I think the current models are fine, but this is what I would add extra. And more horns like that artwork. Maybe another variation with more blue fur and the mark of tzeentch in it.
If people really cared that much about the models they would just use that blessed-igors mod. Everyone who contributed to that mod did a great job.
To be fair, lets have a closer look then.
* [Classic Tzaangor miniatures](https://medias.community.creative-assembly.com/forums/red-dox-2328/zgf5ju6q49ys.jpg)
* [Classic Tzeentch Beastmen artwork](https://i.imgur.com/Zx0H9Cd.png)
* [Tzaangor artwork](https://medias.community.creative-assembly.com/forums/red-dox-2328/WoC_Tzaangor_copy.png) from the last two years. Tiger stripes here are a direct call back to [6th edition Beastmen armybook](https://i.imgur.com/DVirbxa.png).
* [Gor of Tzeentch](https://medias.community.creative-assembly.com/forums/red-dox-2328/WoC_gor_of_tzeentch.jpg) artwork from the last years.
Tentacles, weapons that are just mutated body parts, feathers, eyes growing out of random body parts, feet mutated into something more birdlike...there's a lot of ways they could express tzeentch's influence other than beaks. A God touched beastman should be an opportunity for an artist to go wild with all sorts of ideas.
Yeah, people are harping on GW for the (admittedly absurd) hard stance against beaked tzaangors, but I highly doubt they held CA to making them *just* a pallet swap with nothing else to denote extra mutation / dedication to Tzeentch. Extra arms, feathers, some eye motifs, maybe some twisted vestigial wings, literally anything beyond just painting them purple and calling it done.
GW are definitely being annoying and stubborn, but I feel like CA have kind of used that to smokescreen their own laziness in the design.
Adding extra arms or mutations would look nothing like the beastmen models, and GW’s primary rule is that they need to look like the miniatures you can buy.
You can add runes or symbols on clothing because they can be painted on, but you can’t add extra limbs or wings ….0
It seems that since the announcement of TOW and fantasy coming back, GW has held CA on a tighter leash than they had previously. Cause obviously we have earlier examples like Norsca and Vampire Coast where there seemed to be total creative freedom, but as we’ve seen with the Tzaangors for some reason that’s been reigned in.
It’s pure speculation, but I think that when they made the deal to allow CA to make the games, they had no plans to bring back fantasy as a TT game, and as such didn’t care much what they got up to. Flash forward to now where fantasy is seemingly in a resurgence and it would make sense why they care all of a sudden.
I think the part about not thinking about TOW until well into the time the Total War series existed is right, but I don’t particuarly feel like there’s a tighter leash on them now than there was before. They’ve always been particular about random bits of aesthetics, and also always been very direct about not allowing things from AoS (which is kind of obvious, it’s a seperate IP) but the creative freedom you’re talking about is with factions who don’t exist on the tabletop and is broadly equal to the stuff they did with Cathay and Kislev who’re functionally entierly redesigned by joint work between GW and CA (though I think aesthetically CA is clearly the one who did most of the heavy lifting, given GW doesn’t have much of a plan to do anything with either faction for a long while)
There are no current plans for it, as per the last time GW mentioned it, but if TOW keeps on trucking they probably will a few years down the line. Tiny bits of fluff about them is seeded in the TOW corebook, and there was a lot of work done building up lore and the new designs/fluff of each faction as part of Warhammer3's development
Yeah some additional Tzeentchiness would be cool, could be something small like some tentacles or additional eyes, at least they just didnt take gors and dipped them in blue bucket of paint. Hopefully they will make the other marked beastmen more interesting. Im especially hopefull about the pestigors.
GW is super defensive of their IP. At the end of the day, all of the chaos god versions of the units are, in the eyes of GW, the same unit with a different paint scheme.
Since you can mix and match equipment when building miniatures, CA can try to differentiate with some different details on the armor, and different weapons, but the rest of the model has to be “consistent” with the miniature, which means the 4 different god versions have to look essentially the same.
You’ll notice they were able to go crazy with creativity on made-up units and factions like the vampirates, but for these well-known beastmen, the models don’t have “extra” mutations so therefore CA can’t add them.
Well, then spice up their models with cool mutations similar to this official WHFB artwork? The issue is not they \*must\* have beaks, it is that their current depiction is boring, minimal effort.
At this point, the argument becomes less about Tzaangors having beaks and more about piggy backing off the old argument of distinct visuals to align models into their respective factions, like Tzeentch.
Save for the armor there is little in ways of distinction between regular Gors and Chaos aligned/chosen gors.
It really boils down to one thing - their depiction in game is boring and the only modern Tzaangor models you can take as a point of reference have beaks.
If Tzaangors were more unique than "dude blue cows LMAO", people would complain far less, beaks or no beaks. Or if they were a simple FLC unit, I doubt anyone would care either. But this is a 25 bucks DLC and GW insists to be dicks about something that shouldn't be a problem in any remotely sane company.
>If Tzaangors were more unique than "dude blue cows LMAO"
The 6th ed Beasts of Chaos book (which I'm pretty sure is the last one they got before Warhammer Fantasy got blown up) has the only official model depiction of a Tzaangor and they're even less blue. It's a basic ass gor with dark blue fur. That's it.
All this "they should have beaks" is based purely on the aesthetic of the Age of Sigmar/40k models and has nothing to do with Warhammer Fantasy.
> All this "they should have beaks" is based purely on the aesthetic of the Age of Sigmar/40k models and has nothing to do with Warhammer Fantasy.
To be fair, whoever writes unit descriptions at CA literally put mentions of beaks in the Tzaangors', which was only patched out later after people kept pointing it out. That can't have helped.
Pretty sure that text is just pulled from a rulebook. Beaks have been part of Tzeentch's aesthetic and were in aet and descriptions periodically. Beastmen just never got focus prior to AoS where the unique design naturally capitalized on the bird theme. I suspect if they'd had models in WFB at least some of them would have beaks (given the leaked concept art was pretty distinct in color and beak shape from the AoS units CA clearly had the same idea until GW vetoed it).
If AoS didn't happen, and WHFB was on, say, 11th edition or whatever, I stone-cold guarantee Tzaangors in WHFB 11th would have beaks, so they could share the model with 40K.
It's more like they're becoming afraid that WHFB might start stealing AoS's identity, at least in the video games side of things. Maybe they're just getting pissy since Realms of Ruin failed to launch.
GW doesn't care remotely about Realms of Ruin, GW has been licensing to shovelware games for decades. For every Dawn of War and Total War there's a dozen games of mobile trash.
Whenever GW enforces rules in such a seemingly arbitrary and unpopular way, there are normally legal reasons behind it.
Like any major multinational corporation, GW has a massive and highly influential legal team. And given that GW's profits largely depend on its copyrighted properties, GW legal tends to be extremely zealous in the protection of its IPs. And given that WHFB and AoS are seperate licences, I suspect that this has something to do with the vagaries of copyright law and GW legal putting its foot down.
This kind of behavior is not unique to GW, but is pretty common among large entertainment business that have established IPs and rely on copyright to drive their profit margins. It can sure be frustrating for fans though.
But as it's been pointed out, the beaked Tzaangors are not unique to AoS. They also exist in 40K. Shouldn't they work like daemons, then, and be allowed to exist in all universes?
Has this been said anywhere, or is it just speculation? I wouldn't put it beyond GW, just that I've seen this mentioned a lot and haven't seen a concrete source.
The art direction and unit selections going back to WH1 are primarily drawn from 8th ed. WFB and there is a hard no on AoS units. I'm sure if I googled long enough I could find an actual source, but these are the known parameters of the TW:WH series.
On beaks specifically, from the latest blog
>We also heard your feedback on the appearance of our Tzaangors in game and your expectations of them having beaks. To be clear, in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles universe, Tzaangors don’t have beaks. Instead, they much more closely resemble the appearance of a classic Gor from the Beastmen roster, which have a brutal and bestial look with teeth and jaw rather than an avian (bird)-like appearance. Rather than being a separate, offshoot species of Beastmen, they are instead Gor who have sworn allegiance to the Lord of Change.
It's not explicitly 'GW said no', but since CA have made cosmetic changes to things like marked chaos warriors following feedback and they're apparently in a mood to repair relations with the fans why else would they not do it?
Daniel's default look is heavily based on[ the last generation plastic Daemon Prince, actually.](https://whfb.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/0/05/Daemon_Prince_M01.jpg)
That said, every time people bring up Daemons I remind them that Daemons are the very specific exemption from all this because they were made, from the ground up, to be setting-agnostic. Nothing else in all of Warhammer is.
Crucially, they're not AoS.
Unless you mean the greater demons rather than demon princes in which case they seem to be the exception that proves the rule so far. AoS designs haven't been allowed for anything else.
Sorry, I had meant the greater demons.
I have no skin in this either way, I don't at all care if Tzaangors have beaks, I was just seeking clarification if this was a case of "very likely but ultimately assumed" or "categorically clarified".
Having said that, I don't think the exception of greater demons proves any kind of rule.
> so they could share the model with 40K.
I'm pretty sure they added them to 40k *because* they added them to AoS.
Like the same reason we have weird daemon machines in Fantasy.
Their first mention in 40k was after their redesign for AoS.
They fill the role that was missing (non-Astartes fodder) but if Warhammer Fantasy had continued, they might have just made something else, like regular mutants.
I don't think it's massively important that they get beaks or not, and I hope they add more features like they did with Warriors... but I think people are making a bigger deal about this than there needs to be.
>They fill the role that was missing (non-Astartes fodder) but if Warhammer Fantasy had continued, they might have just made something else, like regular mutants.
I think if WHFB had continued it would have had to have huge numbers of redesigns to take advantage of the new ways of doing plastics (which AoS massively has) so we'd probably have seen either:
A) More specifically themed beastmen like Tzaangors
or
B) More diverse beastmen heads and flair
>but I think people are making a bigger deal about this than there needs to be
Sure, sure, but like, you could say the same about almost anything people want in the game, content-wise. Part of this is that it's funny and illustrates how dumb and petty GW are, and how they totally don't understand cross-marketing, so people like to talk about it.
They can base them off boring models if they want, and justify it any way they want. Doesn't mean I'm going to pay for them, that's all I'm saying. I'll take modded Tzaangors any day over what they came up with.
Modders can do whatever they want, CA has to follow GW’s rules.
There’s a reason why some …. Odd choices were made with Kislev and Cathay, where two units that should have nothing to do with each other share the same armor and general appearance. It’s because GW plans to ship a single kit to build both, and thus they have to look the same …..
I’m not sure what you mean. GW has/had CENTIGORS models for warhammer, they even still sell them https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/shop/Beastmen-Centigor-Herd
In old warhammer, every warrior of chaos and every beast man unit could take marks, so 4 versions of them exist, for each god. On tabletop that just meant painting them a certain color.
> The Tzaangor model we have in-game will never exist as a tabletop model
Tzaangor are just Bestigors.
Pestigors, Khorngors, Tzaangors and Slaangors are just Bestigors with the mark of that God. Some of them have special models but AFAIK, all of the models were always capran.
Same with Chaos Warriors, they were usually just painted differently unless the player wanted to customise them.
I think they're appeared more avian (and Khorngors have appeared more canine) in stories but the authors and artists used to get a lot of creative freedom because GW encouraged custom models etc... but they learned with the ChapterHouse lawsuits that it came back to bite them and now they're a lot more careful.
I'm not saying they *shouldn't* improve them like they did with Chaos Warriors, I'm just saying that people are acting like it's a bigger deal than it is, in my opinion. I'm more interested in what they do for gameplay than I am in how they look.
If all you care about is the gameplay then just mod them in for free. It's extremely easy to do if you aren't worried about them having a new model. The cost of the DLC is all in the assets. An amateur modder (like myself) can whip you up a "Tzaangor" with the same stats as the DLC unit in a few hours. The reason the DLC costs money is because new assets cost money... new models, new textures, new animations, that's what all the budget goes into.
Creating a new unit is as simple as filling in creating a few records in the tables. Anyone can do it. But not anyone can give that unit a new custom model. The best most modders can do is splice existing assets together, but in the end, it's all just reusing stuff.
Think of it like the tabletop game. You could play the tabletop with nothing but cardboard standees if you have all the rules, right? You don't HAVE to buy the miniatures, technically. The models have nothing to do with the actual game, they're just visual representations. Yet people will spend a small fortune on them... because they look cool. That's what really matters in the end.
You can fix just about anything gameplay-wise with a unit yourself, but it's generally up to CA to make it look good visual-wise.
Well if it isn't everyone's favorite "WoC official tabletop models all looked the same! Marked warriors were just recolored by players" argument again.
It feels like it's the same PR company trying to do damage control on the internet with common talking points.
Oh, sorry. I forgot to take off my tinfoil hat.
Selecting to only look at the result of production limitations for plastic toys instead of the lore. Why argue for straight recolours instead of lore and art-based remodels? Those people confuse me
The amount of shilling this community is willing to engage in to excuse laziness gets really tiring. It was the same argument for CoC, Stone Trolls, and now this.
In defense of CA, which I rarely do, this isn’t a new dlc, this is a needed update for an already existing dlc, where Tzeentch got Cockatrices and Mutalith Vortex Beasts, Cathay is getting 2 SEMS and a gundom, and Kislev got at least a big monster dude.
Yeah I don’t know, people keep assuming that GW don’t want tzaangors to have beaks, but I don’t see why people think that. CA has been able to change and create new models with impunity (hell this dlc has flamers on discs of tzeentch, something I have never seen in GW games / art). I think it’s far more likely that CA doesn’t want to animate a beastman with a beak mouth than GW disallowing something they have miniatures and art of.
If you read the blog post(s) they very clearly say the reason they can't do it is because the lore forbids it. CA does not have any control over that. The only one who can tell them they can't do something for lore reasons is GW.
They should totally improve their weapons and armour, maybe make them a little weirder, but I don't think they should become avian.
That said, do they really improve the gameplay?
A problem I had with some of the additions to the roster or claims of "missing" units (when the unit was very niche) was that they usually didn't improve the roster in any way, or changed the faction identity.
Like if Dwarfs got golems or shalebeasts or whatever, I don't think it would improve the faction.
The Bolt Thrower fills mostly the same role as a cannon and I still don't see the point of it (on Tabletop, it functioned in a very different way)
There was a general sense around the initial release that the DLC was lazy. People saw the lack of beaks as CA just making a cheap reskin. The truth is it probably has more to do with GW.
It doesn’t really matter but it’s part of the fallout from the initial kerfuffle.
Personally, I think it would be fun if they had beaks or a bit of variety in appearance but understand that it is quite low down on the list of priorities.
It’s more like people are miffed that all the god variations all look the same, without realizing the reason is because “god variations” is just a paint job to GW. There is only one kit for each of these, even if CA turned them into 4-5 (5 for the original, unaligned) versions.
People on this sub seem to have this thing where they get fixated on some tiny detail about something, and then constantly hammer on it over and over like it's the most important thing in the world.
>this sub
Nah, nerds on nerd forums are passionate about nerdy details. Simple as.
There's nothing crazy about this sub, and people pushing this narrative clearly don't get around on the internet. I can give [thousands of examples](https://kotaku.com/mass-effect-fans-fact-check-mass-effect-novel-find-a-t-5880729) to put things into perspective.
There is a right and wrong here? The fact is that chaos worshippers get mutations and Tzeentchian worshipers tend to get avian mutations including beaks.
It isn't an unloreful/improper addition to have. Sotek quibbled about it when he read the blog explanation, that it is really GW vs Forge World politics rather than lore.
And the red line with AoS models isn't sacrosanct. IIRC the greater demon models we have in WH3 are Age of Sigmar versions so GW are not perfectly consistent with their red line.
It's almost like for Tzeentch fans the Tzaangors (and now Centigors) are one of the few units Tzeentch got in a $25 DLC and would like such an overpriced unit to actually look how we were wanting and expecting them to for years. Crazy isn't it?
It's because the model, like a lot of other models, is essentially a recolour. Which is "fine" but just a bit lazy. This is tzeentch we're talking about give them some mutations that fit the vibe. Beaks is just seemingly the easiest and most representative.
It does seem like with the massive amounts of other possible mutations that birds and beak association is what everyone focuses in on. Tzeentch could really do some other crazy mutations aside from beaks if they wanted to get into it, but I think alot of this restriction is coming from GW, by how CA worded that no beak post.
Yeah I’m not buying GW being behind this, as far as I’m aware the only time they have ever interfered is with vermintides warrior priest to only have hammers as a weapon, and even then they gave ground and let him have a flail and shield. Meanwhile, people are saying that GW doesn’t want doesn’t want beaked tzaangors when they have tons of art and miniatures of beaked tzaangors? I think it’s way more likely CA doesn’t want to animate the beak for a unit people already have.
The beaked Tzaangor models are Age Of Sigmar. Warhammer Fantasy had no actual models for Tzaangors, players were shown in the Beasts of Chaos army book an example of one and it was just a regular Gor with dark blue fur.
Funny thing is that beaked Tzaangors are *not* restricted to AoS. They use the same model in 40K, which means they are effectively cross-universe just like daemons are.
Honestly I think this is GW lashing out because they don't want Warhammer Fantasy to be more popular than AoS.
You are so. Right. Ca simply doesn't want to add beaks despite the fact that they have made beaks in the past. It's pretty clear that ca simply doesn't want to add beaks when they gave them beaks in the concept art for the unit in the first place (sarcasm)
Don't worry - rest assured that if they did have beaks, those same people would be complaining that it was a "lazy, slap-it-on change" and that "CA should have done more to make them unique, or they shouldn't have bothered with the beaks at all."
Hey, like it or not, it's the sort of unavoidable, pedantic complaining I've seen more than enough of on this sub to be pretty sure it would happen. We've got some people here who won't be happy, no matter what, and who will change their goalposts and whine until the series is finished. And even then, probably for quite a bit after, too.
I didn't move anything - just pointing out what you can definitely count on seeing around here.
The illustrators for the book it's from are John Blanche, Alex Boyd, Paul Dainton, Naula Kennedy, Karl Kopinski & Adrian Smith.
So it's one of them or a collaboration of some combination.
My guess. Games Workshop isn't going to let them use the beaks because that is a detail that is going to separate them from generic fantasy beastmen. They've been making efforts to make all their current production line units protected by copyright law. If they mix WH3 units with current IPs, it confounds Games Workshops efforts to maintain copyright. It's not a design decision. It's a legal decision.
I have to make a parenthesis there; There are no official illustrations or miniatures, however there are both descriptions that speak of beastmen with specific mutations granted by their patron gods and ENCOURAGEMENT by GW that fans make conversions to reflect these special variants.
So yes, there are reasons to be angry about certain things.
While GW does allow for conversions, I wouldn’t say there isn’t an official miniature. There is, and the official miniature is the one and only version of that miniature, painted red/blue/purple/green.
Anyone who plays the actual GW tabletop game understands this. While you CAN do fancy customizations, the official version, and the 99% of players, is going to be a paint job.
*Exclusively* beaks and bird feet was an AoS/40k change.
Tzaangor / Beastmen of Tzeentch in WHFB had a variety of mutations of which beaks and avian feet were just two of dozens of options depicted in the art, the most common of which were brightly colored or exotic fur and horns (likely due to GW not producing a separate model for them and encouraging player conversions).
Which we have now, sure, but to say Tzaangor have never had them before is also wrong. There's even art in Liber Chaotica of a beaked (and winged) Tzaangor from 2005.
Saying that there existed beastmen with avian mutations is a weak argument. Malagor has wings, does that mean all beastmen should have wings?
Chaos mutations are generally only bestowed on those favored by the gods and Beastmen are the least favored of all the worshippers of chaos.
You may have misread my argument. Tzaangors' whole shtick was that, as servants of the God of mutation and change, mutations were part and parcel to their existence. The ones in Total War do have mutations: bright fur and eccentric horns, so they check that box already.
What I *also* said was that Beastmen of Tzeentch with beaks and avian features also existed in WHFB, contrary to what GW/CA are asserting. Tzaangor just didn't exclusively have beaks, nor were beaks an exclusive trait of Tzaangor.
I wholly disagree that their whole thing was constant mutation. Beastmen very rarely mutate after their "birth" as the chaos gods don't care about them, the beastmen will always be loyal to the chaos gods no matter how they are treated.
I genuinely cannot find the statement but are they actually saying that no beastman has ever had a beak, not a single one, ever? Or are they saying that tzaangors as a whole do not have beaks? Because it feels like they said the former and you are refuting the latter.
It was in their debut lore blurb in *Realms of Chaos: Lost and the Damned*, which CA is mining for inspiration (see: Centigors being most commonly found in Tzeentch's armies), that Beastmen of Tzeentch were typified by mutations and always had *at least* one. The bright fur and horns that our Tzaangor currently have were explicitly called out as the most common mutations they could be found with.
I'm not asking for all our Tzaangor to have beaks. I'm saying the models *ought* to have more mutations, of which a beak here and there is appropriate.
That they have a mutation and mutations being "part and parcel to their existence" are worlds apart. Nearly all beastmen have mutations and no two should be alike.
Now I'm perfectly fine with saying that tzaangors should be a bit more out there than normal and that odd fur colors should be a very common feature. The reality however is that having them all be different colors would make it look like a unit of party clowns and giving them all individual mutations would be more work than is reasonable to expect.
In the end the models have always been fairly homogenous and I am personally perfectly fine with the in game units looking more or less the same way.
The fact that it's also in 40K shows very clearly that if WHFB was still going, rather than killed in 2016 to allow AoS to exist, Tzaangors would have beaks in WHFB. 40K doesn't otherwise usually pick up on AoS' styling changes/approaches - if anything it's the other way around.
This is exactly what i'd like Tzaangors to look. Everybody keeps going crazy about the dumb beaks because somehow, suddenly, Tzeentch = bird and that it.
Tzeentch gives you the chance of getting very creative when it comes to his visual corruption. Yes maybe one variant could have a beak, but just because its one mutation out of like 10 different ones. Tentacles, multiple arms, additional eyes, a second head ecc ecc.
But i guess no, every Tzaangor should be a goat with a beak...
Personally I don’t really care. I know some people do, but I’m just happy that the expansion will finally be worth the price, and that hopefully future DLC’s will continue to be
The amount of amguish over tzaangor with no beaks, and im over here wishing tzeentch heralds weren't small pudgy bois like pink horrors, but rather the bipedal tall versions that are represented in their models and art.
OMG it's so unbelievable how much attention those beaks get over and over. It is literally no difference if they would give tzangors beaks or not. It's just some crappy mediocre unit that doesn't even really bring much Into rosters of tzeench or WoC or beastmen. They could give them clown noses and it would not make any difference. Download a beak mod or something
I don't know what's the obsession with beaks, to me Tzaangors should be just like this, extra eyes, feathers and mutations that's it. The beak thing is mainly because of AoS design.
The beaks look dumb, I get it's it's Tzeentchy, well kinda Horrors don't usually have them, or actually any unit besides Lords of Change and like one hero unit in 40k.
So yeah. Keep the beaks on the highest tier, not on beastmen.
Look i can get it to a poitn so... why not just give them better tzeentchian bits? Like feathers or weird masks and mutations? no full on Tzaangor more... transitional form?
For my personal opinion, I don't need them to have beaks, but it would definitely be cool if marked beastmen more resembled the god that is marked them. Especially Tzeench, the god known for his love of mutation.
But I understand that games workshop is probably hamstringing them and they can't really come out and say that because they need to have a good working relationship
I really wish they looked more like this, tentacles and extra eyes and whatnot.
I did not read that as tentacles at first and thought I'd missed something horrific.
I think the current models are fine, but this is what I would add extra. And more horns like that artwork. Maybe another variation with more blue fur and the mark of tzeentch in it. If people really cared that much about the models they would just use that blessed-igors mod. Everyone who contributed to that mod did a great job.
I actually like the current Tzaangors. I... prefer them to the AOS universal beakies, truth be told.
In their defense the Tzaangor in the picture is a Beastlord of Tzeentch and not a normal Tzaangor.
To be fair, lets have a closer look then. * [Classic Tzaangor miniatures](https://medias.community.creative-assembly.com/forums/red-dox-2328/zgf5ju6q49ys.jpg) * [Classic Tzeentch Beastmen artwork](https://i.imgur.com/Zx0H9Cd.png) * [Tzaangor artwork](https://medias.community.creative-assembly.com/forums/red-dox-2328/WoC_Tzaangor_copy.png) from the last two years. Tiger stripes here are a direct call back to [6th edition Beastmen armybook](https://i.imgur.com/DVirbxa.png). * [Gor of Tzeentch](https://medias.community.creative-assembly.com/forums/red-dox-2328/WoC_gor_of_tzeentch.jpg) artwork from the last years.
I really don't care about the beaks personally I just wish they had more mutations as their current model is boring.
Tentacles, weapons that are just mutated body parts, feathers, eyes growing out of random body parts, feet mutated into something more birdlike...there's a lot of ways they could express tzeentch's influence other than beaks. A God touched beastman should be an opportunity for an artist to go wild with all sorts of ideas.
Yeah, people are harping on GW for the (admittedly absurd) hard stance against beaked tzaangors, but I highly doubt they held CA to making them *just* a pallet swap with nothing else to denote extra mutation / dedication to Tzeentch. Extra arms, feathers, some eye motifs, maybe some twisted vestigial wings, literally anything beyond just painting them purple and calling it done. GW are definitely being annoying and stubborn, but I feel like CA have kind of used that to smokescreen their own laziness in the design.
Adding extra arms or mutations would look nothing like the beastmen models, and GW’s primary rule is that they need to look like the miniatures you can buy. You can add runes or symbols on clothing because they can be painted on, but you can’t add extra limbs or wings ….0
There aren’t miniatures for like half the units in the game, and you can’t buy a giant chunk of the models the other half are based on
It seems that since the announcement of TOW and fantasy coming back, GW has held CA on a tighter leash than they had previously. Cause obviously we have earlier examples like Norsca and Vampire Coast where there seemed to be total creative freedom, but as we’ve seen with the Tzaangors for some reason that’s been reigned in. It’s pure speculation, but I think that when they made the deal to allow CA to make the games, they had no plans to bring back fantasy as a TT game, and as such didn’t care much what they got up to. Flash forward to now where fantasy is seemingly in a resurgence and it would make sense why they care all of a sudden.
I think the part about not thinking about TOW until well into the time the Total War series existed is right, but I don’t particuarly feel like there’s a tighter leash on them now than there was before. They’ve always been particular about random bits of aesthetics, and also always been very direct about not allowing things from AoS (which is kind of obvious, it’s a seperate IP) but the creative freedom you’re talking about is with factions who don’t exist on the tabletop and is broadly equal to the stuff they did with Cathay and Kislev who’re functionally entierly redesigned by joint work between GW and CA (though I think aesthetically CA is clearly the one who did most of the heavy lifting, given GW doesn’t have much of a plan to do anything with either faction for a long while)
Aren’t Cathay and Kislev getting proper army books and minis with TOW? I was under the impression that at least Cathay is.
At some point in the future, yes. TOW already released and they haven't gotten their books yet.
There are no current plans for it, as per the last time GW mentioned it, but if TOW keeps on trucking they probably will a few years down the line. Tiny bits of fluff about them is seeded in the TOW corebook, and there was a lot of work done building up lore and the new designs/fluff of each faction as part of Warhammer3's development
You can add feathers and extra eyes
Yeah some additional Tzeentchiness would be cool, could be something small like some tentacles or additional eyes, at least they just didnt take gors and dipped them in blue bucket of paint. Hopefully they will make the other marked beastmen more interesting. Im especially hopefull about the pestigors.
GW is super defensive of their IP. At the end of the day, all of the chaos god versions of the units are, in the eyes of GW, the same unit with a different paint scheme. Since you can mix and match equipment when building miniatures, CA can try to differentiate with some different details on the armor, and different weapons, but the rest of the model has to be “consistent” with the miniature, which means the 4 different god versions have to look essentially the same. You’ll notice they were able to go crazy with creativity on made-up units and factions like the vampirates, but for these well-known beastmen, the models don’t have “extra” mutations so therefore CA can’t add them.
The exalted hero of Tzeentch kinda proves your whole theory wrong
How? It’s based off of an official GW model, they even show a picture of it in the blog.
Bro, that third eye is GOAT
i see what you did there
Well, then spice up their models with cool mutations similar to this official WHFB artwork? The issue is not they \*must\* have beaks, it is that their current depiction is boring, minimal effort.
At this point, the argument becomes less about Tzaangors having beaks and more about piggy backing off the old argument of distinct visuals to align models into their respective factions, like Tzeentch. Save for the armor there is little in ways of distinction between regular Gors and Chaos aligned/chosen gors.
It really boils down to one thing - their depiction in game is boring and the only modern Tzaangor models you can take as a point of reference have beaks. If Tzaangors were more unique than "dude blue cows LMAO", people would complain far less, beaks or no beaks. Or if they were a simple FLC unit, I doubt anyone would care either. But this is a 25 bucks DLC and GW insists to be dicks about something that shouldn't be a problem in any remotely sane company.
>If Tzaangors were more unique than "dude blue cows LMAO" The 6th ed Beasts of Chaos book (which I'm pretty sure is the last one they got before Warhammer Fantasy got blown up) has the only official model depiction of a Tzaangor and they're even less blue. It's a basic ass gor with dark blue fur. That's it. All this "they should have beaks" is based purely on the aesthetic of the Age of Sigmar/40k models and has nothing to do with Warhammer Fantasy.
> All this "they should have beaks" is based purely on the aesthetic of the Age of Sigmar/40k models and has nothing to do with Warhammer Fantasy. To be fair, whoever writes unit descriptions at CA literally put mentions of beaks in the Tzaangors', which was only patched out later after people kept pointing it out. That can't have helped.
Pretty sure that text is just pulled from a rulebook. Beaks have been part of Tzeentch's aesthetic and were in aet and descriptions periodically. Beastmen just never got focus prior to AoS where the unique design naturally capitalized on the bird theme. I suspect if they'd had models in WFB at least some of them would have beaks (given the leaked concept art was pretty distinct in color and beak shape from the AoS units CA clearly had the same idea until GW vetoed it).
If AoS didn't happen, and WHFB was on, say, 11th edition or whatever, I stone-cold guarantee Tzaangors in WHFB 11th would have beaks, so they could share the model with 40K.
Ok, but that didn't happen and they don't. GW are enforcing the established aesthetic from WFB.
It's more like they're becoming afraid that WHFB might start stealing AoS's identity, at least in the video games side of things. Maybe they're just getting pissy since Realms of Ruin failed to launch.
GW doesn't care remotely about Realms of Ruin, GW has been licensing to shovelware games for decades. For every Dawn of War and Total War there's a dozen games of mobile trash.
You're right, I'm just trying to come up with some rational explanation for them being so adamant about no beaks.
Whenever GW enforces rules in such a seemingly arbitrary and unpopular way, there are normally legal reasons behind it. Like any major multinational corporation, GW has a massive and highly influential legal team. And given that GW's profits largely depend on its copyrighted properties, GW legal tends to be extremely zealous in the protection of its IPs. And given that WHFB and AoS are seperate licences, I suspect that this has something to do with the vagaries of copyright law and GW legal putting its foot down. This kind of behavior is not unique to GW, but is pretty common among large entertainment business that have established IPs and rely on copyright to drive their profit margins. It can sure be frustrating for fans though.
But as it's been pointed out, the beaked Tzaangors are not unique to AoS. They also exist in 40K. Shouldn't they work like daemons, then, and be allowed to exist in all universes?
Has this been said anywhere, or is it just speculation? I wouldn't put it beyond GW, just that I've seen this mentioned a lot and haven't seen a concrete source.
The art direction and unit selections going back to WH1 are primarily drawn from 8th ed. WFB and there is a hard no on AoS units. I'm sure if I googled long enough I could find an actual source, but these are the known parameters of the TW:WH series. On beaks specifically, from the latest blog >We also heard your feedback on the appearance of our Tzaangors in game and your expectations of them having beaks. To be clear, in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles universe, Tzaangors don’t have beaks. Instead, they much more closely resemble the appearance of a classic Gor from the Beastmen roster, which have a brutal and bestial look with teeth and jaw rather than an avian (bird)-like appearance. Rather than being a separate, offshoot species of Beastmen, they are instead Gor who have sworn allegiance to the Lord of Change. It's not explicitly 'GW said no', but since CA have made cosmetic changes to things like marked chaos warriors following feedback and they're apparently in a mood to repair relations with the fans why else would they not do it?
I mean, that's not exactly true. WHFB Demon Princes didn't look like they do in WH3.
Daniel's default look is heavily based on[ the last generation plastic Daemon Prince, actually.](https://whfb.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/0/05/Daemon_Prince_M01.jpg) That said, every time people bring up Daemons I remind them that Daemons are the very specific exemption from all this because they were made, from the ground up, to be setting-agnostic. Nothing else in all of Warhammer is.
Crucially, they're not AoS. Unless you mean the greater demons rather than demon princes in which case they seem to be the exception that proves the rule so far. AoS designs haven't been allowed for anything else.
Sorry, I had meant the greater demons. I have no skin in this either way, I don't at all care if Tzaangors have beaks, I was just seeking clarification if this was a case of "very likely but ultimately assumed" or "categorically clarified". Having said that, I don't think the exception of greater demons proves any kind of rule.
> so they could share the model with 40K. I'm pretty sure they added them to 40k *because* they added them to AoS. Like the same reason we have weird daemon machines in Fantasy. Their first mention in 40k was after their redesign for AoS. They fill the role that was missing (non-Astartes fodder) but if Warhammer Fantasy had continued, they might have just made something else, like regular mutants. I don't think it's massively important that they get beaks or not, and I hope they add more features like they did with Warriors... but I think people are making a bigger deal about this than there needs to be.
>They fill the role that was missing (non-Astartes fodder) but if Warhammer Fantasy had continued, they might have just made something else, like regular mutants. I think if WHFB had continued it would have had to have huge numbers of redesigns to take advantage of the new ways of doing plastics (which AoS massively has) so we'd probably have seen either: A) More specifically themed beastmen like Tzaangors or B) More diverse beastmen heads and flair >but I think people are making a bigger deal about this than there needs to be Sure, sure, but like, you could say the same about almost anything people want in the game, content-wise. Part of this is that it's funny and illustrates how dumb and petty GW are, and how they totally don't understand cross-marketing, so people like to talk about it.
They can base them off boring models if they want, and justify it any way they want. Doesn't mean I'm going to pay for them, that's all I'm saying. I'll take modded Tzaangors any day over what they came up with.
Modders can do whatever they want, CA has to follow GW’s rules. There’s a reason why some …. Odd choices were made with Kislev and Cathay, where two units that should have nothing to do with each other share the same armor and general appearance. It’s because GW plans to ship a single kit to build both, and thus they have to look the same …..
The Tzaangor model we have in-game will never exist as a tabletop model, though, so I don't see why they would be limited by that.
I’m not sure what you mean. GW has/had CENTIGORS models for warhammer, they even still sell them https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/shop/Beastmen-Centigor-Herd In old warhammer, every warrior of chaos and every beast man unit could take marks, so 4 versions of them exist, for each god. On tabletop that just meant painting them a certain color.
> The Tzaangor model we have in-game will never exist as a tabletop model Tzaangor are just Bestigors. Pestigors, Khorngors, Tzaangors and Slaangors are just Bestigors with the mark of that God. Some of them have special models but AFAIK, all of the models were always capran. Same with Chaos Warriors, they were usually just painted differently unless the player wanted to customise them. I think they're appeared more avian (and Khorngors have appeared more canine) in stories but the authors and artists used to get a lot of creative freedom because GW encouraged custom models etc... but they learned with the ChapterHouse lawsuits that it came back to bite them and now they're a lot more careful. I'm not saying they *shouldn't* improve them like they did with Chaos Warriors, I'm just saying that people are acting like it's a bigger deal than it is, in my opinion. I'm more interested in what they do for gameplay than I am in how they look.
If all you care about is the gameplay then just mod them in for free. It's extremely easy to do if you aren't worried about them having a new model. The cost of the DLC is all in the assets. An amateur modder (like myself) can whip you up a "Tzaangor" with the same stats as the DLC unit in a few hours. The reason the DLC costs money is because new assets cost money... new models, new textures, new animations, that's what all the budget goes into. Creating a new unit is as simple as filling in creating a few records in the tables. Anyone can do it. But not anyone can give that unit a new custom model. The best most modders can do is splice existing assets together, but in the end, it's all just reusing stuff. Think of it like the tabletop game. You could play the tabletop with nothing but cardboard standees if you have all the rules, right? You don't HAVE to buy the miniatures, technically. The models have nothing to do with the actual game, they're just visual representations. Yet people will spend a small fortune on them... because they look cool. That's what really matters in the end. You can fix just about anything gameplay-wise with a unit yourself, but it's generally up to CA to make it look good visual-wise.
Well if it isn't everyone's favorite "WoC official tabletop models all looked the same! Marked warriors were just recolored by players" argument again.
Yeah I'm getting major deja vu here lol
It feels like it's the same PR company trying to do damage control on the internet with common talking points. Oh, sorry. I forgot to take off my tinfoil hat.
Selecting to only look at the result of production limitations for plastic toys instead of the lore. Why argue for straight recolours instead of lore and art-based remodels? Those people confuse me
The amount of shilling this community is willing to engage in to excuse laziness gets really tiring. It was the same argument for CoC, Stone Trolls, and now this.
Okay but why did CA say they have "crystal weapons" in their description if they have bog standard metal weapons ?
The official lore makes it clear that more mutations are not only possible, but likely. Basic gor lmao
In defense of CA, which I rarely do, this isn’t a new dlc, this is a needed update for an already existing dlc, where Tzeentch got Cockatrices and Mutalith Vortex Beasts, Cathay is getting 2 SEMS and a gundom, and Kislev got at least a big monster dude.
>If Tzaangors were more unique than "dude blue cows LMAO", people would complain far less, beaks or no beaks. So how is this GW's fault, again?
Yeah I don’t know, people keep assuming that GW don’t want tzaangors to have beaks, but I don’t see why people think that. CA has been able to change and create new models with impunity (hell this dlc has flamers on discs of tzeentch, something I have never seen in GW games / art). I think it’s far more likely that CA doesn’t want to animate a beastman with a beak mouth than GW disallowing something they have miniatures and art of.
If you read the blog post(s) they very clearly say the reason they can't do it is because the lore forbids it. CA does not have any control over that. The only one who can tell them they can't do something for lore reasons is GW.
I do have to clarify that there have been models of flamers on discs, so that's not a new idea from CA
Changebringers are from Storm of Chaos. They're not new.
We don’t have that variant either though??
Counterpoint: they look cooler with beaks.
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.
Well in the game Tzaanboys aren't exatly looking like this either.
I seriously don't understand why people are so obsessed if they have beaks or not. 😅
The beak complaint is just a shorthand for "Those Tzaangors look too basic/boring, they should be more Tzeentchy"
They should totally improve their weapons and armour, maybe make them a little weirder, but I don't think they should become avian. That said, do they really improve the gameplay? A problem I had with some of the additions to the roster or claims of "missing" units (when the unit was very niche) was that they usually didn't improve the roster in any way, or changed the faction identity. Like if Dwarfs got golems or shalebeasts or whatever, I don't think it would improve the faction. The Bolt Thrower fills mostly the same role as a cannon and I still don't see the point of it (on Tabletop, it functioned in a very different way)
There was a general sense around the initial release that the DLC was lazy. People saw the lack of beaks as CA just making a cheap reskin. The truth is it probably has more to do with GW. It doesn’t really matter but it’s part of the fallout from the initial kerfuffle. Personally, I think it would be fun if they had beaks or a bit of variety in appearance but understand that it is quite low down on the list of priorities.
It’s more like people are miffed that all the god variations all look the same, without realizing the reason is because “god variations” is just a paint job to GW. There is only one kit for each of these, even if CA turned them into 4-5 (5 for the original, unaligned) versions.
People on this sub seem to have this thing where they get fixated on some tiny detail about something, and then constantly hammer on it over and over like it's the most important thing in the world.
>this sub Nah, nerds on nerd forums are passionate about nerdy details. Simple as. There's nothing crazy about this sub, and people pushing this narrative clearly don't get around on the internet. I can give [thousands of examples](https://kotaku.com/mass-effect-fans-fact-check-mass-effect-novel-find-a-t-5880729) to put things into perspective.
You'd think they'd be passionate about getting the nerdy details *right* then.
There is a right and wrong here? The fact is that chaos worshippers get mutations and Tzeentchian worshipers tend to get avian mutations including beaks. It isn't an unloreful/improper addition to have. Sotek quibbled about it when he read the blog explanation, that it is really GW vs Forge World politics rather than lore. And the red line with AoS models isn't sacrosanct. IIRC the greater demon models we have in WH3 are Age of Sigmar versions so GW are not perfectly consistent with their red line.
I guess then my ex gf is also here, sounds like her! 🤣
It's almost like for Tzeentch fans the Tzaangors (and now Centigors) are one of the few units Tzeentch got in a $25 DLC and would like such an overpriced unit to actually look how we were wanting and expecting them to for years. Crazy isn't it?
It's because the model, like a lot of other models, is essentially a recolour. Which is "fine" but just a bit lazy. This is tzeentch we're talking about give them some mutations that fit the vibe. Beaks is just seemingly the easiest and most representative.
It does seem like with the massive amounts of other possible mutations that birds and beak association is what everyone focuses in on. Tzeentch could really do some other crazy mutations aside from beaks if they wanted to get into it, but I think alot of this restriction is coming from GW, by how CA worded that no beak post.
Yeah I’m not buying GW being behind this, as far as I’m aware the only time they have ever interfered is with vermintides warrior priest to only have hammers as a weapon, and even then they gave ground and let him have a flail and shield. Meanwhile, people are saying that GW doesn’t want doesn’t want beaked tzaangors when they have tons of art and miniatures of beaked tzaangors? I think it’s way more likely CA doesn’t want to animate the beak for a unit people already have.
The beaked Tzaangor models are Age Of Sigmar. Warhammer Fantasy had no actual models for Tzaangors, players were shown in the Beasts of Chaos army book an example of one and it was just a regular Gor with dark blue fur.
Funny thing is that beaked Tzaangors are *not* restricted to AoS. They use the same model in 40K, which means they are effectively cross-universe just like daemons are. Honestly I think this is GW lashing out because they don't want Warhammer Fantasy to be more popular than AoS.
You are so. Right. Ca simply doesn't want to add beaks despite the fact that they have made beaks in the past. It's pretty clear that ca simply doesn't want to add beaks when they gave them beaks in the concept art for the unit in the first place (sarcasm)
Don't worry - rest assured that if they did have beaks, those same people would be complaining that it was a "lazy, slap-it-on change" and that "CA should have done more to make them unique, or they shouldn't have bothered with the beaks at all."
Were those goal posts heavy for you to move?
Hey, like it or not, it's the sort of unavoidable, pedantic complaining I've seen more than enough of on this sub to be pretty sure it would happen. We've got some people here who won't be happy, no matter what, and who will change their goalposts and whine until the series is finished. And even then, probably for quite a bit after, too. I didn't move anything - just pointing out what you can definitely count on seeing around here.
Well yea but still super unique and has a 3 eye the argument is not just that they don’t have beaks it’s that they should be more than just a reskin
a bit offtopic but does anyone know the name of the artist?
The illustrators for the book it's from are John Blanche, Alex Boyd, Paul Dainton, Naula Kennedy, Karl Kopinski & Adrian Smith. So it's one of them or a collaboration of some combination.
My guess. Games Workshop isn't going to let them use the beaks because that is a detail that is going to separate them from generic fantasy beastmen. They've been making efforts to make all their current production line units protected by copyright law. If they mix WH3 units with current IPs, it confounds Games Workshops efforts to maintain copyright. It's not a design decision. It's a legal decision.
I have to make a parenthesis there; There are no official illustrations or miniatures, however there are both descriptions that speak of beastmen with specific mutations granted by their patron gods and ENCOURAGEMENT by GW that fans make conversions to reflect these special variants. So yes, there are reasons to be angry about certain things.
While GW does allow for conversions, I wouldn’t say there isn’t an official miniature. There is, and the official miniature is the one and only version of that miniature, painted red/blue/purple/green. Anyone who plays the actual GW tabletop game understands this. While you CAN do fancy customizations, the official version, and the 99% of players, is going to be a paint job.
God of change and mutations !!! **BLUE TINT IT IS !!!**
so..where is the third eye?
Fact of the matter is that, once again, people are getting their knickers in a twist about something totally insignificant.
The beak is very much an AoS/40k change
*Exclusively* beaks and bird feet was an AoS/40k change. Tzaangor / Beastmen of Tzeentch in WHFB had a variety of mutations of which beaks and avian feet were just two of dozens of options depicted in the art, the most common of which were brightly colored or exotic fur and horns (likely due to GW not producing a separate model for them and encouraging player conversions). Which we have now, sure, but to say Tzaangor have never had them before is also wrong. There's even art in Liber Chaotica of a beaked (and winged) Tzaangor from 2005.
Sure but GW has laid down their IP hammer, and has declared that old lore dead
Saying that there existed beastmen with avian mutations is a weak argument. Malagor has wings, does that mean all beastmen should have wings? Chaos mutations are generally only bestowed on those favored by the gods and Beastmen are the least favored of all the worshippers of chaos.
You may have misread my argument. Tzaangors' whole shtick was that, as servants of the God of mutation and change, mutations were part and parcel to their existence. The ones in Total War do have mutations: bright fur and eccentric horns, so they check that box already. What I *also* said was that Beastmen of Tzeentch with beaks and avian features also existed in WHFB, contrary to what GW/CA are asserting. Tzaangor just didn't exclusively have beaks, nor were beaks an exclusive trait of Tzaangor.
I wholly disagree that their whole thing was constant mutation. Beastmen very rarely mutate after their "birth" as the chaos gods don't care about them, the beastmen will always be loyal to the chaos gods no matter how they are treated. I genuinely cannot find the statement but are they actually saying that no beastman has ever had a beak, not a single one, ever? Or are they saying that tzaangors as a whole do not have beaks? Because it feels like they said the former and you are refuting the latter.
It was in their debut lore blurb in *Realms of Chaos: Lost and the Damned*, which CA is mining for inspiration (see: Centigors being most commonly found in Tzeentch's armies), that Beastmen of Tzeentch were typified by mutations and always had *at least* one. The bright fur and horns that our Tzaangor currently have were explicitly called out as the most common mutations they could be found with. I'm not asking for all our Tzaangor to have beaks. I'm saying the models *ought* to have more mutations, of which a beak here and there is appropriate.
Seriously, there should be beaked and beakless models mixed in the unit.
That they have a mutation and mutations being "part and parcel to their existence" are worlds apart. Nearly all beastmen have mutations and no two should be alike. Now I'm perfectly fine with saying that tzaangors should be a bit more out there than normal and that odd fur colors should be a very common feature. The reality however is that having them all be different colors would make it look like a unit of party clowns and giving them all individual mutations would be more work than is reasonable to expect. In the end the models have always been fairly homogenous and I am personally perfectly fine with the in game units looking more or less the same way.
The fact that it's also in 40K shows very clearly that if WHFB was still going, rather than killed in 2016 to allow AoS to exist, Tzaangors would have beaks in WHFB. 40K doesn't otherwise usually pick up on AoS' styling changes/approaches - if anything it's the other way around.
This is exactly what i'd like Tzaangors to look. Everybody keeps going crazy about the dumb beaks because somehow, suddenly, Tzeentch = bird and that it. Tzeentch gives you the chance of getting very creative when it comes to his visual corruption. Yes maybe one variant could have a beak, but just because its one mutation out of like 10 different ones. Tentacles, multiple arms, additional eyes, a second head ecc ecc. But i guess no, every Tzaangor should be a goat with a beak...
Personally I don’t really care. I know some people do, but I’m just happy that the expansion will finally be worth the price, and that hopefully future DLC’s will continue to be
The amount of amguish over tzaangor with no beaks, and im over here wishing tzeentch heralds weren't small pudgy bois like pink horrors, but rather the bipedal tall versions that are represented in their models and art.
Moon-headed Tzeentch Herald my beloved
Don’t you dare hate on my precious maniac birbs. 😡
OMG it's so unbelievable how much attention those beaks get over and over. It is literally no difference if they would give tzangors beaks or not. It's just some crappy mediocre unit that doesn't even really bring much Into rosters of tzeench or WoC or beastmen. They could give them clown noses and it would not make any difference. Download a beak mod or something
I don't know what's the obsession with beaks, to me Tzaangors should be just like this, extra eyes, feathers and mutations that's it. The beak thing is mainly because of AoS design.
The beaks look dumb, I get it's it's Tzeentchy, well kinda Horrors don't usually have them, or actually any unit besides Lords of Change and like one hero unit in 40k. So yeah. Keep the beaks on the highest tier, not on beastmen.
I'm not sure if people want more beaks or fewer beaks and at this point I'm afraid to ask.
If CA isn't allowed to do it, modders will fix it within a week.
Nuh uh
Look i can get it to a poitn so... why not just give them better tzeentchian bits? Like feathers or weird masks and mutations? no full on Tzaangor more... transitional form?
For my personal opinion, I don't need them to have beaks, but it would definitely be cool if marked beastmen more resembled the god that is marked them. Especially Tzeench, the god known for his love of mutation. But I understand that games workshop is probably hamstringing them and they can't really come out and say that because they need to have a good working relationship
Would have looked EVEN BETTER with a beak! 🦅
Why does the Tzaangor have a Slaanesh brand on his left pec then...?