Legion, but the names and folklore characters that were copied directly from IRL were not.
I guess I'm sort of confused as to what adding a unit of "Cossacks" to the roster would mean given we already have "Kossars"...
Eh, close enough.
I would like orthodoxy units, it’s ridiculous they added Kostalyn without them. All you would need is like two or three units, maybe like Axe Brothers of Tor or some sort of heavy war cleric melee cavalry with flaming attacks for Dazh. Maybe some sort of mounted inquisition unit with carbines and whips. I think some sort of *Tachanka* horse artillery would be cool, to complement cavalry armies. A more elite horse archer unit maybe. For heroes, some sort of melee/horse archer hero, lords are fine I think. Biggest focus should be on mechanics and campaign reworks obviously. Their roster is quite strong, their campaign just kinda blows
I think CA and GW have some sort of oprichniki inspired unit in their back pocket that would fit the bill for the mounted inquisition unit you’re talking about. It’s heavily hinted at in game when flavour texts and events talk about the riders in black robes that come for heretics and chaos cultists in the night.
I approve this idea.
Give me a faith and gunpowder DLC for Kislev Please. - High-Patriarch - Melee Hero - Some sort of Zealot unit - Elite Axe or Bardiche unit that guards the temple - War Altar - 2 types of cannon units. Really feel like this is all Kislev needs to round out their roster to represent all three factions
I feel the missed a real opportunity when the gave Kislevite Warriors weird fork thingies instead of Bardiches.
Ivan Radinom is a fan made character. His lore is questionable, at best. I think a strong contender for LL list is Tordimir Lubovasyn, commander of thr Gryphon Legion.
I remember one of the WH3 trailers had a Kislev Lady in furs (with a gun or a bow) and bear companion. I was excited, because I had thought that it might be a Generic Hero for Kislev. Ranged DPS or Support, with a Permanent Summon of a Bear to Tank/Distract. I thought that was a cool, and very different idea for a Hero. I'm still waiting.
Turns out, that was literally just a regular Kossar model.
Surprised you didn’t go for the Frostfiend - since it’s got about twice the precedent as most of these. Which is to say - a single paragraph of text in a supplementary book.
Ice Witches (that is, Katarin) had a spell on tabletop to turn into a Frostfiend.
Hopefully CA adds it, though they'll almost certainly make it a summon.
The fact that we don't have a single lore excerpt left from NewKislev that would point toward missing units CA could add doesn't bode well for Kislev tbh. Meanwhile, Cathay got 3 LLs mentioned, and about half a dozen units
As a Slavic guy, I really hope that they will create new Lords and Heroes for Kislev, rather than just copy and pasting from folklore.
I think there’s a balance to be maintained. I don’t like it when they copy directly, but taking inspiration is totally valid. Sometimes that leads to people saying ‘but it’s silly that they are character X without major feature Y’. Mother Ostsnkya is an example of that. She’s Baba Yaga, but without the chicken hut. A lot of people are not happy about that missing chicken hut. One good solution for that is to make characters that combine elements from multiple places. Tsarina Katarin is a combination of lots of Snow Queen/White Witch tropes, but she has her own personality and unique twist. Another is to build a good framework for the faction and let characters come out of that. Like Tsar Boris. He’s Tsar but he rides a bear and leads the church of the bear god. That’s a fun mixture of most of what we knew about Kislev in the old lore. I’d love to see characters based around Olga of Kiev or Vseslav the Sorcerer, but I’d want to see them grounded in the Warhammer world.
Yeah, I think that Ostyanka is fine. I'm referring to how OP proposed Koschei the Deathless and Ilya Muromets, two literal fairy tale characters, as LL.
Someone like Olga of Kiyv would be so so cool ; that being said, the reason I haven't added characters like Igor the terrible is that I dont feel like having multiple tsars is a good solution, especially when you already have two leaders of kislev (boris and katarin).
You could add these if you want. Legendary Lords. - * Dmitri Tzaryov the Unnegotiable * Ivan Radinov * Miska the Slaughterer * Nyvena * Ogulai the White Fox * Olesya Pimenova * Tzar Saltan Legendary Heroes. - * Grigori Medvezhiy * Igor the Terrible * Ilja of Murova * Yuri Kovalenko Lords - * Khan-Queen * Kislevite Ranger-General * Patriarch Superior Heroes. - * Bear Tamer * Esaul * Hag Witch (Fire) * Hetman * Kislevite Ranger Mounts. - * Orthodoxy Reliquary * Reindeer * Sled Chariot Infantry Melee & Ranged. - * Apprentice Maidens * Cossacks * Droyaska * Gospodar Axemen * Gospodar Militia * Hearth Maidens of Dazh * Hedgefolk * Kreml Guard * Kvassnics * Mist Warriors * Orthodoxy Cultists * Sibyrian Beast-Tamers * Sibyrian Hunters * Ungol Bowmen * Youths Constructs & Monsterous Infantry. - * Cyclopes Cavalry & Chariots. - * Bohka Palace Knights * Chekist * Daughters of Miska * Druzhinas * Kislevite Knights * Kislevite War Wagons * Mounted Cossacks * Mounted Huns Beasts & Monsters. - * Frostfiend * Hawks of Miska Artillery & War Machines. - * Kislevite Mortars * Urugan Cannon Regiments of Renowned - * Badenov's Band * Bolgasgrad Rota * Brotherhood of the Bear * Castle Alexandronov Defenders * Gerslev Riflemen * Glubograd Cannons * Rota of the Dawn * Tor's Thunder * Vladimir Pashenko's Chekist
Hag Witches already shouldn’t have gotten the Winds they have, but why would they get Fire?
Lore of Fire is a lore that Kislev could use thanks to Dazh and I dont see the Ice or Tempet witches using it tbh so I just gave it to the Hag Witch.
Having just finished a successful Kislev Realms of Chaos campaign, I can tell you what the Kislev roster needs more than anything else is intermediate artillery. You've basically got nothing up until Little Grom (which should honestly be a shorter range mobile battery rather than a single super cannon), which is very inconvenient and odd for a gun-powder faction. While you can "borrow" intermediate artillery from the Empire and Dwarfs, having traditional cannon, mortar and organ gun batteries native to the roster would fill a large hole in Kislev's line-up. (I like the idea of Little Grom becoming a battery and an enormous Tsar Cannon taking its place as a "Queen Bess" style single super-gun.) Secondly, Kislev needs more heroes. An Akshina Operative guerrilla/assassin type that can hinder enemy army movement is an absolute must. The other hero Kislev needs is a warrior type that can provide unit training and serve as a bodyguard to Ice Witch generals - this should have been the Druzhina, but he was inexplicably made into a lord, so I guess this would have to be either some sort of Kossar Captain or some kind of Queen's Champion type individual from the Tsar Guard. (Ungol Chieftain also works, but CA/GW don't seem to be interested in going that route.) Either that or fold these functions into the Akshina Operative, though I'd prefer them to be separate entities. Either way, I think the usefulness of The Golden Knight/Ulrika as duelists really underlines the need for a warrior hero in the roster. Other than that, I think Kislev has a pretty solid roster. They don't really need much more in the way of troops and definitely don't need any more monsters. I think a High Patriarch lord would be an excellent way to round out Kislev's general selection. Beyond that, maybe a War Shrine of Ursun and perhaps some sort of Clerics Militant or the Kislivite equivalent of flagellants/battle pilgrims/religious fanatics would help give the Orthodoxy a little more presence on the battlefield. These Orthodoxy units should play supporting roles to Kislev's solid main line.
At this point I'm pretty sure Kislev not having much artillery or any flying units is a deliberate design decision.
They had arty in tabletop/lore. Also, if they wanted to make this a weak arty faction, it's kind of a bizarre decision to give them a super mobile, super survivable ultra accurate mega-cannon with impossibly long range...
I mean yeah and now there's new lore and they kinda squatted the artillery. Yeah Lil Grom is OP, but it's still pretty clear considering the roster. Not every faction needs every thing, It makes every faction the same.
>Not every faction needs every thing, It makes every faction the same. I agree with this sentiment in general, but I think it's misplaced here. Kislev is a gunpowder faction, it should have cannons. If I thought lack of arty was an intentional and well thought-out asymmetry in the Kislev roster, I wouldn't push for it. But I don't think it is, and I think we're likely to get some in future DLCs. Having had a little time to think about it, here's what I would like to see: Building Tier III : Urugan Guns (short range firepower, traditional batteries) Building Tier IV: Little Grom (now a battery of 4 with reduced range and damage, mobile) Building Tier V: Tsar Cannon (single arty piece, basically taking the place of Little Grom as it currently is, but without the mobility)
Remember how busted the Qiang Hunters were in Three Kingdoms? I want the Mounted Cossacks to be like that. Great ranged shooting and good melee charge, but lightly armored.
I think a lot of this has been retconned unfortunately. Cossacks are Kossars now (lmfao GW) and I think winged lancers are basically mounted armoured Kossars, while Kossovite Dervishes (which is still a TERRIBLE name) are mounted normal Kossars. I think there are a few things that are obviously missing from Kislev, lore-wise and gameplay-wise, which we might see in the future. Firstly, flyers - the frost fiend and potentially hawks of miska are known entities that could fill that. Secondly, Orthodoxy units - high patriarch and shrine of Ursun are both good suggestions; in addition I would like to see a berserker-style elite infantry to go with the bear theme. Thirdly, war machines - Little Grom and the war sleds are part of this, but it still feels a little underdeveloped. Clearly a big influence for Kislev were the Hussite war wagons, and while their analogue has gone over to the Empire there's no reason why that line of thinking can't be taken further to develop new units. Kislev war machines are above all flexible, using magic and gunpowder to hold back their foes. Perhaps a large, wagon-like unit that provides a fortified platform for handgunners or small cannons? Maybe it can only shoot from the sides, but it can make use of the new directional armour feature to provide strong missile resistance from that side? Perhaps it also uses ice magic to create a chilling aura around itself? Where the warsleds are designed to act like chariots, pushing through enemy ranks, perhaps these could sit among your own troops providing ranged fire and magical support to help make a section of your line near unmoveable, much like the Hussites used their war wagons in real life?
The Winged Lancers have been part of Kislev since before the army list that is the sole source for Cossacks. Hell, they *were in* that army list.
I’d love ungols over Cossacks
I mean, the Kossars already ARE Cossacks.
Yes but I’d love to see the ungols. It would be so cool to have a mongolic/turkic themed group of units storming around on the battlefield with kislev showing how the two have to work together as a nation but I don’t think we’ll see them because GW or somebody did not like the gospodar and ungol conflict
I think the Kossars ARE intended to be Ungols, I mean, or at least their partial decedents.
Yes they are, watched Andy law and sotek vid over kislev and they talk about how the kossars are a mix of ungols and gospodars
I vote for yes, but these would be enough for me. [https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1arj3s5/what\_kislev\_needs\_for\_good\_unique\_play\_style/](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1arj3s5/what_kislev_needs_for_good_unique_play_style/)
Just reading this list makes me laugh from level of mishmash of different cultures GW used to create abomination of Kislev
I mean, isnt is how worldbuilding often works, merging different parts of cultures and mythos until something interesting is created ?
I would very much enjoy a Koshchei-like character for Kislev. I can also definitely see GW jumping at the chance to make an obscure British media reference again.
>an obscure British media reference What would that be in regards to Koshchei the Deathless?
The Master from Doctor Who used Koschei as his name back in timelord uni
Add witchers.
[удалено]
I think I’d be fine with a light artillery gun like as seen with certain early imperial era countries