PDA

View Full Version : What are you fighting for in AOS



Asmodios
04-11-2015, 23:24
I just want to start by saying this thread is not intended to be insulting in any way and I'm looking for feedback from both pro AOS and anti AOS gamers.

My question is what are 1. you fighting for in AOS? 2. If you don't like the setting are you using your own lore/ old world lore. 3. If your playing old world lore in AOS why are you playing AOS and not previous editions (I feel previous editions better mimic how warfare would take place in an old world setting)

I will start off by saying I never considered myself a narrative gamer or super into lore until AOS came out. I never realized how much I liked my goblins due to the setting of the old world and always pictured my goblin army as a small group of goblins that rebelled against their ork oppressors. I never thought that one of the main issues I have with AOS is with the background, but sadly even if it was the 9th edition I wanted game wise I would never be able to play with the lore. The main issue is everything in AOS is infinite or undying. Sigmaries only issue is that they lose a bit of personality the more they die but I really don't see the issue in this. In a war that seems to be set up to last forever eventually no sigmariens will have a personality...... But why does that matter? The chaos seem to have a never ending supply of guys so why does it matter if your bloodborne get slaughtered? Lizardmen are summoning memories onto a battlefield from space, so where is the risk? How do you get pumped behind a major victory on the table if it translates to nothing in game.

In 8th if your orks were getting beat, despite your vast numbers, your army might just return to their smaller tribes or abandon you for a new bigger boss. A lizardmen player losing a small skirmish to skaven might cause a major temple city to fall. An empire loss on the table might mean the local village is over run. I just don't see why games matter in AOS.

I understand GW needed to move the narrative forward. Personally I would have like to see each edition be a parallel universe of the old world. That way they could advance a story for years (like end times) have a conclusion then reset to another time line. This is where I thought AOS would go based on the archeon ever chosen book where the demon is re writing his fate in the beginning of the book.

so if you play AOS how do you picture the importance of your band of soldiers? If you don't like AOS what direction would you have wanted the narrative to go? I'm curious to hear from all corners of warseer.

Pojko
04-11-2015, 23:51
It's an interesting question.

-Sigmarines ho get reincarnated every time they die. And since none of them stand out as unique as it is, why should we care if one masked, armored warrior replaces another?

-Infinite amounts of Chaos demons, and mortals who don't seem to have a finite number despite them having no functioning society to speak of which allows them to continue to reproduce and sustain their losses

-"Seraphon" who aren't real, but incarnations of memories? Something like that? In any case some Slaan can just think of more "Seraphon" after the current bunch die off.

-Undead who can be resurrected at the whim of a vampire or necromancer. If those things even exist anymore. Normally this wouldn't be an issue since they would be almost unique in the whole "death holds no meaning for us because there are always more corpses to add to our number". But when every faction is limitless it really makes Undead less special.

Skaven and Orcs which have such large populations and can reproduce so fast that losing battles doesn't matter to them. And that's how it's always been, not just in AoS. Their constant infighting kept them from utilizing their whole strength. But again, like with Undead, when every faction is limitless it takes away from the ones who truly need it.

So in the end I agree with the OP. What are the stakes? What is gained and lost in these battles? I guess Games Workshop has finally achieved a perfect balance of never-ending war where nothing ever has to change. Just keep churning out the new toys and tell us how many millions of enemies they've killed in the next armybo... warscroll.

Kherith
05-11-2015, 00:10
Currently my elves are fighting without any context the gaping void of non-background for Elves is my biggest issue with AoS. I'm participating in campaigns purely for the social aspect and because I genuinely prefer it to previous fantasy games.

Essentially I really liked the character of Malekith portrayed in the books written by Gav Thorpe and my army is based on a couple of characters, Morgir and Kherith who were mentioned in a story snippet from the 6th BRB. My current fluff is that they are loyal to Malekith/Malerion to a fault and somehow crossed over from the world that was to AoS due to...reasons (heh it's good enough for Gw)

Beyond that I'm in limbo a bit until elves are reintroduced, but I'm enjoying my gaming and painting at the moment so can let it go...for now...

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 00:14
Currently my elves are fighting without any context the gaping void of non-background for Elves is my biggest issue with AoS. I'm participating in campaigns purely for the social aspect and because I genuinely prefer it to previous fantasy games.

Essentially I really liked the character of Malekith portrayed in the books written by Gav Thorpe and my army is based on a couple of characters, Morgir and Kherith who were mentioned in a story snippet from the 6th BRB. My current fluff is that they are loyal to Malekith/Malerion to a fault and somehow crossed over from the world that was to AoS due to...reasons (heh it's good enough for Gw)

Beyond that I'm in limbo a bit until elves are reintroduced, but I'm enjoying my gaming and painting at the moment so can let it go...for now...
What would happen if elves take a similar lore twist to the other races so far? For example malekith finds a way to make them immortal with a respawn point (or whatever they could come up with). Would this effect your play or would you just continue with your own lore?

ewar
05-11-2015, 00:15
I don't really comment on the game, haven't played it and have no interest to.

But the lore just depresses me so badly, I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. We lost a fantastic, evocative, rich background for crap about Mount Infernus in the Vulcanus region of ********ville. Infinite war, infinite warriors, fight, fight, smash, smash, yaaaaaawn. To me a battle in the Old World was something special, it was out of the ordinary. Behind the battle, there was a whole world just going about it's business - Empire peasants were hiding in villages in the woods, scared of monsters going bump in the night. It really gave a context which I didn't fully appreciate until it was gone.

Yrch
05-11-2015, 00:21
It's an interesting question.

-Sigmarines ho get reincarnated every time they die. And since none of them stand out as unique as it is, why should we care if one masked, armored warrior replaces another?


There is a chance that a Sigmarine wont be reforged.
There a re a few instances in the Big Books were fallen sigmarines were lost and couldn't be retrieved by Sigmar or their souls were devoured.
Then there is a chance they wont survive the reforging and they losse memory and character traits with every reforging.
So far GW hasn't done anything witht his, but i can imagine some Sigmarines go crazy after the thenth reforging, become mindless killers or start to question their existence.



-Infinite amounts of Chaos demons, and mortals who don't seem to have a finite number despite them having no functioning society to speak of which allows them to continue to reproduce and sustain their losses


Weren't Chaos Demons infinte in the old world as well? At least in 40k they are.
The Free people have fled to Azyrheim, the mortals that are left in the realms are tribes and cults. So we still have a working society in AoS, they just aren't part of the war for now.



-"Seraphon" who aren't real, but incarnations of memories? Something like that? In any case some Slaan can just think of more "Seraphon" after the current bunch die off.


Hope the Battletome makes this clear. Maybe it sucks what little lifeforce is left out of the Slann to "project" them or something, we'll see on saturday.



-Undead who can be resurrected at the whim of a vampire or necromancer. If those things even exist anymore. Normally this wouldn't be an issue since they would be almost unique in the whole "death holds no meaning for us because there are always more corpses to add to our number". But when every faction is limitless it really makes Undead less special.

Skaven and Orcs which have such large populations and can reproduce so fast that losing battles doesn't matter to them. And that's how it's always been, not just in AoS. Their constant infighting kept them from utilizing their whole strength. But again, like with Undead, when every faction is limitless it takes away from the ones who truly need it.

So in the end I agree with the OP. What are the stakes? What is gained and lost in these battles? I guess Games Workshop has finally achieved a perfect balance of never-ending war where nothing ever has to change. Just keep churning out the new toys and tell us how many millions of enemies they've killed in the next armybo... warscroll.

Thing is, we are at the very beginning of the AoS lore so a lot of stuff is unanswered or not fleshed out yet.
Besides of a general overview of the world and background for Sigmarines and Bloodbound we know nothing, so it's a little early to judge and talk about "infinte ressources for everyone".
We have no idea how big these realms are really, we have only touched 3 of em so far, maybe somewhere out there in the realm of whatever there is a thriving human city that has been spared by Chaos because they have no working realmgate.
Thats what i like about AoS, it opens up endless possibilities to players for telling their own story for their army.

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 00:34
There is a chance that a Sigmarine wont be reforged.
There a re a few instances in the Big Books were fallen sigmarines were lost and couldn't be retrieved by Sigmar or their souls were devoured.
Then there is a chance they wont survive the reforging and they losse memory and character traits with every reforging.
So far GW hasn't done anything witht his, but i can imagine some Sigmarines go crazy after the thenth reforging, become mindless killers or start to question their existence.



Weren't Chaos Demons infinte in the old world as well? At least in 40k they are.
The Free people have fled to Azyrheim, the mortals that are left in the realms are tribes and cults. So we still have a working society in AoS, they just aren't part of the war for now.



Hope the Battletome makes this clear. Maybe it sucks what little lifeforce is left out of the Slann to "project" them or something, we'll see on saturday.



Thing is, we are at the very beginning of the AoS lore so a lot of stuff is unanswered or not fleshed out yet.
Besides of a general overview of the world and background for Sigmarines and Bloodbound we know nothing, so it's a little early to judge and talk about "infinte ressources for everyone".
We have no idea how big these realms are really, we have only touched 3 of em so far, maybe somewhere out there in the realm of whatever there is a thriving human city that has been spared by Chaos because they have no working realmgate.
Thats what i like about AoS, it opens up endless possibilities to players for telling their own story for their army.
I understand it's not fleshed out and it could be great later on but I'm trying to discuss lore as it currently is defined. From what I understand the planes they are fighting for are infinite. For all we know there could be billions of sigmariens and sigmar could create more whenever he wanted. The entire scale of the game just seems to make small scale AOS games pointless. I'm interesting in seeing how people incorporate this into games. So does it bother you or do you like the infinite war style lore now?

TheLionReturns
05-11-2015, 01:23
I am using old world lore, and my wood elves are fighting to prevent the "End Times" as forseen by Niaith the Prophetess. As for why I am playing AoS and not 8th, well I am playing both. I liked 8th and it is my preferred game, but AoS offers a different type of gaming experience that can be more suitable for certain types of game. It is also quicker to play and set up so is more suitable when time is a consideration. I may play around with other sets of rules too if they seem useful.

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 01:28
I am using old world lore, and my wood elves are fighting to prevent the "End Times" as forseen by Niaith the Prophetess. As for why I am playing AoS and not 8th, well I am playing both. I liked 8th and it is my preferred game, but AoS offers a different type of gaming experience that can be more suitable for certain types of game. It is also quicker to play and set up so is more suitable when time is a consideration. I may play around with other sets of rules too if they seem useful.
That's a good narrative to go off of. This is why I always thought a small mordhiem intro game attached to 9th would have been a good direction for AOS. Offer a quick style game and a mass battle game.

TheLionReturns
05-11-2015, 01:33
That's a good narrative to go off of. This is why I always thought a small mordhiem intro game attached to 9th would have been a good direction for AOS. Offer a quick style game and a mass battle game.

Would have been my preference too.

SuperHappyTime
05-11-2015, 01:41
I just want to start by saying this thread is not intended to be insulting in any way and I'm looking for feedback from both pro AOS and anti AOS gamers.

My question is what are 1. you fighting for in AOS? 2. If you don't like the setting are you using your own lore/ old world lore. 3. If your playing old world lore in AOS why are you playing AOS and not previous editions (I feel previous editions better mimic how warfare would take place in an old world setting)

I would I'd be insulted if someone found your questions insulting.

I'll summarize my opinion with the following statements:
1. I love the old Warhammer Fluff and/or similar Fantasy fluff. I'd eat World of Warcraft Fluff for breakfast (Or the old Warcraft fluff anyway, it's started to sour lately). I set the following statement in stone: If it wasn't for DnD Fluff, Warhammer Fluff, and Warcraft Fluff, I wouldn't be a part of this community.
2. I like the idea of a block formation game. Look at historical battles and you'd see this is how pre-Modern armies fight. This is the core of why I liked 8th Edition, and why I would probably have liked the former editions of Warhammer...
3. ...But, there were some logical flaws that occurred that never got addressed beyond the main rules. Some things were odd, like that a mage that was fleeing but rallied in the movement step could immediately cast spells (instead of still being "shaken"). If I fired a Cannon, and it hit a bolt thrower, my opponent only removed one of the two models. Despite the fact the rules say "Crew are only to be treated as wound markers outside of combat", I could not convince an opponent of such.
4. The next ten posts are going to hate what I say here, but it's what I know to be true. The "Core Rules" of Age of Sigmar are solid.
5. What ruins #4 is the unbalancing of the game. The "Bring What You Want" Rules, the Summoning Rules, and the weird fluff rules (wearing a hood, have a better mustache, etc). Oh, and the setting isn't what I want, which is HUGE!


so if you play AOS how do you picture the importance of your band of soldiers? If you don't like AOS what direction would you have wanted the narrative to go? I'm curious to hear from all corners of warseer.

It's my army, I use it when I need to.

akai
05-11-2015, 01:55
My introduction to western fantasy is heavily influenced by the old Warhammer setting. With that stated, I found the official story line was stagnating since Storms of Chaos campaign. So I appreciate the End Times to actually progress the timeline (whether you like the conclusion or not). With the current fluff of Age of Sigmar, it focuses and opens up the idea of playing "high epic fantasy" narratives where the battles are fought mostly for the purposes of gods. However GW tries to spin it, it seems very petty so far and not a story I am interested in imagining my armies are participating in.

I will be focusing on the story of mortals that cares not of gods' wars and know nothing of 9 infinite realms. The mortals in my setting concerns are mainly their family, comrades. and the land that they can see with their own two eyes. And if I want to later on expand into high fantasy stories, it should not be too hard to incorporate. I read this post a while back which I agree very much with on AoS new setting.



Though I feel we are definitely off topic I just wanted to add my opinion to the bunch. I am one who already changed his mind about AoS, coming from hating it to be really interested in it, precisely because it is completely different from wh. Just to be clear, I am one of the veterans, being loving wh since 1997 and still do, in fact I plan to keep collecting and possibly playing it until I'm too old to hold a brush! But this new game is addressing many of wh issues, both commercially and lore wise, although not in a way we might like. I for instance despise the idea of Stormcasts as gw is trying to sell them, basically like space marines with less fluff to justify it. But as I said many times the freedom this new setting leave to the players both in terms of army composition and narrative is, to me, a great and refreshing thing. Sure gw is sucking at detailing the bg for this new game but leaving so many possibilities open I think there are many more opportunities for us to get creative and think completely out of the box (I know I am trying at least) and come out with new esthetics for our Mortal Kingdoms, new fluff which does not contradict the very vague "official" one we have so far and new interesting lists which mix elements from different armies just for the sake of creating a nice story! I am not saying gw is doing it, unfortunately I believe they did a rather sloppy and uninspiring job so far, but there are many great hobbists out there who already came out with realy interesting projects based on the freedom this new game allows, both in terms of game mechanics and fluff.

In conclusion, though I am really, REALLY disappointed with the destruction of my beloved Old World and the game I loved and played for years, I think AoS do address some of the main issues with the previous game, being a more flexible, easier and narrative oriented game with a focus on collecting minis rather then building competitive lists and that IS already taking back some of the old guard into the game (none of my friends, all veterans like me, was playing anymore and now some of them are coming back and start collecting again the minis they always wanted to paint and actually coming out with good fluff to justify it).

It is not the same game, not even similar to it, but it offer a new point of view on wargaming and, as I hope to be able to show through my efforts, interesting opportunities to modelers and hobbists with a bit of imagination!

Just my two cents, sorry for the off topic.

Edit: I just want to say - I think you should use whatever game setting (fluff) you want to play with whatever game system you like.

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 02:03
I would I'd be insulted if someone found your questions insulting.

I'll summarize my opinion with the following statements:
1. I love the old Warhammer Fluff and/or similar Fantasy fluff. I'd eat World of Warcraft Fluff for breakfast (Or the old Warcraft fluff anyway, it's started to sour lately). I set the following statement in stone: If it wasn't for DnD Fluff, Warhammer Fluff, and Warcraft Fluff, I wouldn't be a part of this community.
2. I like the idea of a block formation game. Look at historical battles and you'd see this is how pre-Modern armies fight. This is the core of why I liked 8th Edition, and why I would probably have liked the former editions of Warhammer...
3. ...But, there were some logical flaws that occurred that never got addressed beyond the main rules. Some things were odd, like that a mage that was fleeing but rallied in the movement step could immediately cast spells (instead of still being "shaken"). If I fired a Cannon, and it hit a bolt thrower, my opponent only removed one of the two models. Despite the fact the rules say "Crew are only to be treated as wound markers outside of combat", I could not convince an opponent of such.
4. The next ten posts are going to hate what I say here, but it's what I know to be true. The "Core Rules" of Age of Sigmar are solid.
5. What ruins #4 is the unbalancing of the game. The "Bring What You Want" Rules, the Summoning Rules, and the weird fluff rules (wearing a hood, have a better mustache, etc). Oh, and the setting isn't what I want, which is HUGE!



It's my army, I use it when I need to.
I agree with most of what you said. I think the main issues with AOS are balancing due to the reasons you listed. I think there are other issues but that's not the point of this post. Also I always played the crew as wound markers and my whole area would remove the cannon if you did the 3 wounds you needed. Also I loved the block look of 8th because of the way it represented battles from that time period. I wouldn't mind the addition of skirmish rules for fights inside keeps and towns (for small war bands).

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 02:15
My introduction to western fantasy is heavily influenced by the old Warhammer setting. With that stated, I found the official story line was stagnating since Storms of Chaos campaign. So I appreciate the End Times to actually progress the timeline (whether you like the conclusion or not). With the current fluff of Age of Sigmar, it focuses and opens up the idea of playing "high epic fantasy" narratives where the battles are fought mostly for the purposes of gods. However GW tries to spin it, it seems very petty so far and not a story I am interested in imagining my armies are participating in.

I will be focusing on the story of mortals that cares not of gods' wars and know nothing of 9 infinite realms. The mortals in my setting concerns are mainly their family, comrades. and the land that they can see with their own two eyes. And if I want to later on expand into high fantasy stories, it should not be too hard to incorporate. I read this post a while back which I agree very much with on AoS new setting.




Edit: I just want to say - I think you should use whatever game setting (fluff) you want to play with whatever game system you like.
i do like the idea that AOS will have lore that evolves. My problem with it is the infinity wording of everything GW is currently producing. Another poster suggested that they could have attached AOS lore to the old work by adding portals similar to what we saw in the expansions of Warcraft. I would have preferred that because you could advance the lore by winning and losing relms. I just feel like your army needs to be hypothetically able to be wiped out. If everything is infinite there is no positive of your army "winning" a battle.

MagicAngle
05-11-2015, 04:03
3. If your playing old world lore in AOS why are you playing AOS and not previous editions (I feel previous editions better mimic how warfare would take place in an old world setting)

Here's my situation - I'm playing through the ET with my group and we're about to get to Glottkin (yeah - we're taking our time). We have both the available terrain and the narrative drive to play some very dense city-fighting battles. Problem is that however much I love the WHFB rules, they are utterly worthless with extremely dense terrain. The ET "city fighting" special rules aren't much better.

So how do we properly simulate the invasion of Marienburg? Can't do WHFB. Can't do Warhammer Skirmish either, as we want this to be big. What is left is AoS. So we're going to try it out. Sure it might suck, but if it doesn't it's a very welcome system to allow us access to a new gaming style.

Put simply, I'm not aware of any other system for large-scale skirmish fighting which already has rules for my armies. Worth a shot.

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 04:25
Here's my situation - I'm playing through the ET with my group and we're about to get to Glottkin (yeah - we're taking our time). We have both the available terrain and the narrative drive to play some very dense city-fighting battles. Problem is that however much I love the WHFB rules, they are utterly worthless with extremely dense terrain. The ET "city fighting" special rules aren't much better.

So how do we properly simulate the invasion of Marienburg? Can't do WHFB. Can't do Warhammer Skirmish either, as we want this to be big. What is left is AoS. So we're going to try it out. Sure it might suck, but if it doesn't it's a very welcome system to allow us access to a new gaming style.

Put simply, I'm not aware of any other system for large-scale skirmish fighting which already has rules for my armies. Worth a shot.
I think city fighting and dungeon crawling are the one place AOS rules really fit nicely. Do you plan on following the lore after your campaign? If so do you feel you are losing something considering you are no longer fighting to save/ destroy the world and instead fighting infinite armies on infinitely large battlefields?

MagicAngle
05-11-2015, 05:09
I think city fighting and dungeon crawling are the one place AOS rules really fit nicely. Do you plan on following the lore after your campaign? If so do you feel you are losing something considering you are no longer fighting to save/ destroy the world and instead fighting infinite armies on infinitely large battlefields?

We've no interest at all in following the AoS lore. I'm still unreasonably furious at GW's vandalism of the Warhammer World. We only intend to use AoS as a companion games system for when WHFB mass battles aren't appropriate.

We're actually playing through the ET allowing each battle to actually affect the narrative. For example, in our ET Mannfred was slain by the Fellblade in The Battle of Mordkin Lair, so it's still around somewhere, causing Nagash a fair amount of concern. The one thing we have agreed on is that the Warhammer World will not be destroyed at the end of things. I can't face being heartbroken all over again. :cries:

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 05:36
We've no interest at all in following the AoS lore. I'm still unreasonably furious at GW's vandalism of the Warhammer World. We only intend to use AoS as a companion games system for when WHFB mass battles aren't appropriate.

We're actually playing through the ET allowing each battle to actually affect the narrative. For example, in our ET Mannfred was slain by the Fellblade in The Battle of Mordkin Lair, so it's still around somewhere, causing Nagash a fair amount of concern. The one thing we have agreed on is that the Warhammer World will not be destroyed at the end of things. I can't face being heartbroken all over again. :cries:
You are using the AOS rules exactly how they should have been implemented. Its interesting i haven't herd of any people using the new setting which makes me believe its unpopular even to the AOS crowd. I'm looking forward to seeing if anyone is playing in the new setting.

GrandmasterWang
05-11-2015, 05:48
Personally I would have like to see each edition be a parallel universe of the old world. That way they could advance a story for years (like end times) have a conclusion then reset to another time line. This is where I thought AOS would go based on the archeon ever chosen book where the demon is re writing his fate in the beginning of the book.


Funnily enough this is exactly how i see the AOS setting. As a hypothetical which may or may not happen depending on my battles in the old world. End times, like Storm of Chaos may or may not happen the way GW spells it out. Maybe this is why i am neutral to AOS rather than a hater.

Every battle we play i guess could be seen to take place in a parallel universe or as a hypothetical. For example i have controlled Skarsnik many times and he has been killed in a variety of different ways. How is this possible if we are not shifting /creating destiny's as we play?

With Chillhammer myself and my mates have taken this several steps further and I'm sure some people would be aghast at some of the battles we have had.

For example one of my most memorable battles was where my weakened state Nagash was thwarted in his attempts for evil by the combined might of several of the Imperium of man's greatest heroes! The sight of Logan Grimnir and Captain Sicarus fighting back to back against 40+ skeletons which had surrounded them was something i will not forget... or how Captain Lysander (aka "The Shield" in Chillhammer) single handedly held the line against 50 skeletons eventually felling every one with mere scratches on his armor.

My battles all take place in some form of the 'Old World' but it is our hobby and our battles are what we make of them!

I'm sure it is only a matter of time before these Sigmar forged Stormcast find their way onto the Chillhammer battlefields......

What will await them there?

Will it be a sturdy dwarf throng joined by Grombrindal himself? Perhaps Astrogoth seeking to find out whether these Stormcast make for goods slaves? Perhaps the ever hungry Ogre Big Nuff seeks to see how they taste once stripped of their armor? Maybe even the elusive Beastlord known only as Hood Horn will seek to add their heads to his growing tally list?

Who forges the narrative. .. we do... the chaos gods and their machinations have nothing on us.

Happy tabletop gaming to everyone!

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
05-11-2015, 07:26
I just want to start by saying this thread is not intended to be insulting in any way and I'm looking for feedback from both pro AOS and anti AOS gamers.

My question is what are 1. you fighting for in AOS? 2. If you don't like the setting are you using your own lore/ old world lore. 3. If your playing old world lore in AOS why are you playing AOS and not previous editions (I feel previous editions better mimic how warfare would take place in an old world setting).

I've played games of AoS set in both the old world and the mortal realms depending on which armies we've been using. Since we have no real info about what duardin/Aelfs/green skins are like in the mortal realms we've tended to set any games involving them in the old world. I think we'll be moving over to the mortal realms setting increasingly as it develops and we see how all the armies fit in. One of the things that I like about the changes being made is that it's a chance for GW to reinvent some of the warhammer races. It was a source of tremendous frustration to me that some of the warhammer armies were basically just passive players in the world, basically the only theme that made sense for a game involving my Lizardmen/tomb kings/wood elves was 'the opposing army is attacking your temple city/pyramid/woodland glade because none of those armies almost ever did anything in the lore except defend their own holdings.

That's one of the reasons why I kind of like the direction they're going with the Seraphon (and I say this as a long-standing LM player), lizards are no longer a bunch of isolationists hunkered down in their cities brooding over the mysteries of the universe and only coming out to fight when someone comes knocking at their door.

Personally I don't think 'style of combat' is that well represented by either game, neither system is particularly logical as a combat simulator, both are quite abstract anyway so I'd happily use either system to represent combat in either world. Having said that I think AoS does have some advantages over wfb, it works much better at smaller-size games where wfb struggled to be interesting and it is a much more fluid, quicker game to play than wfb (which always needed a solid three hours).


I will start off by saying I never considered myself a narrative gamer or super into lore until AOS came out. I never realized how much I liked my goblins due to the setting of the old world and always pictured my goblin army as a small group of goblins that rebelled against their ork oppressors. I never thought that one of the main issues I have with AOS is with the background, but sadly even if it was the 9th edition I wanted game wise I would never be able to play with the lore. The main issue is everything in AOS is infinite or undying. Sigmaries only issue is that they lose a bit of personality the more they die but I really don't see the issue in this. In a war that seems to be set up to last forever eventually no sigmariens will have a personality...... But why does that matter? The chaos seem to have a never ending supply of guys so why does it matter if your bloodborne get slaughtered? Lizardmen are summoning memories onto a battlefield from space, so where is the risk? How do you get pumped behind a major victory on the table if it translates to nothing in game.

In 8th if your orks were getting beat, despite your vast numbers, your army might just return to their smaller tribes or abandon you for a new bigger boss. A lizardmen player losing a small skirmish to skaven might cause a major temple city to fall. An empire loss on the table might mean the local village is over run. I just don't see why games matter in AOS.

Then give some context to your games, the whole premise to the AoS setting is the stormcast leading the fight back against chaos in a world occupied by them. Maybe your stormcast are descending on a chaos fortress to break their control in a region and free the local populace (a human village or whatever) from the oppression of an evil warlord.

The fact that most of the armies in AoS seem to be 'infinite' isn't really anything new in that sense, that's pretty much the case with all the armies in 40k except perhaps craftworld eldar (although even they have their wraith constructs) and maybe tau. The imperial armies, tyranids and orks have limitless numbers, necrons resurrect, dark eldar take the remains of their dead home and are regrow in labs etc.

In fact the resurrection angle is kind of useful in some ways. It means that next time your stormcast eternals attack the bloodbound fortress it's the same group of warriors out for revenge this time, not a totally different group with no idea what happened to their buddies. Let me tell you, if a temple city was overrun every time I had lost a game of wfb with my Lizardmen over the last 15 years or so there would be no temple cities left in the entire world...


so if you play AOS how do you picture the importance of your band of soldiers? If you don't like AOS what direction would you have wanted the narrative to go? I'm curious to hear from all corners of warseer.

My chaos army is a warband of local bullies who have enslaved a local human population in the realm of fire, they're probably not that important in the grand scheme of things but that's probably just as well since I tend to lose as many games as I win.

Kherith
05-11-2015, 08:40
What would happen if elves take a similar lore twist to the other races so far? For example malekith finds a way to make them immortal with a respawn point (or whatever they could come up with). Would this effect your play or would you just continue with your own lore?

If that happened I'd probably be done with the current background. As far as I'm concerned my elves are firmly entrenched in the lawful evil part of the spectrum and frankly if AoS just turns into a mess of immortal infinite armies fighting over infinite planes with no maps and no territories being defined with elves essentially a sub faction of the Sigmar = order alliance I'll rapidly lose interest.

I'd probably stop playing, like I did when I didn't like the game in 6th to 8th, and go back to being a collector & painter but writing my own background or going back to Pre-ET fluff.

I'll give AoS background the chance to develop because I like the game and the current Elf models but my tolerance only goes so far and in my opinion the writing and "narrative" needs to improve over the next year or so.

Arrahed
05-11-2015, 09:39
I've played games of AoS set in both the old world and the mortal realms depending on which armies we've been using. Since we have no real info about what duardin/Aelfs/green skins are like in the mortal realms we've tended to set any games involving them in the old world. I think we'll be moving over to the mortal realms setting increasingly as it develops and we see how all the armies fit in. One of the things that I like about the changes being made is that it's a chance for GW to reinvent some of the warhammer races. It was a source of tremendous frustration to me that some of the warhammer armies were basically just passive players in the world, basically the only theme that made sense for a game involving my Lizardmen/tomb kings/wood elves was 'the opposing army is attacking your temple city/pyramid/woodland glade because none of those armies almost ever did anything in the lore except defend their own holdings.


I never quite understood the 'passive faction' point. Besides Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Lizardmen also the human factions have very little reason to wander the world and fight stuff. There might be a conflict with a neighbor province and stuff like that but it is still pretty much restricted to their home town and its defense. You might call this passive.
I must admit I like these factions much better for story telling. I find the Dark elves raiding parties boring just as the always fighting Chaos warriors or Orcs. Of course they always have reasons to be at the strangest places of the world and fight whatever comes their way but creating a story from that is not interesting to me.

My wood elves army represents a small group of elves following their prophet - a mad tree man - (in this case a tree lady because the ultraforge model is just awesome) on its journey through the old world hoping that it will save the Asrai and Athel Loren.
It is a very simple setting but provides the foundation for a story for each encounter: the elves might engage a group of Dark elves in Lustria trying to prevent an artifact to fall into the hands of evil. Or maybe the prophet sees the importance of the Dark elves's commander in a future event and decides to sacrifice the Lizardmen defending the artifact in order to protect the commander.

Now, without too much effort, the Asrai have a reason to fight alongside their evil brethren against a Slann army in the steaming jungles of Lustria. They can even fight against other Asrai because they consider them heretics who follow a mad spirit tainted by Tzeentch. It is not the most original setting but it still makes much more sense than eternal war in eternal realms fought by eternal warriors..... for eternity.

And I also don't believe that the old world was stagnant or the end times were inevitable. It was always made clear that chaos would win. But nowhere did it say what that would mean or how the victory would manifest. I always imagined that the victory of chaos would mean that their gods are powered by the emotions of the mortal races. So as long as the mortals survive in their struggle against each other and against the chaos gods the chaos gods would profit and therefore win. The way GW let it play out is the shallowest victory of all. More or less total extinction of the mortal races leaves no purpose for the victors as well. Nothing to conquer for Khorne, no one to die for Nurgle, no one with passion for Slanesh and no one to scheme for Tzeentch. How could that be desirable for them.

A state where all mortals races are desperately fighting for their lives should be the goal for the chaos gods. Not the destruction of everything. And what gives more opportunity for interesting events than that? A world where powers shift constantly and even the chaos gods must be careful not to push the world too far.

Kakapo42
05-11-2015, 09:46
My question is what are 1. you fighting for in AOS? 2. If you don't like the setting are you using your own lore/ old world lore. 3. If your playing old world lore in AOS why are you playing AOS and not previous editions (I feel previous editions better mimic how warfare would take place in an old world setting)

1. N/A - the events of AoS never happened, since none of the events from the ET series happened to cause them. I am still fighting to protect Athel Loren in the Warhammer World like I have since starting Warhammer Fantasy.

2. I don't like the AoS setting one iota, so I'm using a slightly modified/advanced version of the Warhammer Fantasy background - one of the Spellweavers in my part of Athel Loren had a vision of the future showing the events of the ET series, and my armies promptly stopped the whole series of events from ever happening in a three pronged pre-emptive strike, which led to a whole bunch of other stuff happening instead. I'm still debating whether or not to publish the full details online, but I'm increasingly leaning towards doing it with every person unhappy with the ET/AoS background that I come across.

3. I am not playing AoS, I'm pasthammering it with a combination of 8th and 6th edition rules.

Drakkar du Chaos
05-11-2015, 10:09
AoS ? Is this some kind of new region like Albion ? Never heard of it.

Most of my army is currently at the fortress of Taelam, in the far north of the Dark Lands, gathering followers for my never-ending wars but also capturing slaves if i need to trade with the Chaos Dwarfs of the south.
In the mean time my general and her most loyal warriors are looking for powerful artifacts capable of destroying the armies and cities we will run into.

But in the long run i will obliterate "friends" and foes alike because i am the champion of Malal, the true and only Chaos God.

Spiney Norman
05-11-2015, 11:41
I never quite understood the 'passive faction' point. Besides Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Lizardmen also the human factions have very little reason to wander the world and fight stuff. There might be a conflict with a neighbor province and stuff like that but it is still pretty much restricted to their home town and its defense. You might call this passive.
I must admit I like these factions much better for story telling. I find the Dark elves raiding parties boring just as the always fighting Chaos warriors or Orcs. Of course they always have reasons to be at the strangest places of the world and fight whatever comes their way but creating a story from that is not interesting to me.

That's not really true, Bretonnians fought wars with the Empire, battle the greenskins and Beastmen in their own forests and defended against chaos invasions and the occasional over-enthusiastic wood elf hunt that made it outside the forest, they also launched crusades a fair bit, as far afield as nehekhara as I recall.

The Empire faces many similar problems, with added battles between competing elector counts and their tendency to send expeditions to explore the new world. My Empire army was modelled as a Marienburg merchant company that a sailed all over the world pretty much fighting whoever they couldn't exploit.

Greenskins are pretty much everywhere fighting everyone and the various chaos factions are basically there to be the antagonists of the setting


And I also don't believe that the old world was stagnant or the end times were inevitable. It was always made clear that chaos would win. But nowhere did it say what that would mean or how the victory would manifest. I always imagined that the victory of chaos would mean that their gods are powered by the emotions of the mortal races. So as long as the mortals survive in their struggle against each other and against the chaos gods the chaos gods would profit and therefore win. The way GW let it play out is the shallowest victory of all. More or less total extinction of the mortal races leaves no purpose for the victors as well. Nothing to conquer for Khorne, no one to die for Nurgle, no one with passion for Slanesh and no one to scheme for Tzeentch. How could that be desirable for them.

A state where all mortals races are desperately fighting for their lives should be the goal for the chaos gods. Not the destruction of everything. And what gives more opportunity for interesting events than that? A world where powers shift constantly and even the chaos gods must be careful not to push the world too far.

I don't think that the end times were necessarily inevitable either, but there is a limit to what you can do in terms of moving forward the timeline of a setting that is set at 1 min to midnight. I don't think that chaos won a hollow victory at all, based on what happened it's clear that the warhammer world was not the only source of life in the setting after all, it was just the one we knew about, chaos has moved on to the mortal realms and feed off the emotions of the people there now, I don't see a contradiction there.

stroller
05-11-2015, 11:53
I play Orcs & Goblins, and Dwarves.

The greenskins have ALWAYS been fighting: who cares where so long as it's a good fight? The dwarves still have 15,837 grudges to settle....

In that sense, it doesn't matter which system I'm using (I use both). I prefer 8th Fantasy background to AoS background (so far), but - a game's a game....

Arrahed
05-11-2015, 13:00
That's not really true, Bretonnians fought wars with the Empire, battle the greenskins and Beastmen in their own forests and defended against chaos invasions and the occasional over-enthusiastic wood elf hunt that made it outside the forest, they also launched crusades a fair bit, as far afield as nehekhara as I recall.

The Empire faces many similar problems, with added battles between competing elector counts and their tendency to send expeditions to explore the new world. My Empire army was modelled as a Marienburg merchant company that a sailed all over the world pretty much fighting whoever they couldn't exploit.


That is more or less what I was trying to say: humans, just as Wood Elves, basically defend their homeland against aggressors, both external ones and those from within, and send an occasional expedition force to places all over the world. Some factions do this more often than others but its not difficult to find a reason for every faction.




I don't think that the end times were necessarily inevitable either, but there is a limit to what you can do in terms of moving forward the timeline of a setting that is set at 1 min to midnight. I don't think that chaos won a hollow victory at all, based on what happened it's clear that the warhammer world was not the only source of life in the setting after all, it was just the one we knew about, chaos has moved on to the mortal realms and feed off the emotions of the people there now, I don't see a contradiction there.

My picture of the old world was never a 1 minute to midnight kind of setting. Maybe the end times stuff moved it towards something like that but I never cared about end times.

Concerning the victory of chaos: Even if there are different 'food' sources for the chaos gods, why would they completely destroy one of them? The only reason I can think that makes sense to me is that Tzeentch orchestrated the end times to trick Sigmar into creating/populating (I don't know the fluff there) the nine realms to create even more emotional beings and then taking them from Sigmar. Sounds far fetched but who knows? Tzeentch is a sneaky guy.

Okuto
05-11-2015, 13:33
I just want to start by saying this thread is not intended to be insulting in any way and I'm looking for feedback from both pro AOS and anti AOS gamers.

My question is what are 1. you fighting for in AOS? 2. If you don't like the setting are you using your own lore/ old world lore. 3. If your playing old world lore in AOS why are you playing AOS and not previous editions (I feel previous editions better mimic how warfare would take place in an old world setting)

This is precisely why I stopped enjoying AoS, there was no reason for my empire or Dogs of War army to be there. I detested 8th but at least I knew why my army was there fighting in the first place. While I was learning AoS I actually hadn't read the new fluff(I felt It would soil my experience) so just assumed that my army was a band of survivors beset by these new enemies. However then one of my buddies explained to me that actually the old world was completely gone and alot of time has already passed so the empire was likely gone for good. It crushed me and when I actually picked up the book to read the "new fluff" it just left me in a terrible mood.

I still learned the game but I felt empty each game, I didn't feel like there were any stakes. Yelling "Ulric protect us!" or "For the Emperor!/Empire!" had no more meaning and thus reason for being there. My Dogs of War had the same issue, Tilea/Estalia is gone.....why are we here, what the heck are we doing.

I played warhammer because of the setting, I loved the idea of my Exiled Nobleman from Nordland who led an army of his retainers and mercenaries to wherever the winds took him. In AoS, there is no more Nordland, no border princes, no Lustria/Khermi to raid, no empire, no Ulric and thus no reason for being.

I play other armies don't get me wrong(orcs, Brets and TK) but the empire was my true love. Those puffy pants, Codpiece dangling, mustache twirling, gunpowder chewing sods.......man I love those guys. They're not coming back I'm certain of it so I don't see a future in AoS. I'm over the rules but the AoS setting is shallow and soul wrenching the more I stay there. I still play it to be polite, I feel terrible for the new guys who picked it up and don't have different people to play against.

Spiney Norman
05-11-2015, 14:08
Concerning the victory of chaos: Even if there are different 'food' sources for the chaos gods, why would they completely destroy one of them? The only reason I can think that makes sense to me is that Tzeentch orchestrated the end times to trick Sigmar into creating/populating (I don't know the fluff there) the nine realms to create even more emotional beings and then taking them from Sigmar. Sounds far fetched but who knows? Tzeentch is a sneaky guy.

Just because you could survive adequately on three fairly small meals a day doesn't mean that an epic feast where you absolutely stuff yourself to bursting isn't fun once in a while, I kind of see the end times as the chaos gods getting bored with small portions and deciding it's time to stuff themselves and move on to the next buffet.


I never quite understood the 'passive faction' point

My point about passive factions is as much about their unimportance to the setting as much as their general uninvolvement in the world at large. Take the end times for example, the Lizardmen fought in no major engagement at all, they just got bombed by the skaven, jumped in their ships and left. The wood elves on the other hand had all of their significant characters either murdered or vanished and promptly converted to being dark elves while the tomb kings lost their King and became lackeys to the vampire counts.

akai
05-11-2015, 14:19
This is precisely why I stopped enjoying AoS, there was no reason for my empire or Dogs of War army to be there. I detested 8th but at least I knew why my army was there fighting in the first place. While I was learning AoS I actually hadn't read the new fluff(I felt It would soil my experience) so just assumed that my army was a band of survivors beset by these new enemies. However then one of my buddies explained to me that actually the old world was completely gone and alot of time has already passed so the empire was likely gone for good. It crushed me and when I actually picked up the book to read the "new fluff" it just left me in a terrible mood.

My transition of armies with old world fashion/aesthetics into AoS is basically "band of survivors beset by new enemies."


During the end times. the four heroes sided with the forces of order to desperately fend off the inevitable destruction of the world. In a battle where all factions took part, the swirling winds of magic disrupted the fabric of space and time hurling the participants into the Realm of Chaos. While many perished in the madness, the heroes and remnants of once great armies were able to escape from the Realm of Chaos; however, they found themselves in a strange new world, eons past, into the Age of Sigmar! :p

Arrahed
05-11-2015, 15:01
Just because you could survive adequately on three fairly small meals a day doesn't mean that an epic feast where you absolutely stuff yourself to bursting isn't fun once in a while, I kind of see the end times as the chaos gods getting bored with small portions and deciding it's time to stuff themselves and move on to the next buffet.

Okay, that makes sense. I would prefer a form of chaos that is more subtle but I guess I can't always get what I want.




My point about passive factions is as much about their unimportance to the setting as much as their general uninvolvement in the world at large. Take the end times for example, the Lizardmen fought in no major engagement at all, they just got bombed by the skaven, jumped in their ships and left. The wood elves on the other hand had all of their significant characters either murdered or vanished and promptly converted to being dark elves while the tomb kings lost their King and became lackeys to the vampire counts.

Without having any detailed knowledge about the end times I would say this is just bad story telling on GW's part.Having whole factions not doing anything in what was supposedly the grant finale of the warhammer world is just lazy.

My impression of the last 15 years of GW story telling was that if it isn't the biggest chaos invasion ever, it is not a real story. And since some factions are not as directly affected by chaos invasions as others they weren't as active in these campaigns.
But still, in the world as a whole, outside of the occasional chaos invasion that I never cared much about anyway, the passive factions were just as active and involved as any other.
I know there was Albion and probably some other stuff I forgot about but apparently the number one theme for GW stories is: Chaos invarsion.

ewar
05-11-2015, 17:15
Just because you could survive adequately on three fairly small meals a day doesn't mean that an epic feast where you absolutely stuff yourself to bursting isn't fun once in a while, I kind of see the end times as the chaos gods getting bored with small portions and deciding it's time to stuff themselves and move on to the next buffet.



My point about passive factions is as much about their unimportance to the setting as much as their general uninvolvement in the world at large. Take the end times for example, the Lizardmen fought in no major engagement at all, they just got bombed by the skaven, jumped in their ships and left. The wood elves on the other hand had all of their significant characters either murdered or vanished and promptly converted to being dark elves while the tomb kings lost their King and became lackeys to the vampire counts.

I think you're misrepresenting events quite badly there. The Slann prevented the Skaven from crashing Morrslieb down, saving the Old World for ages and then fought a massive Pestilens invasion before Lustria was destroyed by an asteroid.

The wood elves fought in Ulthuan to save Alarielle, rescuing all the Eternity elves and then fought massive engagements against daemonic and beastmen invasions. Saying they didn't do anything is like saying the Empire or Bretonnia didn't do anything - they were the defenders, sure, but so were all the forces of Order. The Tomb Kings were dominated by Nagash fairly early into the process, but no more so than the Vampires were. It's just that Settra fought to the death instead of getting bent over like Mannfred and Vlad. Arkhan survived as the dominant tomb king all the way through the story.

As to the original point - I play all 3 of those armies as well and never had any issue with them being 'passive'. I played campaigns with my LM with the fluff that the Slann teleported the army to the Old World to try to shape events (bit like an Eldar farseer...). Same for Wood Elves or Tomb Kings. You could honestly make that argument for most of the factions - why would Chaos Dwarfs leave the Badlands and attack Ulthuan? probably not a likely event but it's pretty easy to construct a plausible narrative without bending the fluff at all.

Ayin
05-11-2015, 17:28
As to the original point - I play all 3 of those armies as well and never had any issue with them being 'passive'. I played campaigns with my LM with the fluff that the Slann teleported the army to the Old World to try to shape events (bit like an Eldar farseer...). Same for Wood Elves or Tomb Kings. You could honestly make that argument for most of the factions - why would Chaos Dwarfs leave the Badlands and attack Ulthuan? probably not a likely event but it's pretty easy to construct a plausible narrative without bending the fluff at all.

The "Passive Armies" argument hasn't been that strong since 6th edition when, and anyone saying that it was a problem in Fantasy that has somehow been corrected in AoS is just being silly.

Asmodios
05-11-2015, 17:32
I've played games of AoS set in both the old world and the mortal realms depending on which armies we've been using. Since we have no real info about what duardin/Aelfs/green skins are like in the mortal realms we've tended to set any games involving them in the old world. I think we'll be moving over to the mortal realms setting increasingly as it develops and we see how all the armies fit in. One of the things that I like about the changes being made is that it's a chance for GW to reinvent some of the warhammer races. It was a source of tremendous frustration to me that some of the warhammer armies were basically just passive players in the world, basically the only theme that made sense for a game involving my Lizardmen/tomb kings/wood elves was 'the opposing army is attacking your temple city/pyramid/woodland glade because none of those armies almost ever did anything in the lore except defend their own holdings.

That's one of the reasons why I kind of like the direction they're going with the Seraphon (and I say this as a long-standing LM player), lizards are no longer a bunch of isolationists hunkered down in their cities brooding over the mysteries of the universe and only coming out to fight when someone comes knocking at their door.

Personally I don't think 'style of combat' is that well represented by either game, neither system is particularly logical as a combat simulator, both are quite abstract anyway so I'd happily use either system to represent combat in either world. Having said that I think AoS does have some advantages over wfb, it works much better at smaller-size games where wfb struggled to be interesting and it is a much more fluid, quicker game to play than wfb (which always needed a solid three hours).



Then give some context to your games, the whole premise to the AoS setting is the stormcast leading the fight back against chaos in a world occupied by them. Maybe your stormcast are descending on a chaos fortress to break their control in a region and free the local populace (a human village or whatever) from the oppression of an evil warlord.

The fact that most of the armies in AoS seem to be 'infinite' isn't really anything new in that sense, that's pretty much the case with all the armies in 40k except perhaps craftworld eldar (although even they have their wraith constructs) and maybe tau. The imperial armies, tyranids and orks have limitless numbers, necrons resurrect, dark eldar take the remains of their dead home and are regrow in labs etc.

In fact the resurrection angle is kind of useful in some ways. It means that next time your stormcast eternals attack the bloodbound fortress it's the same group of warriors out for revenge this time, not a totally different group with no idea what happened to their buddies. Let me tell you, if a temple city was overrun every time I had lost a game of wfb with my Lizardmen over the last 15 years or so there would be no temple cities left in the entire world...



My chaos army is a warband of local bullies who have enslaved a local human population in the realm of fire, they're probably not that important in the grand scheme of things but that's probably just as well since I tend to lose as many games as I win.
While I'm glad you like the new lore I think you missed the reason I don't like it. Firstly we are not in the 40k forum because many fantasy players don't find that universe appealing. But (unless I'm way off) while the 40k universe is vast it is not infinite. There are trillions of imperial guard but not a never ending amount, This in and of itself is a big difference. I get that you are going out to destroy the forces of good...... But what's the point if there can be no end at all?

Old forces like lizardmen were more stagnate but why couldn't the slann send out a small force across the sea? Nothing in the old lore stopped your army from engaging or being engaged by anyone. While the new lore allows the same i just don't get the point of the fighting. Why go engage a fort if there are an infinite amount? Even if my goblins only destroyed 10 insignificant towns thats still x towns - 10. While its a small amount I have made a difference to the whole. If a sigmarine kills 100000000000 (tel:100000000000) chaos its infinite-100000000000 which just dosent matter at all. That's the issue i find and why I couldn't base my army in the post end times world.

Spiney Norman
05-11-2015, 17:35
I think you're misrepresenting events quite badly there. The Slann prevented the Skaven from crashing Morrslieb down, saving the Old World for ages and then fought a massive Pestilens invasion before Lustria was destroyed by an asteroid.

The wood elves fought in Ulthuan to save Alarielle, rescuing all the Eternity elves and then fought massive engagements against daemonic and beastmen invasions. Saying they didn't do anything is like saying the Empire or Bretonnia didn't do anything - they were the defenders, sure, but so were all the forces of Order. The Tomb Kings were dominated by Nagash fairly early into the process, but no more so than the Vampires were. It's just that Settra fought to the death instead of getting bent over like Mannfred and Vlad. Arkhan survived as the dominant tomb king all the way through the story.

As to the original point - I play all 3 of those armies as well and never had any issue with them being 'passive'. I played campaigns with my LM with the fluff that the Slann teleported the army to the Old World to try to shape events (bit like an Eldar farseer...). Same for Wood Elves or Tomb Kings. You could honestly make that argument for most of the factions - why would Chaos Dwarfs leave the Badlands and attack Ulthuan? probably not a likely event but it's pretty easy to construct a plausible narrative without bending the fluff at all.

They ceased to be wood elves the moment that Lileath tricked Araloth into betraying his race and murdered Ariel for no good reason and they swore fealty to the most evil member of their race. What GW did to the elf fluff in the Khaine book was truly monstrous and so completely inconsistent with everything that had gone before it needed to die in fire. I content myself with the thought that however puerile and terrible the AoS background for elves is when it gets released, I'm unlikely to hate it as much as I hate End Times: Khaine.

akai
05-11-2015, 18:31
They ceased to be wood elves the moment that Lileath tricked Araloth into betraying his race and murdered Ariel for no good reason and they swore fealty to the most evil member of their race. What GW did to the elf fluff in the Khaine book was truly monstrous and so completely inconsistent with everything that had gone before it needed to die in fire. I content myself with the thought that however puerile and terrible the AoS background for elves is when it gets released, I'm unlikely to hate it as much as I hate End Times: Khaine.

I think that is an extreme interpretation of what happened in the Khaine book. I still have not finished Thanquol and Archaon so maybe I am missing something. Malekith was the rightful heir to the throne, but politics of the "high elves" block him from it, which led to Malekith's path toward evil and becoming a tyrant. The most evil member of the Elven race seems to be Morathi in my opinion.

Dosiere
05-11-2015, 19:33
If using models from the old factions I always pictured them being in the old setting. It just doesn't make sense for my Empire army or Sylvania army to be around anywhere millennia later after the world was basically destroyed twice. Besides, the cultures that hid away in Sigmarheim or whatever aren't even the direct successors of old world cultures, but something entirely new in the first place.

The new narrative just bored me to tears and I found it to be rather poorly done and executed. I bought the first sourcebook thinking it would finally be a decent piece of fluff I could get my head around but it ended up being just more huge pictures of sigmarines with almost no text! The first novel was such a missed opportunity also to give the Sigmarines some character and really get you to care about them, but it had the opposite effect on me. The story and writing were like reading a comic without pictures. I hope they picked it up a bit but from what I saw from the Stormcast book it is not so.

Bottom line for me was when I played old miniatures=old world, new AoS boxed set minis=AoS world.

Okuto
05-11-2015, 20:08
If using models from the old factions I always pictured them being in the old setting. It just doesn't make sense for my Empire army or Sylvania army to be around anywhere millennia later after the world was basically destroyed twice. Besides, the cultures that hid away in Sigmarheim or whatever aren't even the direct successors of old world cultures, but something entirely new in the first place.

Welcome to the club;) I just ignored the new fluff entirely in my early games of AoS. As far as I was concerned I was fighting against heretical clockwork abominations who claimed to serve "Sigmar" or more crazier than usual khorne followers.

But that only lasts so long.....You quickly come to the realization that your army is dead and you're just a walking corpse on your last leg playing with the new generation of armies before you fade in "legend" or rather obscurity

At least its how I felt

Darth Alec
05-11-2015, 20:25
I've not yet played with my proper AoS army, but I do have some fluff going with it. As a Death army, they are vengeful, bound spirits of a desolate city. Vampires and necromancers have recently appeared in the city, drawing on the vast reservoir of angry dead there. The old king has different objectives than the vampires, but needs their might to keep his army standing. So there's tension between the "ruling" factions of the army, with separate goals and ambitions. The King fights to purge the realm of Chaos, restore his kingdom to his descendants and stand eternally vigil, whilst the vampires have their own objectives.

But I'm waiting for the Death fluff to be fleshed out a bit, if you aren't a stormcast these days, you really don't have a specific goal.

NagashLover
05-11-2015, 21:49
If I played AoS I imagine I'd be fighting for the same exact things I fought/fight for in previous editions...whatever I personally decide to make it about. AoS is no different than the Old World when it comes to figuring out what is being fought for. I easily bent and broke the fluff to make it more interesting for myself and the people I played against. The premise that AoS somehow is terrible in this aspect is a problem that you, i.e. those individuals who feel, have. Not the setting. Not the game.

AoS has been around for how long...? So we obviously know how everything works inside and out!! Gimme a break. Maybe it's because I come from a background of pnpRPGS where we never needed someone to hold our hand and encouraged to create within our setting.

Other examples of games that do quite well without the need of 30 years of fluff to drip feed imagination into players...Frostgrave and Kings of War.

How about you give the game some time to expand instead of crying chicken little? I know that's a rational and intelligent way to handle it, that must mean it's crazy!


In regards to the passive player armies...well I played some of them and my view currently was the same then. I easily found ways to make my Tomb Kings and Lizardmen fight anywhere at any time across the globe. Whether it was just a PUG or a campaign.

pox
05-11-2015, 22:59
My main opponent is a nurgle player, so my skaven have been trying to take a rotting realm gate from them. We have basically been fighting with that as a central theme from small picket games to larger battles. We dont use any comp rules and play it RAW, using a lot of the 40k missions to spice it up. having to take and hold really adds a dynamic theme.
Only issue is chaos has rune shields, giving a 5 invul save against mortal wounds, which is the main strength of my guns. I've yet to make it past turn 3, but we find ways to avoid the scrum in the middle so that's good. There's just not much in an infantry heavy army that can withstand a charge from bloodcrusher Calvary led by a Demon Prince!

Zywus
05-11-2015, 23:01
There's a lot of people claiming that we should give AoS more time to flesh out it's narrative etc.
But that's not the game or setting that GW is selling/providing now. What we have now is what's offered now.

Why are people expected to tag along with something they feel are unappealing just because it may someday become better?

That line of reasoning reminds me of all those crappy computer games people have started to sell as beta versions or early access on Steam greenlight and other places. No matter how buggy and incomplete they are it seems like there are always people coming out of the woodwork to tell how the game have potential and that it cannot be criticized before we see the finished product.

IMO, when you charge money for a product (which GW admittedly don't for the basic rules of the game but certanly for the background of the setting), then the product can certainly be evaluated in light of what it cost.

Spiney Norman
06-11-2015, 00:16
There's a lot of people claiming that we should give AoS more time to flesh out it's narrative etc.
But that's not the game or setting that GW is selling/providing now. What we have now is what's offered now.

Why are people expected to tag along with something they feel are unappealing just because it may someday become better?

That line of reasoning reminds me of all those crappy computer games people have started to sell as beta versions or early access on Steam greenlight and other places. No matter how buggy and incomplete they are it seems like there are always people coming out of the woodwork to tell how the game have potential and that it cannot be criticized before we see the finished product.

IMO, when you charge money for a product (which GW admittedly don't for the basic rules of the game but certanly for the background of the setting), then the product can certainly be evaluated in light of what it cost.

Are you saying that background books only become worth their price when they have 30 years worth of other books supporting them? I mean every game setting has to start somewhere, you realise there was a point 29.75 years ago when wfb was in the position that Age of Sigmar is in now right?

Kherith
06-11-2015, 00:21
There's a lot of people claiming that we should give AoS more time to flesh out it's narrative etc.
But that's not the game or setting that GW is selling/providing now. What we have now is what's offered now.

Why are people expected to tag along with something they feel are unappealing just because it may someday become better?

That line of reasoning reminds me of all those crappy computer games people have started to sell as beta versions or early access on Steam greenlight and other places. No matter how buggy and incomplete they are it seems like there are always people coming out of the woodwork to tell how the game have potential and that it cannot be criticized before we see the finished product.

IMO, when you charge money for a product (which GW admittedly don't for the basic rules of the game but certanly for the background of the setting), then the product can certainly be evaluated in light of what it cost.

I agree with your general point but at the moment I've only paid for the two scenario books and that was mostly for the scenarios. I can't really judge the background for Elves in AoS because there's so little of it.

What I've read so far I don't hate but I do find the complete absence of fluff for my pointy eared protagonists to be massively frustrating.

Rest assured when the first elven battletome is released I'll be paying in my mind primarily for the background and if it's not in my opinion up to scratch I'll be as critical of anyone.

Zywus
06-11-2015, 00:56
Are you saying that background books only become worth their price when they have 30 years worth of other books supporting them? I mean every game setting has to start somewhere, you realise there was a point 29.75 years ago when wfb was in the position that Age of Sigmar is in now right?
No, I'm saying that the background books and the setting they create should be judged now for what they are now and not for what it may become in the future.

Finnigan2004
06-11-2015, 01:28
If GW want my money now, they need good models, good rules, and good fluff now. I expect that out of any system that I buy into. If I buy Wild West Exodus, the company needs to do a good job right now. If I buy into warmahordes, same deal. GW needs to understand that customers will not support their stuff for years while they get their stuff in order. Premium prices can only be charged for premium goods-- brand loyalty evaporates when a mismatch occurs. Right now, GW only has half of that equation.

Kyriakin
06-11-2015, 03:52
Are you saying that background books only become worth their price when they have 30 years worth of other books supporting them? I mean every game setting has to start somewhere, you realise there was a point 29.75 years ago when wfb was in the position that Age of Sigmar is in now right?
Yea, I'll be 63 by the time it reaches the point that WHFB was when they binned it (hell, even Little Timmy will be in his forties), and that's assuming some bean-counter doesn't look at a graph and bin AoS too before it reaches that point.

Most companies would kill to have the legitimacy that comes with a 30-year old, 2nd generation fantasy setting. Now GW has a 4-month old, 35th generation fantasy setting just like thousands of other tinpot companies within the sphere of tabletop games, video games and whatnot. Sure, GW has the size and capital to maybe try and force it down people's throats better than those other companies can, but... well, let's see how that works out.

For the Brits here, it reminds me of those 120 year old football clubs that goes bust and comes back as 'AFC Chester City 2009', or whatever. 120 years of legitimacy and "soul" has gone and needs to be re-accumulated from scratch.

Asmodios
06-11-2015, 05:30
If I played AoS I imagine I'd be fighting for the same exact things I fought/fight for in previous editions...whatever I personally decide to make it about. AoS is no different than the Old World when it comes to figuring out what is being fought for. I easily bent and broke the fluff to make it more interesting for myself and the people I played against. The premise that AoS somehow is terrible in this aspect is a problem that you, i.e. those individuals who feel, have. Not the setting. Not the game.

AoS has been around for how long...? So we obviously know how everything works inside and out!! Gimme a break. Maybe it's because I come from a background of pnpRPGS where we never needed someone to hold our hand and encouraged to create within our setting.

Other examples of games that do quite well without the need of 30 years of fluff to drip feed imagination into players...Frostgrave and Kings of War.

How about you give the game some time to expand instead of crying chicken little? I know that's a rational and intelligent way to handle it, that must mean it's crazy!


In regards to the passive player armies...well I played some of them and my view currently was the same then. I easily found ways to make my Tomb Kings and Lizardmen fight anywhere at any time across the globe. Whether it was just a PUG or a campaign.
Man you took a turn to negative town fast..... Deep breaths.... I think you missed the point of my post by a mile. My point isn't what or who I'm fighting but why. While the fluff isn't fully developed the lore has already taken a turn twords immortal/ undying/ infinite. The issue is why fight over something that is never ending? Why slay soldiers that can be brought back over and over? It's fine if you like that lore but try to describe it in a nice way and keep away from the personal attacks. I want to hear what people like and dislike about it. Share your view but don't go full keyboard warrior on us all, we are all friends here.

ShruikhanTK
06-11-2015, 07:15
I still think a world map shake up would've been a good fix, toss out the old world copy of our world and start in some fresh zones. Each race settling in a suitable landscape of course just different. There could still be ruins of this city and that city and old ones blah blah just totally mixed up that would be awesome. If they really...really wanted sigmarines....they come out of the polar warp gate to the south? or something chaos the north bam never ending war. This is like back of the napkin level thinking here and I think my own ideas sound way better than the crap they got.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 09:38
There's a lot of people claiming that we should give AoS more time to flesh out it's narrative etc.
But that's not the game or setting that GW is selling/providing now. What we have now is what's offered now.

Why are people expected to tag along with something they feel are unappealing just because it may someday become better?

That line of reasoning reminds me of all those crappy computer games people have started to sell as beta versions or early access on Steam greenlight and other places. No matter how buggy and incomplete they are it seems like there are always people coming out of the woodwork to tell how the game have potential and that it cannot be criticized before we see the finished product.

IMO, when you charge money for a product (which GW admittedly don't for the basic rules of the game but certanly for the background of the setting), then the product can certainly be evaluated in light of what it cost.

Most new systems grab new players that fall in love with the fluff in their core books - in fact many beloved systems had nothing but the core book for years before supplemental material was released.

I feel in love with WFB after reading the original core rulebook. Same with Battletech, Twilight 2000 and a host of others. Even KoW managed to tug at my imaginative juices after a read through. We already have a wealth of material out for AoS - more than a lot of systems have got throughout their entire history and we still know little about the universe. We don't even have basic details about many of the old main factions or a map of this new world.

There's Mantica - on pages 10 and 11 of the core rules :

222152

Nobody has a clue what the AoS universe looks like. People are advising players to use Planetscape and other systems maps as proxies to fill the blank the AoS universe consists of after half a dozen fluff books. AoS - the 'narrative game' you use other systems narrative for.

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 10:06
Are you saying that background books only become worth their price when they have 30 years worth of other books supporting them? I mean every game setting has to start somewhere, you realise there was a point 29.75 years ago when wfb was in the position that Age of Sigmar is in now right?

No, I'm pretty sure Warhammer Fantasy had a lot more meat to its setting from day one than Age of Sigmar has at this moment. A lot of fantasy settings, when first introduced, offer you tons of world information from the outset, because they want their customers to have an idea about what's going on in their game world.​ Never before have I seen a fantasy setting released which has been as bereft of even basic information about the world or the major players in that world as Age of Sigmar. You talk as if that were normal, but it's not. Age of Sigmar is far outside the boundaries of the norm for how lore is developed when new fantasy worlds are created, falling well below even the most minimal standard set by others.​

Dosiere
06-11-2015, 11:47
Are you saying that background books only become worth their price when they have 30 years worth of other books supporting them? I mean every game setting has to start somewhere, you realise there was a point 29.75 years ago when wfb was in the position that Age of Sigmar is in now right?

The problem isn't the amount of published material but rather how much substance there is to it. Have you purchased a few of the books? There is just not much in them, the first sourcebook for example didn't add much at all. It was essentially just an expanded white dwarf article + scenarios. GW pushed out quite a few books in a short time actually for AoS. Had they all been full of engaging fluff and background there would actually be a pretty solid base for the setting. But they're not and instead we get four hundred pictures of Sigmarines in various smiting poses with a blurb of text somewhere in a corner. The rest is just pictures of models. Pretty models for sure, but what AoS needs is fluff, expanded optional rules, great background, and characters in the setting you can fall in love with. I think that's the problem, not the age of the setting.

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 11:59
What I'd like to see is someone get the very first setting book for Warhammer Fantasy, Warmachine, Kings of War, and so on, and compare it to the entire published world material out there for Age of Sigmar. My guess is that each of them, in just that first initial outing, would outstrip Age of Sigmar for depth by a wide margin. For instance, I can't imagine any setting book which wouldn't have described all the major players in their world right from the outset, but here we are several months later and we still know next to nothing about Steamhead Duardin, Orruks, Aelfs, Fire Slayers, or even regular humanity! I have never encountered any fantasy game which presented its world in its very first book and which left so many question marks right off the bat, and I say this as both a lifelong miniature gamer and RPG gamer. Any other game, we'd already have a solid grasp of each of those factions, what they're about, where they live, what their kingdoms are, and would have a sense of their aesthetics through painted art or something else. After several months, however, Age of Sigmar has given us none of that. I still have no idea what even regular non-Chaos humans look like. What's their aesthetic? What do they dress like? What's their culture like? What's their level of technology? Etc.

As for why that is, I can think of two reasons for it:

1) GW's so obsessed over the idea of a 3rd party manufacturer getting miniatures out there first that they refuse to provide any visuals whatsoever of these factions to prevent it from happening. So no Steamhead Duardin art in order to avoid someone putting out a "Steampunk Dwarf" which looks a lot like the art.
2) Apparently the miniatures are designed independent of the fluff and rules guys, and only find out what's coming once it's made, painted, and placed on their table. So it's possible that when those books were being written, not even the rules/lore guys had any idea what those factions were like or what their aesthetics were, and only had the names to work with.

Either way, this definitely represents the most incompetent roll out of a setting that I've ever witnessed, and that includes the 4E Forgotten Realms rollout.

ScruffMan
06-11-2015, 12:10
The problem isn't the amount of published material but rather how much substance there is to it. Have you purchased a few of the books? There is just not much in them, the first sourcebook for example didn't add much at all. It was essentially just an expanded white dwarf article + scenarios. GW pushed out quite a few books in a short time actually for AoS. Had they all been full of engaging fluff and background there would actually be a pretty solid base for the setting. But they're not and instead we get four hundred pictures of Sigmarines in various smiting poses with a blurb of text somewhere in a corner. The rest is just pictures of models. Pretty models for sure, but what AoS needs is fluff, expanded optional rules, great background, and characters in the setting you can fall in love with. I think that's the problem, not the age of the setting.

Have you read, or even flicked through the first two books? That is not the case at all, the pages with a large picture and small box of text are rare and there aren't that many pics of models (for a GW publication). There is plenty of fluff, though largely based around the Stormcast and their first couple incursions at this point (unsurprisingly). For sure they could have fluffed it out more but these are largely campaign books for the battles and as such this is what it focusses on.

I get what everyone is saying and to some extent share the weariness but I have just noticed the first two books unfairly criticised now. They're actually pretty good if you give them a go.

Clewz
06-11-2015, 12:20
No, I'm pretty sure Warhammer Fantasy had a lot more meat to its setting from day one than Age of Sigmar has at this moment. A lot of fantasy settings, when first introduced, offer you tons of world information from the outset, because they want their customers to have an idea about what's going on in their game world.​ Never before have I seen a fantasy setting released which has been as bereft of even basic information about the world or the major players in that world as Age of Sigmar. You talk as if that were normal, but it's not. Age of Sigmar is far outside the boundaries of the norm for how lore is developed when new fantasy worlds are created, falling well below even the most minimal standard set by others.​

From what I remember of the 2nd edition book it had a beastiery and a brief setting of the world. The army book an white dwarf was where we had development of fluff. I personally think what AOS has given so far is definitely superior

Clewz
06-11-2015, 12:29
No, I'm pretty sure Warhammer Fantasy had a lot more meat to its setting from day one than Age of Sigmar has at this moment. A lot of fantasy settings, when first introduced, offer you tons of world information from the outset, because they want their customers to have an idea about what's going on in their game world.​ Never before have I seen a fantasy setting released which has been as bereft of even basic information about the world or the major players in that world as Age of Sigmar. You talk as if that were normal, but it's not. Age of Sigmar is far outside the boundaries of the norm for how lore is developed when new fantasy worlds are created, falling well below even the most minimal standard set by others.​

From what I remember of the 2nd edition book it had a beastiery and a brief setting of the world. The army book an white dwarf was where we had development of fluff. I personally think what AOS has given so far is definitely superior

akai
06-11-2015, 14:05
No, I'm pretty sure Warhammer Fantasy had a lot more meat to its setting from day one than Age of Sigmar has at this moment. A lot of fantasy settings, when first introduced, offer you tons of world information from the outset, because they want their customers to have an idea about what's going on in their game world.​ Never before have I seen a fantasy setting released which has been as bereft of even basic information about the world or the major players in that world as Age of Sigmar. You talk as if that were normal, but it's not. Age of Sigmar is far outside the boundaries of the norm for how lore is developed when new fantasy worlds are created, falling well below even the most minimal standard set by others.​

There was no old world map and timeline until second edition of Warhammer Fantasy. There was menfish in first edition though :D

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/lore-unboxing-warhammer-1st-edition.html

Vazalaar
06-11-2015, 14:10
From what I remember of the 2nd edition book it had a beastiery and a brief setting of the world. The army book an white dwarf was where we had development of fluff. I personally think what AOS has given so far is definitely superior

Exactly.

That's why I still haven't written of AoS completely. I am still curious how it will evolve.

Drakkar du Chaos
06-11-2015, 14:32
There was no old world map and timeline until second edition of Warhammer Fantasy. There was menfish in first edition though :D

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/lore-unboxing-warhammer-1st-edition.html

We are no more in the 80's with ten people working at GW. I expected more and better from them than what we got so far. I do not pay hundreds or even thousands of €€€€ for lazy work.

The_Real_Chris
06-11-2015, 14:39
Fight for this as a reward?

http://www.shapeways.com/product/LBFZ2QWKA/dead-war-hammer-and-stand?li=shop-results&optionId=57483585

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 14:42
We are no more in the 80's with ten people working at GW. I expected more and better from them than what we got so far. I do not pay hundreds or even thousands of €€€€ for lazy work.

....and the goalpost is moved again!

akai
06-11-2015, 14:48
We are no more in the 80's with ten people working at GW. I expected more and better from them than what we got so far. I do not pay hundreds or even thousands of €€€€ for lazy work.

Sure. My post is a direct reply to Buddy Bear's statement. You can spin it however you want.

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 14:52
Nope, there was less. That was surprising when I researched it. But you know what has more?

Every other fantasy game out there.

It's amazing, though, seeing how far some people will go to defend AOS, that they'll defend a setting which has the flimsiness of a cheap 1982 black and white booklet made by half-a-dozen people when the industry moved away from that a long, long time ago, and GW's lesser competitors are putting out fully cohesive worlds RIGHT IN THE FIRST BOOK! Warmachine didn't ask people to wait 30 years for decent fluff. It was there from the start.​ ​​Kings of War didn't ask people to wait 30 years for decent fluff. It was there from the start. But here we are with people who are so entrenched in their positions that they'll apparently defend to the death the idea that it's perfectly okay that GW has apparently learned nothing in the past 33 years of fantasy wargame design and that trotting out 1982 style miniature game design is perfect alright, when every single one of their competitors is doing better from page one.​

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 14:54
There was no old world map and timeline until second edition of Warhammer Fantasy. There was menfish in first edition though :D

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/lore-unboxing-warhammer-1st-edition.html

I do find it interesting that you respond to that post, and not the post where I state "What I'd like to see is someone get the very first setting book for Warhammer Fantasy, Warmachine, Kings of War, and so on."

So why did you ignore the question about comparing current AOS fluff to the fluff which was released for Warmachine, Kings of War, and other miniature games on the market in their very first books?

Soundwave
06-11-2015, 15:02
Nope, there was less. That was surprising when I researched it. But you know what has more?

Every other fantasy game out there.

It's amazing, though, seeing how far some people will go to defend AOS, that they'll defend a setting which has the flimsiness of a cheap 1982 black and white booklet made by half-a-dozen people when the industry moved away from that a long, long time ago, and GW's lesser competitors are putting out fully cohesive worlds RIGHT IN THE FIRST BOOK! Warmachine didn't ask people to wait 30 years for decent fluff. It was there from the start.​ ​​Kings of War didn't ask people to wait 30 years for decent fluff. It was there from the start. But here we are with people who are so entrenched in their positions that they'll apparently defend to the death the idea that it's perfectly okay that GW has apparently learned nothing in the past 33 years of fantasy wargame design and that trotting out 1982 style miniature game design is perfect alright, when every single one of their competitors is doing better from page one.​
It is a suprise this sort of thing happens when a games company fires or ala "lets" go of all of it's game design employees and army book and rules development teams.
No one left to write rules or design fluff/art/models with creativity...

akai
06-11-2015, 15:31
I do find it interesting that you respond to that post, and not the post where I state "What I'd like to see is someone get the very first setting book for Warhammer Fantasy, Warmachine, Kings of War, and so on."

So why did you ignore the question about comparing current AOS fluff to the fluff which was released for Warmachine, Kings of War, and other miniature games on the market in their very first books?

Usually, because I read top to bottom, left to right. I read your prior post and remember vaguely Warhammer 1st edition being slim in certain offerings. A quick search and I found the link needed to contradict an opinion. It was quick and fast. I saw nothing wrong with your following post inquiring "someone to get the very first setting book for Warhammer Fantasy, Warmachine, Kings of War, and so on" to compare to AoS. Did I not helped you in your inquiry by answering at least one portion of it? Or is it because that it contradicts your opinion that you have a problem with it? I have no agenda to persuade one to like Age of Sigmar or to hate it.

I am not familiar with the other miniature games you specifically stated and it will take more effort on my part to compare with AoS. They can and likely do have more fluff in them compared to AoS. As I have previously wrote, my opinion on the official AoS fluff is that its not that great.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 15:32
Nope, there was less. That was surprising when I researched it. But you know what has more?

Every other fantasy game out there.

It's amazing, though, seeing how far some people will go to defend AOS, that they'll defend a setting which has the flimsiness of a cheap 1982 black and white booklet made by half-a-dozen people when the industry moved away from that a long, long time ago, and GW's lesser competitors are putting out fully cohesive worlds RIGHT IN THE FIRST BOOK! Warmachine didn't ask people to wait 30 years for decent fluff. It was there from the start.​ ​​Kings of War didn't ask people to wait 30 years for decent fluff. It was there from the start. But here we are with people who are so entrenched in their positions that they'll apparently defend to the death the idea that it's perfectly okay that GW has apparently learned nothing in the past 33 years of fantasy wargame design and that trotting out 1982 style miniature game design is perfect alright, when every single one of their competitors is doing better from page one.​

It wasn't until the early Eighties that RPG and Tabletop games publishers realised that people wanted cohesive universes to play in. Players didn't have the time or even imagination to create a whole universe based on bare-bones rule systems - unlike the designers of these games who frequently had whole home-brew universes they'd been playing in for years.

The products that were successful in that period were ones that built a setting into their products. The first detailed settings became the big hits of that generation of games in their respective genres. WFB was among them. Most of these settings carry on to this very day sustained in good times and bad by the loyalty their detailed settings generated in fans.

Dosiere
06-11-2015, 15:38
Have you read, or even flicked through the first two books? That is not the case at all, the pages with a large picture and small box of text are rare and there aren't that many pics of models (for a GW publication). There is plenty of fluff, though largely based around the Stormcast and their first couple incursions at this point (unsurprisingly). For sure they could have fluffed it out more but these are largely campaign books for the battles and as such this is what it focusses on.

I get what everyone is saying and to some extent share the weariness but I have just noticed the first two books unfairly criticised now. They're actually pretty good if you give them a go.

I own the first one thank you. Payed not a small amount of money for it either, it's not like it was a free ebook or something, although it should have been. There are a few pages worth something and a nice map. That's it. Tons of pictures and very little text. If you count the little blurbs on most of the pages as content well ok, I see how it might seem interesting, but they're basically just captions for the pictures. I don't think it's unfair to say its incredibly light on content both for the game and the fluff. It has almost nothing in it you couldn't learn from the release white dwarf. The scenarios are its only saving grace, and those ARE well done and include in their descriptions more quality background and story hooks than the rest of the book combined.

I do not own the second book so I don't know about it. I did flip through the Stomrcast book and was not impressed though, although I did not check it out in detail. I have heard that the Khorne book was much better though.

Still, I reiterate that the problem is not one of breath but depth. It continues to be said by people that it just needs time and more releases. They've released more than enough printed and online material to have a nice setting and they just haven't delivered.

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 15:38
It wasn't until the early Eighties that RPG and Tabletop games publishers realised that people wanted cohesive universes to play in. Players didn't have the time or even imagination to create a whole universe based on bare-bones rule systems - unlike the designers of these games who frequently had whole home-brew universes they'd been playing in for years.

The products that were successful in that period were ones that built a setting into their products. The first detailed settings became the big hits of that generation of games in their respective genres. WFB was among them. Most of these settings carry on to this very day sustained in good times and bad by the loyalty their detailed settings generated in fans.

I'd forgotten, too, that at the time GW was just a company making miniatures, and didn't realize until later that they could sell more miniatures if there was a game attached to those miniatures. And then they realized they'd be more successful if there was a setting attached to the rules, and a year later they put out 2nd edition. This was a gradual process of evolving what constituted a fantasy miniature war game.

...and people are trumpeting that AOS reflects miniature war gaming before all that evolution occurred as if that were a good thing? :wtf:

Whatever the case, this isn't 1982. This is 2015. And Mantic, Privateer Press, and others aren't putting out flimsy black-and-white booklets with non-existent background, but fully realized worlds right off the bat. They didn't have to go through that process of evolution in their own game design because they learned it from GW's own history. So if every other miniature game company on the market was able to learn those lessons and incorporate them into their own game design when first creating their own system, why is 2015 Games Workshop incapable of also learning from those lessons?

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 16:04
Whatever the case, this isn't 1982. This is 2015. And Mantic, Privateer Press, and others aren't putting out flimsy black-and-white booklets with non-existent background, but fully realized worlds right off the bat.

Didn't KoW just put out their rulebook this year?
Have not KoW been selling minatures for a few years now?
I would hardly call that "right off the bat".

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 16:08
Didn't KoW just put out their rulebook this year?
Have not KoW been selling minatures for a few years now?
I would hardly call that "right off the bat".

They just put out a second edition. There was a first edition, and did it not have a fully realized setting detailed within it?

Drakkar du Chaos
06-11-2015, 16:12
It is a suprise this sort of thing happens when a games company fires or ala "lets" go of all of it's game design employees and army book and rules development teams.
No one left to write rules or design fluff/art/models with creativity...

I was saying the same thing in another thread. Thankfully Mantic seems to like to hire ex-GW, i will purchase their second edition soon.

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 16:17
They just put out a second edition. There was a first edition, and did it not have a fully realized setting detailed within it?

Ahh, I did not realize it was a second edition. I only started seeing anything about rules for KoW earlier this year. I had not seen anything about the previous edition.
I stand corrected, although cannot speak for the amount of fluff/lore in the 1st edition.

Spiney Norman
06-11-2015, 17:05
There's Mantica - on pages 10 and 11 of the core rules :

222152

Nobody has a clue what the AoS universe looks like. People are advising players to use Planetscape and other systems maps as proxies to fill the blank the AoS universe consists of after half a dozen fluff books. AoS - the 'narrative game' you use other systems narrative for.

Oh dear... the 'infant sea'... suddenly the brimstone peninsula and floating isles of shimmertarn don't seem to bad by comparison. I mean whoever came up with 'infant sea' must've been drunk or high or just plain taking the ****.

I wonder who decided to name the setting after the company, that seems either woefully uninspired or the height of arrogance, I can't decide which.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 17:19
Oh dear... the 'infant sea'... suddenly the brimstone peninsula and floating isles of shimmertarn don't seem to bad by comparison. I mean whoever came up with 'infant sea' must've been drunk or high or just plain taking the ****.

I wonder who decided to name the setting after the company, that seems either woefully uninspired or the height of arrogance, I can't decide which.

Infant sea is quite an interesting name with a history shadowing our own Mediterranean and North Sea both of which filled with water at a time humans roamed those parts of the world. They are some of our real life "Infant Seas".

We don't know what the seas are called in AoS - there's no map. We don't know anything about AoS - cultures, factions, cities, towns, rivers, mountains, even races. Apparently five big books isn't enough material to do even basic scene setting.

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 17:26
Infant sea is quite an interesting name with a history shadowing our own Mediterranean and North Sea both of which filled with water at a time humans roamed those parts of the world. They are some of our real life "Infant Seas".

We don't know what the seas are called in AoS - there's no map. We don't know anything about AoS - cultures, factions, cities, towns, rivers, mountains, even races. Apparently five big books isn't enough material to do even basic scene setting.
There are indeed maps, and there are indeed seas on those maps.
There are not maps of entire Realms, but there are plenty of maps. So far, each Realm that has been given Time of War rules has maps of portions of the Realm.
I cannot, off the top of my head, tell you any names of seas in AoS, but I can post such names once home from the office.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 17:35
There are indeed maps, and there are indeed seas on those maps.
There are not maps of entire Realms, but there are plenty of maps. So far, each Realm that has been given Time of War rules has maps of portions of the Realm.
I cannot, off the top of my head, tell you any names of seas in AoS, but I can post such names once home from the office.

Yeah there's no universe setting map. We've been told pages ago that their are local maps in some of the books. How local they are isn't clear as we have no way of knowing how these small maps fit into the world. It's a throw back to late 70's RPG design - where a well mapped castle or town might constitute the entire 'setting'.

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 17:40
So what you mean is, when you stated:

We don't know what the seas are called in AoS - there's no map. We don't know anything about AoS - cultures, factions, cities, towns, rivers, mountains, even races. Apparently five big books isn't enough material to do even basic scene setting.
You actually meant there are no "complete" maps of the Realms.
Funny how just 1 word being left out can completely change what you meant.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 17:50
I find reading the full thread is a help when contemplating context. In this case the discussion for most of the thread has been about the fluff backing up the setting. I'm not sure how the small tactical maps in some of the books - with nothing to place them in a greater context of the AoS universe - help expand the greater setting. Hence why we have posters recommending people use Planetscape and old D&D universe maps and not pointing to the small scale local maps in the books.

Baldindo
06-11-2015, 17:51
What are you fighting for in AOS?

Conciousness. Because I've played it twice now and fallen asleep on both occasions.

samael
06-11-2015, 17:52
Oh dear... the 'infant sea'... suddenly the brimstone peninsula and floating isles of shimmertarn don't seem to bad by comparison. I mean whoever came up with 'infant sea' must've been drunk or high or just plain taking the ****.

I wonder who decided to name the setting after the company, that seems either woefully uninspired or the height of arrogance, I can't decide which. let me enlighten you, " the infant sea" formed after the last huge war in which Winter got defeated. After that all magically, continent covering glaciers suddenly , and unnaturally quickly, melted , drowned huge pieces of land and formed this new " infant" sea. Not so stupid now? You're welcome.

And "Warhammer world" always struck me as the hight of brilliance........

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 17:55
I find reading the full thread is a help when contemplating context. In this case the discussion for most of the thread has been about the fluff backing up the setting. I'm not sure how the small tactical maps in some of the books - with nothing to place them in a greater context of the AoS universe - help expand the greater setting. Hence why we have posters recommending people use Planetscape and old D&D universe maps and not pointing to the small scale local maps in the books.
I am not saying it does help expand the greater setting.
All I did point out, is there are indeed maps, and some of those maps indeed have seas on them.
Let's not keep moving the goalposts everytime an answer is given.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 17:57
let me enlighten you, " the infant sea" formed after the last huge war in which Winter got defeated. After that all magically, continent covering glaciers suddenly , and unnaturally quickly, melted , drowned huge pieces of land and formed this new " infant" sea. Not so stupid now? You're welcome.


As I said kind of like what happened all around our own world when the last Ice-Age ended. Without the huge magical war of course. The Mediterranean and North Seas being examples close to home. As a side note such ancient knowledge is probably responsible for the flood myths that we see in most of our modern religions.

Ben
06-11-2015, 18:02
There is a map of the world for Age of Sigmar.

http://i.imgur.com/Mj7rDcI.jpg

Niall78
06-11-2015, 18:03
I am not saying it does help expand the greater setting.
All I did point out, is there are indeed maps, and some of those maps indeed have seas on them.
Let's not keep moving the goalposts everytime an answer is given.

So in the context of the discussion we are having about the universe setting fluff what is even the point of mentioning these maps?

They add nearly nothing to our understanding of the AoS universe. A setting where we don't even know who the major races are, where and how they live and what land they control.

Spiney Norman
06-11-2015, 18:05
let me enlighten you, " the infant sea" formed after the last huge war in which Winter got defeated. After that all magically, continent covering glaciers suddenly , and unnaturally quickly, melted , drowned huge pieces of land and formed this new " infant" sea. Not so stupid now? You're welcome.

And "Warhammer world" always struck me as the hight of brilliance........

I'm fairly sure it was never called the 'warhammer world' in the fluff, just as a way of referring to the world that was the setting for warhammer, at least I never remember any in-character references to 'the warhammer world', like most civilisations who haven't made contact with extra terrestrials 'the World' is generally sufficient.

Perhaps people aren't as sensitive to terrible puns as me, but infant-sea/infancy just seems utterly dreadful, it reminds me of a pub across town called the 'Packet Inn'. Personally I'd rather repititious blood/storm/thunder names over puns which are the lowest form of humour in my opinion.

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 18:09
So in the context of the discussion we are having about the universe setting fluff what is even the point of mentioning these maps?

They add nearly nothing to our understanding of the AoS universe. A setting where we don't even know who the major races are, where and how they live and what land they control.

The point was that your statement of there are no maps and no seas was a false statement.
Also, that in almost all of the debates, the "goalposts" are constantly moved to support an ideology.
Someone asks for examples, an example is given, and then discredited by changing the parameters that are acceptable.

For example, asking for evidence that earlier wargames had almost no fleshed out lore upon release.
An example is given about Warhammer 1st edition.
The example is discounted, by changing the parameters to say 1980's GW with only 10 employees does not count.

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 18:11
Perhaps people aren't as sensitive to terrible puns as me, but infant-sea/infancy just seems utterly dreadful, it reminds me of a pub across town called the 'Packet Inn'. Personally I'd rather repititious blood/storm/thunder names over puns which are the lowest form of humour in my opinion.

Funny enough, I just saw the other day the pun "Sheer Lunar Sea" instead of "Sheer Lunacy".

Drakkar du Chaos
06-11-2015, 18:33
Perhaps people aren't as sensitive to terrible puns as me, but infant-sea/infancy just seems utterly dreadful, it reminds me of a pub across town called the 'Packet Inn'. Personally I'd rather repititious blood/storm/thunder names over puns which are the lowest form of humour in my opinion.

The big problem about puns is not personal taste, if you like it or not, but the fact you cannot translate them. GW is publishing in English, French, Spanish, Italian and German. Puns lost their funny meaning once translated and sometimes the end result can be very weird.

On the other hand i do not like either the intensive use of blood/storm/thunder because these part are NOT translated anymore. Why ? Copyright...
Any combination of different language in the same sentence looks really bad. Especially when you are reading the FLUFF. Imagine you are reading some story about wood elves and at some point the author start putting in every sentence the Russian translation of "Treeman" in lieu of the regular English name, just because COPYRIGHT. Add to that the translator usually make a poor work with a lot of mistakes (because every translation is done at Nottingham now and they are not professionals anymore, thank you Kirby). GW is hated about that in non-English countries.

Dosiere
06-11-2015, 18:56
Oh dear... the 'infant sea'... suddenly the brimstone peninsula and floating isles of shimmertarn don't seem to bad by comparison. I mean whoever came up with 'infant sea' must've been drunk or high or just plain taking the ****.

I wonder who decided to name the setting after the company, that seems either woefully uninspired or the height of arrogance, I can't decide which.

Two wrongs don't make a right. AoS still has stupid names, sorry.

akai
06-11-2015, 19:04
So in the context of the discussion we are having about the universe setting fluff what is even the point of mentioning these maps?

They add nearly nothing to our understanding of the AoS universe. A setting where we don't even know who the major races are, where and how they live and what land they control.

I think the major races have been described in the 4 "grand alliances" which is basically all the old fantasy races with new names plus celestial Stormcast Eternals. As for detailed description of how they live and and what they control, the books lack information. According to a review of the Seraphon Battletome, its likely will not have the detailed information you want either. Generally, broad brush strokes of he said she said, leaving lots of room for the hobbyist to fill in.

Asmodios
06-11-2015, 19:06
Conciousness. Because I've played it twice now and fallen asleep on both occasions.
Got to admit this made me laugh lol

Niall78
06-11-2015, 19:11
The point was that your statement of there are no maps and no seas was a false statement.
Also, that in almost all of the debates, the "goalposts" are constantly moved to support an ideology.
Someone asks for examples, an example is given, and then discredited by changing the parameters that are acceptable.

For example, asking for evidence that earlier wargames had almost no fleshed out lore upon release.
An example is given about Warhammer 1st edition.
The example is discounted, by changing the parameters to say 1980's GW with only 10 employees does not count.

The goalposts certainly haven't moved. The premise of the debate is that for a new setting AoS hasn't been properly fleshed out. We are lacking the most basic of details about the setting - who inhabits it, what culture they have, what is there technology level, do they have kings or rulers, what geographically area do they control, what size are their cities, armies and general population levels.

We also know almost nothing about the physical setting. No maps apart from a few local maps. We now know there's a sea. It might be a big sea, a small sea, an inland lake or a river - we don't know. We just know somewhere - in the blank space that the AoS map consists of - there is a body of water. If the AoS universe was a massive jigsaw puzzle we'd now have the first tiny piece - a small named body of water - it doesn't really help us envisage what picture the puzzle makes when complete. All the other pieces are still missing - although maybe a few mountains are named on another local map.

Philhelm
06-11-2015, 19:11
Perhaps people aren't as sensitive to terrible puns as me, but infant-sea/infancy just seems utterly dreadful, it reminds me of a pub across town called the 'Packet Inn'. Personally I'd rather repititious blood/storm/thunder names over puns which are the lowest form of humour in my opinion.

You'd hate my idea for the world's first Mexican restaurant / Aztec-themed strip club. I call it, "The Nacho Tit Land." (Tenochtitlan)

The_Real_Chris
06-11-2015, 19:18
There is a map of the world for Age of Sigmar.

http://i.imgur.com/Mj7rDcI.jpg

Cool Ben what is that from?

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 19:27
The goalposts certainly haven't moved. The premise of the debate is that for a new setting AoS hasn't been properly fleshed out. We are lacking the most basic of details about the setting - who inhabits it, what culture they have, what is there technology level, do they have kings or rulers, what geographically area do they control, what size are their cities, armies and general population levels.

We also know almost nothing about the physical setting. No maps apart from a few local maps. We now know there's a sea. It might be a big sea, a small sea, an inland lake or a river - we don't know. We just know somewhere - in the blank space that the AoS map consists of - there is a body of water. If the AoS universe was a massive jigsaw puzzle we'd now have the first tiny piece - a small named body of water - it doesn't really help us envisage what picture the puzzle makes when complete. All the other pieces are still missing - although maybe a few mountains are named on another local map.

Ok, just the first map I went to, The Brimstone Pennisula, has the Vitrius Reach, which looks to be a large sea, if not an ocean. The Mordacious Sound looks to be part of a large ocean as well. Again, on just the first map I looked at. One of the maps of Ghyran has the Rotwater, which also looks to be a rather large inland sea.
Have you actually even seen the maps. Niall?
Also, the earlier linked image is not of the whole AoS world. It is of Sigmaron, just one city in the Realm of Azyr. It is the city built around the core of the Old World.

Of the 3 Realms that have been visited in the lore so far, they have described quite a bit of the setting, who inhabits them, etc.
Of course, only really those 3 Realms and Azyr though, the others have not been visited or described in the fluff much at all.

Actually read all the campaign books, and you will see that what you are claiming does not exist, actually does.

ik0ner
06-11-2015, 20:24
I found the brimstone peninsula, who lives there? Not many normal people I guess?

Niall78
06-11-2015, 20:27
Ok, just the first map I went to, The Brimstone Pennisula, has the Vitrius Reach, which looks to be a large sea, if not an ocean. The Mordacious Sound looks to be part of a large ocean as well. Again, on just the first map I looked at. One of the maps of Ghyran has the Rotwater, which also looks to be a rather large inland sea.
Have you actually even seen the maps. Niall?
Also, the earlier linked image is not of the whole AoS world. It is of Sigmaron, just one city in the Realm of Azyr. It is the city built around the core of the Old World.

Of the 3 Realms that have been visited in the lore so far, they have described quite a bit of the setting, who inhabits them, etc.
Of course, only really those 3 Realms and Azyr though, the others have not been visited or described in the fluff much at all.

Actually read all the campaign books, and you will see that what you are claiming does not exist, actually does.

Not sure what you are trying to say. You've just admitted most of the races or factions have not been fleshed out in the slightest. That is exactly what we are saying.

Pointing to a few areas named in the grossly expensive fluff books that nobody can fit into the setting map as it doesn't exist only reinforces the point that the setting is nearly completely blank months after release.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 20:31
I found the brimstone peninsula, who lives there? Not many normal people I guess?

That's the place surrounded by blank white space if I remember rightly. A blob of colour in a sea of blindness. A bit like the starting area when playing Command & Conquer. On such things are great narrative game settings built.

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 20:34
Not sure what you are trying to say. You've just admitted most of the races or factions have not been fleshed out in the slightest. That is exactly what we are saying.

Pointing to a few areas named in the grossly expensive fluff books that nobody can fit into the setting map as it doesn't exist only reinforces the point that the setting is nearly completely blank months after release.
And once again.....moving the goalposts.
You say there is "none".
I provide an example.
You now say there is "not much".
You do not have to read the books, but you cannot make claims about them if you have not read them.

Niall78
06-11-2015, 20:45
And once again.....moving the goalposts.
You say there is "none".
I provide an example.
You now say there is "not much".
You do not have to read the books, but you cannot make claims about them if you have not read them.

The goal posts have remained unmoved - the setting isn't set out in any kind of detail. Whole factions and races still have zero fluff. There's no world map. No faction over-view. We've near zero idea about setting geography or even a grand picture of this strange place as it sits in space. We know nothing about technology levels or societal structures within factions. We don't know if they have towns or cities, if they farm or trade. We know nearly nothing.

You've admitted that most factions aren't detailed but then pointed to some place names and small maps as some kind of refutation that the setting fluff is weak. Do you feel the setting was well defined in its core starter-set or rulebook? Do you feel it is well defined now after the release of numerous expensive fluff books?

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 20:59
You've admitted that most factions aren't detailed but then pointed to some place names and small maps as some kind of refutation that the setting fluff is weak. Do you feel the setting was well defined in its core starter-set or rulebook? Do you feel it is well defined now after the release of numerous expensive fluff books?

No. You are putting words in my mouth.
I pointed to place names and maps to refute your claim they did not exist.
That is all I have done.
You also cannot continue to claim this "we" stuff, since you have not even read the lore.

As for the original post:
Since I am playing Bloodbound and we are working through the scenarios in order, I am fighting to push the Stormcast out of the Realm of Fire, or at least keep them from gaining a solid foothold.
Soon, I will probably be playing the Stormcast side once we start in the Realm of Life, and my opponent will be playing skaven. At that point, I will be fighting to break through the skaven to find and contact Alarielle, in the Hidden Glade.

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 21:04
Tell us about the Aelfs. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Steamhead Duardin. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Orruks. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Ogors. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Humans. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names? He do they dress? What's their technological level?

Tell us about the Fire Slayers. Is there anything to know about them other than that they fight for ur-gold?

This all constitutes basic information for any setting.

akai
06-11-2015, 21:14
Niall78 - read the first post Choombatta posted in this forum topic. I am not him, but I don't think he is even really debating if AoS background is consider "adequately" fully fleshed out background. I myself don't think AoS is full of fluff that gives me a lot of detail. I think the AoS fluff overall is poor and lacking. But I am not going to write stuff up that is false or not truthful to support my opinion. I think, like me, he pointed out inconsistent sentences, misinformation, or exaggerations.


The point was that your statement of there are no maps and no seas was a false statement.
Also, that in almost all of the debates, the "goalposts" are constantly moved to support an ideology.
Someone asks for examples, an example is given, and then discredited by changing the parameters that are acceptable.

For example, asking for evidence that earlier wargames had almost no fleshed out lore upon release.
An example is given about Warhammer 1st edition.
The example is discounted, by changing the parameters to say 1980's GW with only 10 employees does not count.

Darth Alec
06-11-2015, 22:10
What government does the Aelfs have? Invent one. There is enough space for any sort of Aelf government, following any sort of god, in any sort of realm. That's probably the big idea as far as GW is concerned.

It's a bit too thin on the ground for my taste, but there's plenty of space for a great human kingdom with all the elements you want/need to fight over. It just hasn't been found/invented yet.

I know it's because they haven't released any actual Free People/Aelf/Duardin models yet, but there really should have been something. So far, the Stormcast are fighting for empty realms and shattered empires. And the fluff has really dropped the ball on the few free people interactions we've seen. But it's there, waiting for you to invent it or GW to put out models so they can write fluff about it.

Buddy Bear
06-11-2015, 22:16
So thus far we have a game where you not only need to come up with rules, apparently, but come up with a background as well?

Choombatta
06-11-2015, 22:21
So thus far we have a game where you not only need to come up with rules, apparently, but come up with a background as well?

Strange, we seem to be playing just fine without adding rules or coming up with rules or coming up with our own background.
We are finding justification for our battles without needing to deviate from the linear narrative of the campaign books.

Spiney Norman
06-11-2015, 23:01
What government does the Aelfs have? Invent one. There is enough space for any sort of Aelf government, following any sort of god, in any sort of realm. That's probably the big idea as far as GW is concerned.


Well we know they have a King called 'Malerion' which is suspected to be based rather heavily on Malekith, we also know Tyrion remains part of the story as a fairly important character and we know that they managed to kidnap Slaanesh. Other than that we know relatively little about the Aelfs other than the fact that most of the known aelf populations live in the realm of Azyr.

That's a bit more than we know about the duardin, which is basically nothing right now.

gd09garett
06-11-2015, 23:54
Are you saying that background books only become worth their price when they have 30 years worth of other books supporting them? I mean every game setting has to start somewhere, you realise there was a point 29.75 years ago when wfb was in the position that Age of Sigmar is in now right?

This isn't actual a valid argument because the entire landscape of gaming was different when the Old World first appeared. Think of WoW when it first came out- bad artwork, many flaws and bugs which were worked out over time. Any MMO released now though is not compared to WoW in those first days, but to WoW as it stands. Similarly AoS does not have to compete with the Warhammer as it was first released [or with the gaming scene as it was when Warhammer was first released] it has to compete in the gaming scene now which includes an Old World with 30 years of fluff.

The_Real_Chris
07-11-2015, 01:15
Strange, we seem to be playing just fine without adding rules or coming up with rules or coming up with our own background.
We are finding justification for our battles without needing to deviate from the linear narrative of the campaign books.

To be honest you must wonder at this point why play this game and not a different one that uses the same models? Have you tried many other fantasy games where you can use your stuff? Really there is a lot more fun to be had with things like God of battles.

Choombatta
07-11-2015, 01:48
To be honest you must wonder at this point why play this game and not a different one that uses the same models? Have you tried many other fantasy games where you can use your stuff? Really there is a lot more fun to be had with things like God of battles.

That is why I still have all my Realms of Chaos through 8th Edition books.

Kyriakin
07-11-2015, 04:26
What government does the Aelfs have? Invent one. There is enough space for any sort of Aelf government, following any sort of god, in any sort of realm. That's probably the big idea as far as GW is concerned.
This runs the risk of GW then fleshing out the Aelfs, or whoever, to such an extent that our own becomes incompatible with official cannon.

If I did a human faction, I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think there is any place for the little man amongst the mega battles of gods and daemons. As stated in my sig, nuts and bolts is not something I think we'll see in this new world, and GW has shown nothing to suggest otherwise.

So, if they are planning to flesh out the little guy, their obsessive secrecy will have been to their detriment again, as customers are not obliged to wait and are well within their rights to move on to other worlds and systems in the meantime. All GW needed to do a little description of each "new" faction and a map, but I guess they wanted everyone to buy SE and khorne now, rather than holding on for Aelfs, or whatever.

Coldhatred
07-11-2015, 06:32
That picture of Sig-halla looks like it was lifted straight from one of Blanche's folders for Warhammer 40,000. I can't dig it, mixing genres. Bah. To the answer the OP I am not going forward, but neither am I going back as even the Old World is soured for me now. I am not counting the new universe out, but I highly doubt I will like where it is going. Back to my historicals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Darth Alec
07-11-2015, 08:37
So thus far we have a game where you not only need to come up with rules, apparently, but come up with a background as well?

Both yes and no. You have to agree to some sort of comp (though out-of-the-box is technically possible). If you feel the need for a fluff setup, how hard is it to go "my host of knights want the artifact your duardin are hiding" and be done with it? It's an additional layer of abstraction, but not difficult. Though a few fleshed out, established kingdoms of various factions would be nice to have.


Well we know they have a King called 'Malerion' which is suspected to be based rather heavily on Malekith, we also know Tyrion remains part of the story as a fairly important character and we know that they managed to kidnap Slaanesh. Other than that we know relatively little about the Aelfs other than the fact that most of the known aelf populations live in the realm of Azyr.

Which still leaves room for minor "hidden" fiefdoms throughout the realms. You'll need a justification for why Tyrion/Teclis/Malerion can't find your elves (oh noes, the great tzeench fortress is hiding us", "the corruption of nurgle infects clouds our presence"), but other than that, there's room. Hopefully it will be a good day when GW gets around to the Slaanesh/Aelf story.


That's a bit more than we know about the duardin, which is basically nothing right now.

Isn't Grungni living in Azyr? I seem to recall him being instrumental in creating the Stormcast. There's also some significant duardin populations in Azyr. And plenty of abandoned Duardin hidey-holes that hint to likely hidden karaks. We also know about the fire-slayers looking for "ur-gold". If I was a betting man, the Steamhead Duardin probably aren't much different from the proper dwarfs. The Ghal Maraz novels describes them as one would have described the old world dwarfs. Or rather, Sigmar describes them in very similar terms. They don't actually find any.




This runs the risk of GW then fleshing out the Aelfs, or whoever, to such an extent that our own becomes incompatible with official cannon.

Which has always been a risk. Post Storm of Chaos fluff, for example. But there's significantly more room in the new worlds for self-made factions, and given the omnipresent reason/excuse of chaos, there's not really a ton of limits you need to put on yourself.


If I did a human faction, I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think there is any place for the little man amongst the mega battles of gods and daemons. As stated in my sig, nuts and bolts is not something I think we'll see in this new world, and GW has shown nothing to suggest otherwise.

There's room for little people, but the focus has clearly shifted towards massed armies and crazy settings. There's no reason you couldn't reenact the intro to the Lord of the Rings in the new setting, for example. Switch Sauron out for "Spikey Mcspikehead" and there's space for an Aelf/Human alliance fighting a last-ditch attack against the all-conquering evil. A scenario where one man and his broken sword makes all the difference. GW will likely focus on big stuff. It involves models on sale and is "cooler", but they are deliberately leaving room the little guy. In "Stormcast", the battle is fought to free a realm that was conquered within living memory. And there are several reports of battles and conquests had within the last year, involving organized free human factions.


So, if they are planning to flesh out the little guy, their obsessive secrecy will have been to their detriment again, as customers are not obliged to wait and are well within their rights to move on to other worlds and systems in the meantime. All GW needed to do a little description of each "new" faction and a map, but I guess they wanted everyone to buy SE and khorne now, rather than holding on for Aelfs, or whatever.

Agreed. GW seriously needs to give us some free people who haven't been murdered to death. Even a few short descriptions of "Vandus found the tribe of Ashy Mcstarvingson after beating Khul, they now ready themselves to fight alongside him" and similar would go a long way. GW's terrible decision to wait for the new model releases before letting any fluff out is making this stuff more difficult than it needs to be, but it's still not impossible.

GrandmasterWang
07-11-2015, 09:07
From the broad bit of background of AOS that i have read it seems as though each of the 9 realms is larger or at least comparable in size to the Warhammer world. This is why GW haven't done a 'map' of the whole Age of Sigmar setting.

What they have however done is show maps of certain areas which relate to certain battles.

I personally am fine with this approach even though i don't think much of the overall AOS background.

I honestly would take this over the 'Mantica' world map which i think is terrible.

As for the 'Infant Sea' which formed when 'Winter' was defeated.... what happened, did the Mantic armies defeat a season?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Drakkar du Chaos
07-11-2015, 09:47
It's kinda ironic to mock Mantic's fluff on an AoS thread.

Zywus
07-11-2015, 10:17
I honestly would take this over the 'Mantica' world map which i think is terrible.

As for the 'Infant Sea' which formed when 'Winter' was defeated.... what happened, did the Mantic armies defeat a season?
There was a goddess called Winter who started to freeze the world. She was eventually defeated by combined armies of several of Manticas major factions. This caused a lot of ice to melt and the world was flooded, creating the Infant sea. (presumably there is still seasonal winter in Mantica)

Personally I think "The Infant sea" is a great name. Probably even better than "The floating Islands of the Shimmertarn" but then, those islands will always hold a special place in my heart.:p

What's terrible about the Mantica world map anyway? It's basically faux-europe. Like WHFB was (although Warhammer mapped the whole globe). I could see someone thinking it's unoriginal or unimaginative, but terrible?

Buddy Bear
07-11-2015, 10:31
Nothing will ever beat the floating islands of the Shimmertarn. And blood geysers! How awesome are they? They're geysers... which squirt blood instead of water!

Khaines Wrath
07-11-2015, 11:14
I know its been said but it still boggles my mind that GW threw away such a rich world.

GrandmasterWang
07-11-2015, 11:53
It's kinda ironic to mock Mantic's fluff on an AoS thread.
I mock fluff i don't like in whichever form it takes [emoji1]

Nothing Mantic Games have done so far is as bad as Matt Ward's plebbing of the Primarch Mortarion in 40k/30k though.

Speaking of fluff the Hordes fluff is actually not too bad imo.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Bloodknight
07-11-2015, 11:59
I know its been said but it still boggles my mind that GW threw away such a rich world.

It's one of the dangers when people clamor for a moving timeline. At some point something really not nice is going to happen, as it did to lots of other game lores before (usually the attempt fails, just look at the junk the BT fluff became after 3050...). Which is why I personally prefer static settings. If I like one, nobody can disappoint me in the end.

As to original settings:

http://sarithus.deviantart.com/art/Map-of-Clichea-532220700

222204

narradisall
07-11-2015, 12:12
I like time lines that move but AoS was talking it from one extreme of being static to ending the timeline completely.

Static timelines tend to get dull and people move on to new things.

GrandmasterWang
07-11-2015, 12:12
There was a goddess called Winter who started to freeze the world. She was eventually defeated by combined armies of several of Manticas major factions. This caused a lot of ice to melt and the world was flooded, creating the Infant sea. (presumably there is still seasonal winter in Mantica)

Personally I think "The Infant sea" is a great name. Probably even better than "The floating Islands of the Shimmertarn" but then, those islands will always hold a special place in my heart.[emoji14]

What's terrible about the Mantica world map anyway? It's basically faux-europe. Like WHFB was (although Warhammer mapped the whole globe). I could see someone thinking it's unoriginal or unimaginative, but terrible?
Thanks for the Winter background for people to see. That's kind of what i mean about not liking the 'Mantica' world. I mean ... a goddess who freezes things.... called Winter. ... cmon.

Regarding the map. Firstly the faux Europe thing is just another reminder that Mantica is a poor mans Warhammer world/cheap imitation like their models (most, not all).

It's not really the map per say... it's the names. Infant sea... i don't like particularly but it's bearable.

"Elvenholme"... let me guess elves live there (the Sigmaronian naming is just as bad as this mind)

"Cwlgen"
"Wetgegerg"
"Valentica"
"Brokenwall islands"
"Hoch-man"
"Bitter lands"
"Diffetth"
"Deiw"
"Kolosu Mountain"
"Walldeep"

Etc etc etc i think are terrible. I'd honestly take "Shimmertarn" over any of the above.

That said I'd much rather Age of Sigmar attempted to compete with Mantic on price as opposed to terrible names. [emoji40]


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Khaines Wrath
07-11-2015, 12:48
It's one of the dangers when people clamor for a moving timeline. At some point something really not nice is going to happen, as it did to lots of other game lores before (usually the attempt fails, just look at the junk the BT fluff became after 3050...). Which is why I personally prefer static settings. If I like one, nobody can disappoint me in the end.

As to original settings:

http://sarithus.deviantart.com/art/Map-of-Clichea-532220700

222204

My issue wasn't so much how static the warhammer world could be but the fact that it could be thrown away.

World building is somewhat a hobby of mine, I hope to be a published author some day but I get a bit bogged down in writing detailed backgrounds. I have some settings that I've been tweaking and building on for nearly ten years. I love map building, drawing iconography, heraldy and concept art. Its a lot of work and time and passion to create something like the warhammer setting as it stood and I think its a tragedy it was wasted.

Zywus
07-11-2015, 12:53
I don't really think many of the names in Mantica or AoS is problematic in and of themselves. All made up names sounds rather silly when you first hear them, and especially if they have no connection to anything. I actually feel the critisism of the AoS names is kinda unfair, but then, the big fault of many of the AoS names is that it's just places somewhere that we are barely told anything about.

I suppose one might think that Elvenholme and Walldeep sound as silly as the Floating Islands of the Shimmertarn, but in the former exemples, there is actually backgrounds written about those places and we know where they're located geographically. We don't really know anything about the floating islands other than that they are islands, that float, and are located in or around The Shimmertarn (which we know nothing about).

The Mantica names generally gives off the feeling that they could have been named that by real people, had Mantica been the real world.

eron12
07-11-2015, 13:53
How is Elvenhome any worse than England or Scotland, Finland, or all the countries whose names are an ethnic group + stan. Or the non ethnic based Greenland and Iceland? Seems like it has a strong and sensible real world precedent.

Buddy Bear
07-11-2015, 13:54
I don't really think many of the names in Mantica or AoS is problematic in and of themselves. All made up names sounds rather silly when you first hear them, and especially if they have no connection to anything. I actually feel the critisism of the AoS names is kinda unfair, but then, the big fault of many of the AoS names is that it's just places somewhere that we are barely told anything about.

Well, this does sound pretty dumb:

"The grassy fields of Averland are a thing of the past. Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn, the ever-changing Eldritch Fortress and the blood-spewing geysers of the Igneous Delta."

GW insulting Averland, a place which looks and feel real, in favor of the over the top silliness described afterwards doesn't exactly make them sound any better. And really, why in the world are the geysers in the Igneous Delta spewing blood?!? Shouldn't they be spewing lava or magma? It's the "Igneous" Delta, not the "Sanguine" Delta. Age of Sigmar, as a setting, sounds like someone just threw a bunch of nonsense words together without any thought about how they all fit together. And they probably don't know how they all fit together, because there are no world maps, and they probably have no idea how these places are all situated in relation to each other, who lives in these places, or what's going on there. They're just spewing word salad without providing a context or background attached to these words.


I suppose one might think that Elvenholme and Walldeep sound as silly as the Floating Islands of the Shimmertarn, but in the former exemples, there is actually backgrounds written about those places and we know where they're located geographically. We don't really know anything about the floating islands other than that they are islands, that float, and are located in or around The Shimmertarn (which we know nothing about).

Honestly, it sounds more like sour grapes. The fact of the matter is that Mantica is depicted as a real and vibrant world with real people living in it, while the Mortal Realms are a horribly ill-defined place filled with people and places we know next to nothing about save for a couple instances of word salad spewed out on occasion. That in itself automatically makes it far superior to the setting depicted in Age of Sigmar. We still don't even know what non-Chaos humans are up to in this world, nevermind Aelfs, Orruks, Ogors, Steamhead Duardin, Fire Slayers, etc.

Is Kings of War the pinnacle of world building? I don't know, I haven't really gone in depth on it. I'm sure there are better fantasy game worlds are out there. But the point is, there is a world there, which is something Age of Sigmar can't legitimately claim to have.​


The Mantica names generally gives off the feeling that they could have been named that by real people, had Mantica been the real world.

Yep. One is designed to seem like a real place with real people populating it. The other has world building inferior to bad 1980's Saturday morning cartoons. The old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon had a more credible world than what Age of Sigmar has put out so far.

ScruffMan
07-11-2015, 15:31
Read the sourcebooks.

Niall78
08-11-2015, 08:16
It's one of the dangers when people clamor for a moving timeline. At some point something really not nice is going to happen, as it did to lots of other game lores before (usually the attempt fails, just look at the junk the BT fluff became after 3050...). Which is why I personally prefer static settings. If I like one, nobody can disappoint me in the end.

As to original settings:

http://sarithus.deviantart.com/art/Map-of-Clichea-532220700

222204

The fluff of Battletech and its moving time-line has been enough to sustain the setting for nearly thirty years.

Lethal Heritage was released in 1989 - so the 3050 Clan Era began four years into Battletechs nearly thirty year history.

That you think the proceeding twenty plus years of fluff was junk is an opinion you are entitled to hold but the survival of the line, the successes of the books, computer games and the continued publication of a moving time-line would put you in a small minority of fans. If anything it is 3025 reactionaries that would have killed the setting in the early Nineties through stagnation if they'd had their way. In fact a lot of 3025 or nothing fans are actually fans of the MadMax setting pushed in the first half dozen or so publications that were retconned substantially within a year of the original games release. No setting can stay fresh and expand while remaining in a permanent time stasis - especially a stasis that puts the setting into a position where all directions at growth are virtually impossible. Jordan Weisman realised this pretty quick once he wanted to further develop the Battletech setting.

Axel
08-11-2015, 11:02
There is no reason to fight, except to win and slaughter.

Played WFB since edition 2, and I still like that old hardcover more then any of the later rulebooks. I like the background, both in the army books and from BL. The historical background interwoven with fantasy were what hooked me in. My oldest regiments look back at more then 20 years of battles, and have seen splendid feats and utter routs (where any survivors deserve a decimation).

According to GW, thats done with.
Scrapping 30 years of background now is stupid (or rather. "STUPID!!"). I hope whoever made that decision gets fired and then they decide it was all just a dream (or p-world) and continue. Until that day WFB gets no money from me. Playing only the occasional old edition now, as the new background holds nothing of interest for me.

Bloodknight
08-11-2015, 19:43
The fluff of Battletech and its moving time-line has been enough to sustain the setting for nearly thirty years.

To be fair, the game went on life support somewhere in the late 90s. Yeah, they brought out stuff, but if you realize that the novels sold 1.5 million copies in German alone (actually the German version almost surpassed the English one in sales, that's how big it was here), but the popularity of the game faded massively (I blame the ****** miniatures and the WOB Jyhad...). With every year after 2000 it has become more and more difficult to get a game of BT in clubs in this country, and we used to have a club scene where several clubs had thousands of members (Nice Dice, Mechforce Germany and others). Now it's practically dead apart from a few islands, and the German Championship became a joke.

That's why Wizkids tried Clickytech (which was actually a lot more successful than CBT, assumptions go as far that for BT about 600.000 miniatures were produced, and for MWDA 7 million, but it worked only for a short while during the clickybase fad).
Today Catalyst assumes they have about 10K fans of which a quarter regularly buys stuff, as they said on their forums. TBH with 2500 regular customers it's a wonder that they can pay their staff.

Don't confuse people who play PC games with tabletop gamers there, since for the line development of the board game only people who buy the board game and the books count. Nobody cares about how much the licensee paid for the computer game license, Catalyst is not going to see anything of that, the license situation for BT is an absolute mess.

Anyway, that'what moving timelines can lead to, if you **** off enough of your customers with a design decision. A real heavy hitter vanishes into obscurity in a very short time.

Sadly, moving timelines are what most customers seem to want, but in the end they're rarely happy with what happens in the end because either nothing or something cataclysmic happens - in a universe with an end there cannot be major changes because dying factions in a miniature game leave people sitting on heaps of unusable stuff. BT avoids this by using mostly generic units that everybody has access to and in the end nothing really ever happens there either apart from changing names, but if, say, the Empire kills Ulthuan, what's with the HE players? The Warhammer world ended it a cataclysm because that was the only real way to advance the storyline and have actually something happening.
That said, in my experience, gamers are notoriously difficult when asked for feedback, because they often don't actually want what they tell you they want. A lot of ideas look really good on paper and explode instantly on contact with oxygen. ;)

Buddy Bear
08-11-2015, 19:47
There's a pretty big difference between a moving timeline and Age of Sigmar, though, which is essentially a wholly new universe. Sure, you can ask ten fans what they want to happen in an advancing timeline and get back eleven different answers, but I doubt a single one of those answers would have ever been "Blow up the planet and replace the setting with a cheap knockoff of the Norse nine realms." What happened with AOS had nothing to do with whatever the issues of advancing timelines are and is the result of a whole host of other issues unrelated to that.

Bloodknight
08-11-2015, 19:51
Sure, you can ask ten fans what they want to happen in an advancing timeline and get back eleven different answers

Make that fifteen, all mutually exclusive. ;).

Niall78
08-11-2015, 21:43
To be fair, the game went on life support somewhere in the late 90s. Yeah, they brought out stuff, but if you realize that the novels sold 1.5 million copies in German alone (actually the German version almost surpassed the English one in sales, that's how big it was here), but the popularity of the game faded massively (I blame the ****** miniatures and the WOB Jyhad...). With every year after 2000 it has become more and more difficult to get a game of BT in clubs in this country, and we used to have a club scene where several clubs had thousands of members (Nice Dice, Mechforce Germany and others). Now it's practically dead apart from a few islands, and the German Championship became a joke.

That's why Wizkids tried Clickytech (which was actually a lot more successful than CBT, assumptions go as far that for BT about 600.000 miniatures were produced, and for MWDA 7 million, but it worked only for a short while during the clickybase fad).
Today Catalyst assumes they have about 10K fans of which a quarter regularly buys stuff, as they said on their forums. TBH with 2500 regular customers it's a wonder that they can pay their staff.

Don't confuse people who play PC games with tabletop gamers there, since for the line development of the board game only people who buy the board game and the books count. Nobody cares about how much the licensee paid for the computer game license, Catalyst is not going to see anything of that, the license situation for BT is an absolute mess.

Anyway, that'what moving timelines can lead to, if you **** off enough of your customers with a design decision. A real heavy hitter vanishes into obscurity in a very short time.

Sadly, moving timelines are what most customers seem to want, but in the end they're rarely happy with what happens in the end because either nothing or something cataclysmic happens - in a universe with an end there cannot be major changes because dying factions in a miniature game leave people sitting on heaps of unusable stuff. BT avoids this by using mostly generic units that everybody has access to and in the end nothing really ever happens there either apart from changing names, but if, say, the Empire kills Ulthuan, what's with the HE players? The Warhammer world ended it a cataclysm because that was the only real way to advance the storyline and have actually something happening.
That said, in my experience, gamers are notoriously difficult when asked for feedback, because they often don't actually want what they tell you they want. A lot of ideas look really good on paper and explode instantly on contact with oxygen. ;)

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from. CGL has this to say : - "It is not Catalyst policy to disclose sales figures of any product, including those previously published by other BattleTech license holders."

I'd be interested to see the falling sales figures for Battletch if you have a link. As a fan I've never seen anything that would resemble sales figures for the FASA, FanPro or CGL eras. I'd also like a link to CGL's claim to having only 10K fans with 2500 purchasers.

Of course the expanding time-line of Battletech didn't fatally damage the Battletech line - to claim so is quite disingenuous. FASA is responsible for nearly killing the old line. The collectable card craze was undermining profits at FASA who saw their traditional big hitting RPG settings - both original and licensed - getting replaced in stores by these cards across the world. With this fall in profits company wide and the impending retirement of Mort Weisman - who understood the value of the IP - the still profitable company unexpectedly ceased active trading and its IP was stripped for maximum profits.

Battletech was sold to Jordan Weisman's new company WizKids who used it as a setting for his new Clickytech gaming system. The rights to the 'classic' game going to FanPro and then Catalyst Game Labs - neither of whom had the resources to grow the tabletop side of the game substantially - many people still think tabletop Battletech is dead due to the publishers inability to properly grow and advertise the IP. The licensing is as you say a mess as the IP was broken into many pieces to the maximum bidders with different rights going all over the place. This certainly doesn't help any mass resurgence of the tabletop game.

To claim such a disaster is the fault of moving time-lines in one of the companies IPs or to claim the Jihad story line - which hadn't been heard of before FASA shut its doors (the classic line finished with the FedCom Civil War story arc) is completely disingenuous. A rewriting of the history of FASA and Battletech on a massive scale to suit your narrative that moving time-lines kill games settings.

Bloodknight
08-11-2015, 23:41
I'd also like a link to CGL's claim to having only 10K fans with 2500 purchasers.


Do a search on bg.battletech.com. It's there.

As to sales, I can only quite sales of the novels. 1.5 million German language novels (that's about 25K per instalment, which is massive for a sci-fi IP here that isn't Star Trek or Star Wars. Most RPG-IP novels sell about 3000 per printing here). I'm quoting that from BattleTech: Die Welt des 31. Jahrhunderts, which is a BT encyclopaedia that, sadly, never made it into English. I think Sarna.net has an article about it.


FASA is responsible for nearly killing the old line.

That could be a US issue. FanPro did a lot for the game here, there are in fact a lot more German language products (novels, too) for BT than there were FASA products in English, the line also never got axed here for clickytech, they went parallelly. A lot of them were actually taken and included into newer English language products, particularly the supplements, we had a few excellent campaign books. Sadly, FanPro folded a while ago, the RPG market is kinda dead. They also were kind of a mom-and-pop shop with about 12 people working there, which seems to be quite average for companies in the games trade. I wonder how many people FASA had, but I doubt more than 50. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Realms of Arkania/The Dark Eye RPG world (Das Schwarze Auge), that game outsells all other RPGs here by quite a margin - had some issues with its timeline, though ;). About 15 people and a bunch of freelancers, that's it. I guess CGL is somewhere in that region, too. Because even with a lot more buyers (tbh I think the numbers they guessed on the forum must be too small), more people couldn't live off it. Some of my friends work in the RPG and freelance IP-novelization business, I know the margins. The FanPro boss once said in a seminar that they made about 2 Euro from a 15€ supplement.

Anyway: As I said, BT was massive (as in we matched roughly what the game made in the US, but with a quarter of the population) here, everybody played it and then bang, it got almost completely supplanted by 40K around 1995. (Keep in mind we got everything a bit later and it was basically pre-Internet, too. Basically once the Clans fully hit, the whole thing imploded ;)).

After talking to a lot of people I blame the fluff (most people did not like the Clans much, and the Jyhad and Dark Ages drove a lot of people away, too), the new tech rules (we usually play everything competitively and the later timelines take a lot of the skill out of the game and put it on the cluster table, so the competitve scene never accepted that) and, what's probably the most important thing: it looked like crap and was boring to watch for new people (although you can get everyone to play it in 20 minutes easily if only mechs are present, the basic system is still genius). And it still does.
The miniatures were never particularly good compared to the competition, but nowadays they sell you 30 year old sculpts where they actually removed details to make the moulds last longer. No kidding, check out the Dragon miniature...


edit: I'm going to look for that number for you as soon as they send me my login data. It's been a while, I forgot and it's not there yet.

Niall78
09-11-2015, 22:49
Do a search on bg.battletech.com. It's there.

I searched a good bit BloodKnight. I can't find it. All I could find was this repeated message when questions were asked about sales numbers throughout the history of BT : - "It is not Catalyst policy to disclose sales figures of any product, including those previously published by other BattleTech license holders."

As a fan since 1985 I'd love to see any links you have that disclose such information as historical of miniature sales totals or current fan-base or sales figures.


As to sales, I can only quite sales of the novels. 1.5 million German language novels (that's about 25K per instalment, which is massive for a sci-fi IP here that isn't Star Trek or Star Wars. Most RPG-IP novels sell about 3000 per printing here). I'm quoting that from BattleTech: Die Welt des 31. Jahrhunderts, which is a BT encyclopaedia that, sadly, never made it into English. I think Sarna.net has an article about it.

Novel sales were good and they were a main driver of the ongoing plot. The number of sales in Germany that you've given prove people must have been interested in the developing story of the universe - they bought the books. The dozens of different source books detailing the developing universe over a fifteen year period would also show that players were interested in the moving time-line - companies don't publish dozens of source books over two decades if they don't sell.

Of course the expanding time-line was also followed by the highly successful computer games that sucked many more players into the evolving universe. To say players wanted a static setting is to defy the fact that the expanding time-line created and sustained a highly successful IP for many years.



That could be a US issue. FanPro did a lot for the game here, there are in fact a lot more German language products (novels, too) for BT than there were FASA products in English, the line also never got axed here for clickytech, they went parallelly. A lot of them were actually taken and included into newer English language products, particularly the supplements, we had a few excellent campaign books. Sadly, FanPro folded a while ago, the RPG market is kinda dead. They also were kind of a mom-and-pop shop with about 12 people working there, which seems to be quite average for companies in the games trade. I wonder how many people FASA had, but I doubt more than 50. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Realms of Arkania/The Dark Eye RPG world (Das Schwarze Auge), that game outsells all other RPGs here by quite a margin - had some issues with its timeline, though ;). About 15 people and a bunch of freelancers, that's it. I guess CGL is somewhere in that region, too. Because even with a lot more buyers (tbh I think the numbers they guessed on the forum must be too small), more people couldn't live off it. Some of my friends work in the RPG and freelance IP-novelization business, I know the margins. The FanPro boss once said in a seminar that they made about 2 Euro from a 15€ supplement.

Anyway: As I said, BT was massive (as in we matched roughly what the game made in the US, but with a quarter of the population) here, everybody played it and then bang, it got almost completely supplanted by 40K around 1995. (Keep in mind we got everything a bit later and it was basically pre-Internet, too. Basically once the Clans fully hit, the whole thing imploded ;)).

Again this this runs counter to the history of FASA and Battletech.

In January 2001 FASA closed their doors while still profitable. The company as a whole that included multiple unique and licensed IPs had seen an industry wide drop in sales caused by the new collectable card craze - profits were down but the company was in good financial shape. The managing director and major shareholder - Mort Weisman - was retiring. He decided the unique IPs owned by FASA were more valuable than the company so liquidated the company and sold the IPs.

FASA interactive studio went to Microsoft - then developing the original Xbox - as they lacked the in-house talent to produce games for their new console. With it went the computer game rights to Battletech. Other IPs were scattered all over the place - games like ShadowRun, EarthDawn and Crimson Skies. Battletech went to Jordan Weisman and WizKids who advanced the time-line and set their new Clickytech gaming system in the universe - sales of the new system were very good even if it was hated by the original fans. Of course this made both Mort and Jordan very wealthy but had a catastrophic effect on the popular original game.

What happened to the very popular game that competed with 40K for years? Its fan-base was destroyed as it took a couple of years for small time licenser of the original game FanPro to start releasing new material. They found it impossible over their tenure of the licence to publish a new starter-set - always the new customers introduction to the game over the years. FanPro put out a large range of source-books proving that even with the turmoil caused by the closure of FASA their was still a market for Battletech. The next licenser - Catalyst Game Labs - are also small time. They eventually got a stater-set out in 2008 that won industry awards, sold out and wasn't seen again in print due to a range of daft problems for a couple of years. At least nowadays Battletech has an in-print and available introductory product. Source books and original fiction have been published throughout the Catalyst Game Labs period proving again that the expanding time-line is popular enough to publish dozens of titles over many years. The game however will never recover its former heights - it can't with the rights scattered all over the place, lack of capital in the licence holders and the fact that investing a lot in an IP you don't own is very dangerous for the license holder. Gaming history is full of rug-pulling by IP owners over the years.

Blaming any one story arc for what happened to Battletech ignores history. Both the history of the companies success using an advancing time-line for a decade and a half and the reasons for Battletechs 'failure'. When FASA was liquidated for massive payouts support for the game finished completely. All publishing creased for a few years. Many thought the line was dead - only continued in the Clickytech MechWarrior. An introductory box was unavailable for nearly ten years as the small licensees hadn't the resources to bring such a product to market. Neither could these licensees effectively market, distribute or promote the game. I don't blame them - they are small and cash poor - you can't expect promotion like FASA could manage on a tiny budget. The licensees also only have rights to the original game and the right to publish and evolve the time-line. They can't really cross-promote the game with miniature lines or the successful computer games.

Sorry for boring everybody with this tale of woe. Maybe there are small parallels with GW. Would GW ever liquidate valuable IPs like FASA to maximise profits when the time is ripe?

For those that wish - including myself sometimes - that GW would somehow go and the IPs be bought over by someone else? There is no guarantee what a new licenser will do with the IP - there is no guarantee of the original games continuing in a form we know. The new licenser will be trying to maximise the profits available for the IP. They mightn't see that in games that are comparable with the games we play today or played in the past. It might be the next Clickytech instead of an amazing new edition.



...........the new tech rules (we usually play everything competitively and the later timelines take a lot of the skill out of the game and put it on the cluster table, so the competitive scene never accepted that) and, what's probably the most important thing: it looked like crap and was boring to watch for new people (although you can get everyone to play it in 20 minutes easily if only mechs are present, the basic system is still genius). And it still does.

Don't they call 3025 play "introTech"? The basic game to teach new players before they move up the tech levels and learn how amazing tactically complex a game of Battletech can actually get. ;)

Bloodknight
10-11-2015, 07:58
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=27541.0

That's the thread.


The number of sales in Germany that you've given prove people must have been interested in the developing story of the universe - they bought the books.

Germans like Sci-Fi pulp. We've got a few novel series like Perry Rhodan that have been going on for 40 years. It's probably the reason why there is quite a series of BT novels that never made it into English, actually. I think the line is still being regularly published, but I don't know at the moment, I used to buy those for train rides and haven't been in a train since 2012 :).

They found it impossible over their tenure of the licence to publish a new starter-set - always the new customers introduction to the game over the years.
That's odd, I remember 4 versions of the starter set, albeit in German.

At least nowadays Battletech has an in-print and available introductory product
Is it in print? Last time I checked they couldn't source plastic miniatures for another print run, at least Ulisses couldn't. I wanted a box, but couldn't buy one and the current German publisher couldn't make one with IWM miniatures (which was suggested by the fan base to keep it running) due to licensing stuff, I believe.


Many thought the line was dead - only continued in the Clickytech MechWarrior.

That was a massive communication failure, I give you that, since MWDA was never supposed to be a replacement, but a parallel product.


The basic game to teach new players before they move up the tech levels and learn how amazing tactically complex a game of Battletech can actually get.

It gets amazingly complex, yes (which is cool for people who like that). More tactical...not so much. Stuff just dies faster and there is more emphasis on random rolls like 12+ point headcaps, pilot plinking and TACs.

Niall78
10-11-2015, 10:52
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=27541.0

That's the thread.

Ahh OK. I thought you had official figures for some of the numbers you were quoting. That's a Battletech forum administrator who admits all his figures are wild guesses and estimates.

There's no doubting MWDA was a massive hit. The closure of FASA was very well planned. It made Mort and Jordan Weisman a mountain of money. Unfortunately that opportunity to create such wealth badly damaged the original game in the process. It is a indicator to GW fans of what can happen to a successful game when the IP is monetised.


Germans like Sci-Fi pulp. We've got a few novel series like Perry Rhodan that have been going on for 40 years. It's probably the reason why there is quite a series of BT novels that never made it into English, actually. I think the line is still being regularly published, but I don't know at the moment, I used to buy those for train rides and haven't been in a train since 2012 :).

That's odd, I remember 4 versions of the starter set, albeit in German.

Is it in print? Last time I checked they couldn't source plastic miniatures for another print run, at least Ulisses couldn't. I wanted a box, but couldn't buy one and the current German publisher couldn't make one with IWM miniatures (which was suggested by the fan base to keep it running) due to licensing stuff, I believe.

FanPro never released a starter box-set. They simply didn't have the resources to do so. Thankfully an introductory box has been available fairly reliably since about 2011. The novels and a lot of the older source books are on sale as PDFs while all the stuff released in dead tree format by the current licensee is in print. The problem remains that the licensee is very small and hasn't a hope of ever really growing the game to its former heights or even getting it basic viability within the industry.


That was a massive communication failure, I give you that, since MWDA was never supposed to be a replacement, but a parallel product.

MWDA was supposed to be a dream match between an iconic setting and a new system for playing games that made playing them more user friendly. It achieved it goals and made a mountain of money. It burned brightly then burned out as the ClickyTech craze died and the MechWarrior game itself descended into a mess of terrible balance.

That the original game and its fan-base was sacrificed for this was "too bad, too sad". It is also interesting to note that Jordan Weisman dumped both MechWarrior and the rights to his ClicyTech system for maximum money just as the interest started to wane.



It gets amazingly complex, yes (which is cool for people who like that). More tactical...not so much. Stuff just dies faster and there is more emphasis on random rolls like 12+ point headcaps, pilot plinking and TACs.

Battletech at all tech levels of play is a highly tactical game. From the basic intro-tech 3025 game to high tech advanced play. As a long time Battletech player you'll know that randomness or luck have little part to play in deciding any battle. High skill players will often take intro tech against advanced tech or play Inner Sphere against Clan tech to challenge themselves and demonstrate that tactical skill always matters.

As a point of note - there is nothing stopping a player spamming low damage plinking weapons in 3025 play. In fact it is a more 'successful' one trick pony at lower tech levels - all those unprotected ammunition bins with no CASE. Of course a veteran will know putting your hopes in a 'sandblaster' force at any tech level is like building a house on quicksand and hoping it stays standing. It might work - maybe ........... ;)

Bloodknight
10-11-2015, 11:19
High skill players will often take intro tech against advanced tech or play Inner Sphere against Clan tech to challenge themselves

TBH I prefer intotech units against Clans. The bv ratio is just better than 3050s IS units because the XL engine gets IS units killed and IS-CASE is also quite worthless since you mostly end up with a mission kill when the engine blows, or a KO'd pilot. In the last game where I used a unit with CASE, the other guy taced me in the ammo from 18 hexes away in turn 2, the 4 tons of AC20 ammo in my Mackie blew up and that was it. To annoy me, it got salvaged by my opponent ;). Personally, I don't like to play against clans with IS units at all. Not because the clan stuff is overpowered (the CLPL and targeting computer are under-bv'd, but that's about it), but because it kinda sucks against IS tech unless you have a giant map and can play like a coward (warrior culture, seriously...). Clan vs Clan is much more interesting.


As a point of note - there is nothing stopping a player spamming low damage plinking weapons in 3025 play.
In most cases that means an SRM6 or two per unit. Not really a comparison to stuff like that 15-plink-Gauss oder LBX 10 or 20. I actually went back to introtech because I'm not a huge fan of relying on getting good Consciousness rolls. I'm one of those kickytech players, I like my emphasis on movement and physicals ;).

Niall78
10-11-2015, 11:30
I'm one of those kickytech players, I like my emphasis on movement and physicals ;).

Movement is key to Battletech at all tech levels. It is the key to becoming a very good player. Some players detour down the road of the camper as they are learning the game and never become dangerous players. Good technical and tactical movement in Battletech wins games nearly every time - especially in a fully blind BV balanced environment. You can of course build tailored forces against known opponents on pre-chosen maps that make camping forces more effective.

I'm an in your face player at all tech levels.

222328

That picture sums up my idea of our game. :)

Bloodknight
10-11-2015, 11:45
Yeah, blam. Love that artwork.

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread, guys.

Philhelm
10-11-2015, 19:29
Tell us about the Aelfs. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Steamhead Duardin. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Orruks. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Ogors. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names?

Tell us about the Humans. What's their government? What's their country called? Have they any rulers? If they do, what are their names? He do they dress? What's their technological level?

Tell us about the Fire Slayers. Is there anything to know about them other than that they fight for ur-gold?

This all constitutes basic information for any setting.

I made the mistake of purchasing the first AOS supplement, in an attempt to give the game a chance and out of curiosity for the new setting. Other than a brief blurb here and there, the core races have absolutely no background. The book has a lot of pictures, too many, in fact, but not much about the people. I know practically nothing about the normal humans accept that they live in some city in the sky and are eaten by Chaos Marauders. It's insane that they'd launch a new game with such a lack of background.

Drakkar du Chaos
10-11-2015, 19:59
I made the mistake of purchasing the first AOS supplement, in an attempt to give the game a chance and out of curiosity for the new setting. Other than a brief blurb here and there, the core races have absolutely no background. The book has a lot of pictures, too many, in fact, but not much about the people. I know practically nothing about the normal humans accept that they live in some city in the sky and are eaten by Chaos Marauders. It's insane that they'd launch a new game with such a lack of background.

At GW, lack of information = hype. They are the only ones to act like that on the market, still it seems normal to them.

Buddy Bear
10-11-2015, 20:05
I made the mistake of purchasing the first AOS supplement, in an attempt to give the game a chance and out of curiosity for the new setting. Other than a brief blurb here and there, the core races have absolutely no background. The book has a lot of pictures, too many, in fact, but not much about the people. I know practically nothing about the normal humans accept that they live in some city in the sky and are eaten by Chaos Marauders. It's insane that they'd launch a new game with such a lack of background.

Thank you for informing us. It's nice to see that someone answered my questions... although given the answer, I guess I can see why someone might want to avoid answering my questions in the first place.

akai
11-11-2015, 05:54
Thank you for informing us. It's nice to see that someone answered my questions... although given the answer, I guess I can see why someone might want to avoid answering my questions in the first place.

in a reply I wrote 12 posts before your 20+ questions post, I answered most of them with just one sentence :D. Would have save you some time...I will re-post and bold it just for you...and you are very welcome that I helped inform you! :P Oh, the exile Aelves roaming around the mortal realms serve Malerion. I hope you appreciate that I took some extra time just for you.


I think the major races have been described in the 4 "grand alliances" which is basically all the old fantasy races with new names plus celestial Stormcast Eternals. As for detailed description of how they live and and what they control, the books lack information. According to a review of the Seraphon Battletome, its likely will not have the detailed information you want either. Generally, broad brush strokes of he said she said, leaving lots of room for the hobbyist to fill in.

Now since you think it is so nice for people to answer your questions, would you be so kind to answer my questions that I directed specifically to you earlier? I will try to make it easier for you and bold those questions for you.


Usually, because I read top to bottom, left to right. I read your prior post and remember vaguely Warhammer 1st edition being slim in certain offerings. A quick search and I found the link needed to contradict an opinion. It was quick and fast. I saw nothing wrong with your following post inquiring "someone to get the very first setting book for Warhammer Fantasy, Warmachine, Kings of War, and so on" to compare to AoS. Did I not helped you in your inquiry by answering at least one portion of it? Or is it because that it contradicts your opinion that you have a problem with it? I have no agenda to persuade one to like Age of Sigmar or to hate it.

Grey Hunter 88
11-11-2015, 18:38
Perhaps people aren't as sensitive to terrible puns as me, but infant-sea/infancy just seems utterly dreadful, it reminds me of a pub across town called the 'Packet Inn'. Personally I'd rather repititious blood/storm/thunder names over puns which are the lowest form of humour in my opinion.

Then you must absolutely hate that the new leader of the elves is just Male-kith and Ty-rion with their names combined.

Spiney Norman
11-11-2015, 19:59
Then you must absolutely hate that the new leader of the elves is just Male-kith and Ty-rion with their names combined.

Well that's not exactly a pun, plus I think it's far more likely that 'Malerion' is actually a conflation of 'Malekith' and 'Aenarion' (or something-else-rion) since Tyrion has featured in the AoS background as a separate character, he has definitely not been combined with Malekith.

It's one of many AoS mysteries I'm waiting for the answer of as the background unfolds.

Grey Hunter 88
11-11-2015, 20:14
Well that's not exactly a pun, plus I think it's far more likely that 'Malerion' is actually a conflation of 'Malekith' and 'Aenarion' (or something-else-rion) since Tyrion has featured in the AoS background as a separate character, he has definitely not been combined with Malekith.

It's one of many AoS mysteries I'm waiting for the answer of as the background unfolds.

Fair enough. While it's not a pun, it still struck me as pretty lazy word-smithing. It reminds me of Brangelina and the like.

Though I will concede that I had completely forgotten how many -Ions existed amongst the elves. Aenarion, Eltharion, etc.

Darth Alec
12-11-2015, 07:38
The more important reason for the Malekith -> Malerion change is that Malekith is an old Marvel character, whilst Malerion is less prominently featured in fiction.

But his new fluff seems very interesting.

Captain Marius
12-11-2015, 19:48
Im sure it states that Malerion is so named because he is a fusion of Malekith and his dragon Seraphon. Cue a model that will be even more bonkers awesome than the new Archaon!

On not having enough fluff yet, does it teally matter? Im enjoying playing the AoS rules in the End Times setting, and once my various armies get fleshed out, like the Seraphon just did, im sure ill be happy setting games in the mortal realms.

Kherith
12-11-2015, 21:26
Im sure it states that Malerion is so named because he is a fusion of Malekith and his dragon Seraphon. Cue a model that will be even more bonkers awesome than the new Archaon!

On not having enough fluff yet, does it teally matter? Im enjoying playing the AoS rules in the End Times setting, and once my various armies get fleshed out, like the Seraphon just did, im sure ill be happy setting games in the mortal realms.

The prospect of an awesome model for Lawful Evil God-Dragon-Elf-King-ShadowDaemon-UberMalky is the reason £100 is currently sitting in my plastic crack piggy bank and will remain so until further notice.

If I get this one model out of AoS I'll be a happy Dark Elf player :D

MLP
12-11-2015, 22:39
On not having enough fluff yet, does it teally matter? Im enjoying playing the AoS rules in the End Times setting, and once my various armies get fleshed out, like the Seraphon just did, im sure ill be happy setting games in the mortal realms.

Exactly, does it really matter? Nearly everyone I ever saw, spoke to, read about either in pick up or club games in 8th ed played a tournament style pitched battle with no care of fluff in their minds.

Where have all these fluff gamers suddenly come from?! I honestly feel like people just need something to pick at.

I think the problem is with modern games and technology is that everyone expects everything to be done for them. No one has the mindset to imagine their own scenarios or army fluff any more.

Who cares what fluff is or isn't written about in the books released so far, just use your own damn imagination!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Asmodios
12-11-2015, 23:48
Exactly, does it really matter? Nearly everyone I ever saw, spoke to, read about either in pick up or club games in 8th ed played a tournament style pitched battle with no care of fluff in their minds.

Where have all these fluff gamers suddenly come from?! I honestly feel like people just need something to pick at.

I think the problem is with modern games and technology is that everyone expects everything to be done for them. No one has the mindset to imagine their own scenarios or army fluff any more.

Who cares what fluff is or isn't written about in the books released so far, just use your own damn imagination!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think your way off base thinking that nobody cared about fluff and that people are being lazy if they don't forge their own fluff by using their "own damn imagination". While most players i have met at tournaments wouldn't just start going off about their armies story out of the blue, if you asked them they almost all had a back story in mind for their army. While yes i could show up and just be playing in my own fictional world, part of the enjoyment was being immersed into a world with your opponent. Why am i lazy if i want to base my army in the warhammer world? Why does GW even bother making lore behind an army if ever player could just come up with their own lore? The poster you responded to said he's playing in the end times setting and is waiting for other armies to "get fleshed out" before he moves his lore forward. Why is he waiting for GW to forge a narrative? Does that make him lazy?

You want to say people just "need something to pick at" but it sounds more like you feel the need to defend AOS against peoples opinions. Judging how my thread is up to 8 pages it seems like lore is important to most people on warseer who play/played Warhammer. Don't discredit everyones opinion because you feel that playing a pitched battle and caring about the setting is mutually exclusive. Lots of people who like AOS have issues with this new eternal war style setting, others love the change. IF you don't think it matters what fluff has been released or will be, you are in the wrong thread.

Spiney Norman
13-11-2015, 00:28
I think your way off base thinking that nobody cared about fluff and that people are being lazy if they don't forge their own fluff by using their "own damn imagination". While most players i have met at tournaments wouldn't just start going off about their armies story out of the blue, if you asked them they almost all had a back story in mind for their army. While yes i could show up and just be playing in my own fictional world, part of the enjoyment was being immersed into a world with your opponent. Why am i lazy if i want to base my army in the warhammer world? Why does GW even bother making lore behind an army if ever player could just come up with their own lore? The poster you responded to said he's playing in the end times setting and is waiting for other armies to "get fleshed out" before he moves his lore forward. Why is he waiting for GW to forge a narrative? Does that make him lazy?

You want to say people just "need something to pick at" but it sounds more like you feel the need to defend AOS against peoples opinions. Judging how my thread is up to 8 pages it seems like lore is important to most people on warseer who play/played Warhammer. Don't discredit everyones opinion because you feel that playing a pitched battle and caring about the setting is mutually exclusive. Lots of people who like AOS have issues with this new eternal war style setting, others love the change. IF you don't think it matters what fluff has been released or will be, you are in the wrong thread.

I think the point that he is making is that you can play AoS set in any setting you want, or none and that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to how the game goes. It's a fair assessment in my experience that very few warhammer fantasy players in 8th edition and earlier played anything other than a tournament standard, Points matched, pitched battle which had precisely zero relation to the setting.

If you loved the old wfb setting so much - guess what? AoS works really well in that setting because you have full rules for every warhammer fantasy model downloadable for free, if you like the bits of the new AoS setting that have been described so far, you can set your games there too. You can even expand on what GW has already done and flesh out the mortal realms in your own head if you want to. Or alternatively if you don't like any of that you could set your games in a fantasy world of your own devising, or in middle earth, or in the forgotten realms for all the difference it makes.

Criticising someone for enjoying a war game on the grounds that the setting hasn't been fully developed makes little sense in real terms, it's fairly common practice in RPGs for example to set your games in whatever setting you like even if the game has a well developed setting. For example I've played probably hundreds of D&D adventures in my time, but we've never set them in the forgotten realms.

Shifte
13-11-2015, 00:30
Fluff, Gameplay, Hobbying.

Those are the three pillars of the game. We all rank them differently. For me it goes: Fluff ---> Gameplay ----------> Hobbying. The first two are a lot more crucial to me. Some people care less about the fluff and more about the painting, for example, which is fair enough.

I happen to really hate AOS fluff. I think it lacks depth, everything is over the top and there seems to be nothing at stake. For example, Sigmar holes himself up for 10,000 years and... er, nothing happens. People still existed. The world didn't get consumed in warp again. So, evidently, we don't need Sigmar and his Sigmarsmen from Sigmarsheim, etc. There is no urgency and no 'meta narrative'. I also cannot stand how many times the word 'storm' is used to describe that lot. Warstorm, Mr Bladestorm, Stormcast Eternals landing amidst the Storm. WE GET IT FFS. :p The Khorne guys have a similar problem with blood.

I guess you could say that I'd rather have pretty simple names like Men-at-Arms than adjective/noun heavy descriptive names like Bloodtide Goremongers (making up an example to lazily emphasize the point, not mock).

Tyberos
13-11-2015, 00:35
What are you fighting for in AOS

Tuna fish sandwiches?

Khaines Wrath
13-11-2015, 03:28
I agree with Shifte.

For me it was always 1. Fluff 2. Game 3. Hobby.

The fluff inspires me to play the game and the game has to be fun for me invest time in the hobby.

Asmodios
13-11-2015, 03:50
I think the point that he is making is that you can play AoS set in any setting you want, or none and that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to how the game goes. It's a fair assessment in my experience that very few warhammer fantasy players in 8th edition and earlier played anything other than a tournament standard, Points matched, pitched battle which had precisely zero relation to the setting.

If you loved the old wfb setting so much - guess what? AoS works really well in that setting because you have full rules for every warhammer fantasy model downloadable for free, if you like the bits of the new AoS setting that have been described so far, you can set your games there too. You can even expand on what GW has already done and flesh out the mortal realms in your own head if you want to. Or alternatively if you don't like any of that you could set your games in a fantasy world of your own devising, or in middle earth, or in the forgotten realms for all the difference it makes.

Criticising someone for enjoying a war game on the grounds that the setting hasn't been fully developed makes little sense in real terms, it's fairly common practice in RPGs for example to set your games in whatever setting you like even if the game has a well developed setting. For example I've played probably hundreds of D&D adventures in my time, but we've never set them in the forgotten realms.
See now you missed my point in your over enthusiastic attempt to defend the previous poster. I get the fact that I can apply whfb fluff to any game I want......... But that isn't an attractive idea to me (or a lot of other people). I never criticized the previous poster for "enjoying a war game on the grounds that the setting haven't fully developed". What I criticized was the idea that fluff dosent matter because you can apply whfb fluff to any game system. With that line of reasoning I should just use chess rules with my goblins because the rules for that game are fantastic and I can just use whfb fluff..... Many people don't want to play AOS Because they want to immerse themselves into a supported universe. The entire point of the thread is if the AOS universe is hampering you from playing the game. If AOS had the best rules ever but the background never developed past anything but (infinite army x clashes with eternal army y for all eternity, they battle for a never ending plane of exists acne is starting to heat up) I wouldn't be able to stay attached to the game for any significant time. I'm curious to hear from people that like the AOS setting, but arguing that my post is invalid because I can just use unsupported whfb lore fore the rest of my life, is a poor argument.

Holier Than Thou
13-11-2015, 07:50
I think the point is people are defending AOS by saying, in a roundabout fashion, don't play it.

Example - you don't like the fluff, use the WHFB fluff or make your own. The rules as written suck, use one of many player-made comps. What is the actual appeal of AOS if the only way to defend it is to say "play something completely different but call it AOS anyway."?

Captain Marius
13-11-2015, 07:53
The thing is the background IS developing, a it at a time. I gave it a few months before making my first AoS purchase - the Bloodbound book which I thoroughly enjoyed - to see where things were heading. If the current state of the fluff really is an issue then i suggest having a break for six months or a year before having another look. Of course Gw may lose customers in the meantime, but I think that still beats rushing out a load of half baked fluff at launch for factions that may not even continue to exist in thte same form. Personally im enjoying the hints for upcoming stuff as they introduce Tzeentch warriors, Mannfred and his Skellies, and various Skaven in the fluff books!

Spiney Norman
13-11-2015, 08:06
I think the point is people are defending AOS by saying, in a roundabout fashion, don't play it.

Example - you don't like the fluff, use the WHFB fluff or make your own. The rules as written suck, use one of many player-made comps. What is the actual appeal of AOS if the only way to defend it is to say "play something completely different but call it AOS anyway."?

Well if you don't like the fluff, the rules or the models you've probably got no reason at all for playing it ;)

On the other hand if you like any one of those things sufficiently to want to give it a go it is easy enough to tweak the others into something you like. Personally I like the AoS Khorne models so I'm making an army of them, there are also a lot of things I like about the way the game plays, the fluidity and pace of its gameplay and the easy-going, cooperative mentality it encourages. There might be a few things about the rules I want to tweak slightly and I might find the present state of the background a little under-developed so I'll set my games in a setting more to my liking.

And for the record I'm not telling you you should go and play AoS, all I'm doing is explaining why I play it and enjoy doing so.

Kherith
13-11-2015, 08:57
I think my issue with AoS background is that at the moment is very limited and Stormcast focused and it's also indicative of a poor launch strategy.

Think about all the brand new fluff that was produced for the End Times in the big books and novels. I know it wasn't perfect and it certainly wasn't to everyone's taste, but by sheer volume it dwarfs the AoS fluff. All that effort on fluff that was getting chucked out with baby and bathwater in the space of a year.

Why didn't they have as much prepped for AoS? Why not give every army a bit of the spotlight? Why not set the scene?

I mean seriously these people have been working with a fantasy product for years do they not get why practically every other fantasy book, video game, RPG etc has a ********** map!

People like fantasy in part because you can escape the real world and immerse yourself in a different world. Knowing little more than a few basic facts about most of the fantasy world doesn't help people immerse.

They get bored and find something better. How many hours of work have they put in to AoS and they couldn't manage one decent "world" map???

There are good reasons why the BRB had the world map and the army books had local maps for each faction.

The whole thing just could have been done so much better. If AoS had come out with the same amount of fluff as end times up front it would have been way more developed. It might not be to everyone's taste but at least there wouldn't be a yawning chasm where 80%+ of the factions are sat waiting for someone to throw them a bone.

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 09:08
On the other hand if you like any one of those things sufficiently to want to give it a go it is easy enough to tweak the others into something you like. Personally I like the AoS Khorne models so I'm making an army of them, there are also a lot of things I like about the way the game plays, the fluidity and pace of its gameplay and the easy-going, cooperative mentality it encourages. There might be a few things about the rules I want to tweak slightly and I might find the present state of the background a little under-developed so I'll set my games in a setting more to my liking.

AOS does not work at all without playing cooperatively instead of competitively. That is not the same thing as encouraging a cooperative mentality.

Note: I am talking about AOS, not AOS+<insert arbitrary comp system here>


My problem with AOS is that you pay a premium price for a product only to be told afterwards:
'of course the rules are not complete. Its a revolutionary new product. They are made in a way that you write most of them yourself every time you play.'
'Of course the fluff is not complete. But why do you want fluff? Do it yourself.'
'Of course we are selling fluff books. There is no real fluff in there? What do you expect? Do it yourself. But while you wait, why don't you preorder our next fluff book. Of course we had to raise the price.'
'Of course we don't release new models for LM. Who told you AOS is a completely new product? We don't want to invest money, you know.'

I can only speak for myself but I don't want to buy a product like that nor do I want to encourage anyone to support a company that does business like that. And while I started pretty much neutral towards AOS I am now at a point where I cannot understand defending AOS as a product anymore.
I don't blame anyone for enjoying the game. I like many things that are probably garbage in most people's eyes but I would never try to defend those things as being the best things since sliced bread.

Spiney Norman
13-11-2015, 09:32
I think my issue with AoS background is that at the moment is very limited and Stormcast focused and it's also indicative of a poor launch strategy.

Think about all the brand new fluff that was produced for the End Times in the big books and novels. I know it wasn't perfect and it certainly wasn't to everyone's taste, but by sheer volume it dwarfs the AoS fluff. All that effort on fluff that was getting chucked out with baby and bathwater in the space of a year.

Why didn't they have as much prepped for AoS? Why not give every army a bit of the spotlight? Why not set the scene?

I suspect that is quite easy to answer if you've been following GW for the last five to ten years. Their legal battle with chapterhouse demonstrated to them that they can't stop other companies from producing models based on their worlds if they haven't made that model first. As much as it sucks, the culture of secrecy that has made their release schedule so infuriating over the last few years is probably also what is behind the limited scope of the AoS fluff. I suspect they don't want to give away much information on the game's factions before they release the models for them to avoid parasitic companies like chapterhouse from jumping in and making AoS aelf models before GW get a chance to release theirs.

Of course as its turned out the popularity of the game probably isn't strong enough to make that a problem, but these products (and the policies behind them) would've been commissioned a long time before the AoS sales figures started rolling in.


I mean seriously these people have been working with a fantasy product for years do they not get why practically every other fantasy book, video game, RPG etc has a ********** map!

People like fantasy in part because you can escape the real world and immerse yourself in a different world. Knowing little more than a few basic facts about most of the fantasy world doesn't help people immerse.

They get bored and find something better. How many hours of work have they put in to AoS and they couldn't manage one decent "world" map???

There are good reasons why the BRB had the world map and the army books had local maps for watch faction.

I think a map of the whole setting might be quite a difficult to achieve, since we seem to have nine concurrent 'dimensions' each covering a vast area. I agree it would be nice to have some maps to look at, even if it was one of the realms would be nice for the sake of context, but it seems that initially they want to concentrate on the ongoing narrative of the story they're developing with the stormcast's war against chaos and are focusing on those battles rather than what is going on everywhere in all the nine realms.



I don't blame anyone for enjoying the game. I like many things that are probably garbage in most people's eyes but I would never try to defend those things as being the best things since sliced bread.

Well that's good because I've nowhere tried to argue that AoS was the best thing since sliced bread, nor even the best wargame on the market, like every product GW (and any other game company) have released in the last 30 years, AoS is far from perfect, but I feel it offers enough to justify its place at the table.

MLP
13-11-2015, 11:18
I think your way off base thinking that nobody cared about fluff and that people are being lazy if they don't forge their own fluff by using their "own damn imagination". While most players i have met at tournaments wouldn't just start going off about their armies story out of the blue, if you asked them they almost all had a back story in mind for their army. While yes i could show up and just be playing in my own fictional world, part of the enjoyment was being immersed into a world with your opponent. Why am i lazy if i want to base my army in the warhammer world? Why does GW even bother making lore behind an army if ever player could just come up with their own lore? The poster you responded to said he's playing in the end times setting and is waiting for other armies to "get fleshed out" before he moves his lore forward. Why is he waiting for GW to forge a narrative? Does that make him lazy?

You want to say people just "need something to pick at" but it sounds more like you feel the need to defend AOS against peoples opinions. Judging how my thread is up to 8 pages it seems like lore is important to most people on warseer who play/played Warhammer. Don't discredit everyones opinion because you feel that playing a pitched battle and caring about the setting is mutually exclusive. Lots of people who like AOS have issues with this new eternal war style setting, others love the change. IF you don't think it matters what fluff has been released or will be, you are in the wrong thread.

At least Spiney got what I meant.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter what fluff has been released. I'm saying that when I first got in to warhammer nearly 20 years ago it was the same situation, the fluff was not as developed as it was now, heck I couldn't even afford all the books to read about the fluff if I wanted to. So we made up the fluff from what was there.

In the modern world where everything is released with the scope for further expansion with DLC, the way AoS is, is normal and should be expected!

Personally I've enjoyed the fluff released so far, I don't want one book with a couple pages on each of the factions describing in short their entire history and background, that's not exciting and limits my imagination if they tell me every detail.

I've just bought and read the Seraphon book and found it fantastic, enough fluff to get my hobby juices flowing and leaving enough to expand upon in the future.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allen
13-11-2015, 11:42
I'm not saying it doesn't matter what fluff has been released. I'm saying that when I first got in to warhammer nearly 20 years ago it was the same situation, the fluff was not as developed as it was now, heck I couldn't even afford all the books to read about the fluff if I wanted to. So we made up the fluff from what was there.

In the modern world where everything is released with the scope for further expansion with DLC, the way AoS is, is normal and should be expected!

Quoted for truth.
I know that it does not seems (or feel) right from our point of view, but that's the only realistic way a corporation like GW could launch a new product like a wargame: present the core of the product and then gradually expand it with new miniatures, books and background to optimize the cash flow. Once they complete the lap and cover all faction, they'll be in the same situation of the early years of WHFB: a shared universe with a general idea of what's going on and who's doing what.

The only major blunder of GW, at least IMHO, is the lack of a "general" background to sell/freely download with the core rules. Race/faction specific background could be detailed in the various army books, but a general idea of the situation could be really helpful in selling the new setting to old and new wargamers alike. Let's say ten-to-twelve pages in total, covering the history of the universe (creation myths, gods, Sigmar alliance against Chaos and so on) and some snippet about the history of the various planes/shards of existence, with a general idea about how the various races behave and live in each. Very general fluff, no need to be overly specific...but something more than the bare bones we're working on today.

Shifte
13-11-2015, 13:08
For context, as there seems to be some confusion:

Warhammer fluff "nearly" 20 years ago was very well developed, actually. You're talking about after November 1995. That's basically 5th edition. Hell 3rd edition brought us the basis of all Chaos lore going forward, even until today. We knew about the barbaric chaos worshipping tribes, Karl Franz' Empire, the Arthurian Bretonnians, the mysterious Jungle Slann/Lizardmen, the great Elven civil war, the Wood Elves, Nagash and his undead, the Greenskin Hordes and all sorts back then. Hell, we even LOST entire races in the meantime.

Ever since Warhammer became your actual "Warhammer Fantasy Battles" we've had the groundwork for a world. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st edition came out in -1986- FFS, only three years after Warhammer First Edition came out. The fluff has been central since the start. Do you really think they could make an RPG in which you play a Butcher, Baker and Candlestick Maker in the Age of Sigmar setting in just three years? No, of course you don't. Because it's a half assed world that has been made purely to have massive, overly armoured giants fight against massive, overly armoured evil giants. With smatterings of Aels, Steamhead Duardin (wtf?), Undead and Orruks (come on) marching around for a bit of filler content.

Allen
13-11-2015, 13:34
I doubt WHFB fluff was complete, exaustive and well-defined during WHFB launch. Because that's what is happening here with AoS: it's a new wargame in a new setting and it's mere months old. It's not an expansion, it's not an additional rulesets to WHFB: it's a new product. Demanding a completely fleshed-out fluff immediately, something with the level of detail WHFB's background developed after decades of being in the market, is simply absurd.

As I said before, asking more general information at this stage is a more sensible approach, but for reasons I can't understand GW decided to avoid this path - probably in order to maximixe their cash flow with the army books and novels that are being published gradually with the miniatures. Stubbornly refusing to accept this and pretending something that the company is obviously not going to provide for monetary reasons is quite childish, IMHO. GW reasons could be sound or could be moot, it depends on what side you analyze the issue...but we'll get more info gradually. That's it, deal with it.

And, for Pete' sake, at least TRY to read some fluff about AoS before coming down hot on it. Steamhead Duardin being a laughable name and concept? Yeah, because probably overly stereotypical Tomb Kings were somehow creative masterpieces back then. Bloodreavers of the Bloodgod ravaging bloodily in the Blood Peninsula sounding corny and uninspired? Ok, because the very concept of the Old World, Nippon, Norsca and a gazillion of other things were definitely way more inspired and innovative. The fluff about the Seraphons isn't bad, if we compare it to some of the WHFB Army Books of the last years. I don't want to be an AoS apologist, but good God, if we have to criticise it at least let's try to do it constructively and realistically. Nerdraging does not bring us anywhere.

MLP
13-11-2015, 13:40
I understand Spiney to defend this game...Well no i do not. I never took part in any post about this yet and i read. I've never seen someone acting with such bad faith. This game is the worst game GW released in term of :

-Communication
-Rules
-Background
-Jokes
etc etc...

No valid arguments can be given to "say its a good game".

And you are still trying to defend it. The only good part is 4 pages of free rules that has been killed by the fact that it is 4 pages of garbage. Why are you defending this game ? There is nothing to defend, the company has no arguments, the arguments provided by Pro's do not "manage" to convince anyone but only 2 or 3 of them... Of course, i can also have fun with any toy if i decide to create a background and rules for it. That is not what you demand from a World leading company. Even if Battle has evolved during 30 years, they were starting the company and developping their game without having all that money. Now they have the ability and potential to be great but they just insult their customers every day with their prices and how they act. And you defend that ?

On a normal market with educated people, noone would agree to be treated like they do with their own fan base / customer base. I stopped being stupid, i do buy only 2nd hand from different website if i need to. I prefer to buy more brakes liquid to remove the paint than to buy new stuff from this company and i believe that is what every customer should do... Come on...1250$ for a khonre fortress.. this is plastic guys...

I don't think people are really defending AoS, more defending the right to enjoy a game. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone else can't.

The amount of time and money put in to the AoS books is huge, the artwork is the best and most I've seen in such a short space of time for years, probably ever. The fact they've realised new factions(whether you like or not) hasn't been done for years.

And the Khorne fortress you refer to is huge! You try to find any other similar fortress as good on the market for a cheaper price. Individually the parts aren't unreasonably prices in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shifte
13-11-2015, 14:02
I doubt WHFB fluff was complete, exaustive and well-defined during WHFB launch. Because that's what is happening here with AoS: it's a new wargame in a new setting and it's mere months old. It's not an expansion, it's not an additional rulesets to WHFB: it's a new product. Demanding a completely fleshed-out fluff immediately, something with the level of detail WHFB's background developed after decades of being in the market, is simply absurd.

The setting is incredibly flimsy. It's not that it's new and yet to be filled in, it's that they haven't even made ANY effort towards world building. Look at new roleplaying games, new tabletop games and most other new settings for an indication of what sort of information you can put out. Kings of War has very little fluff, and yet there is enough in there to imagine a world. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st edition came out 3 years after Warhammer Fantasy Battles 1st edition. AOS is shockingly weak when it comes to world building. Especially after charging hundreds of pounds for lore books.


As I said before, asking more general information at this stage is a more sensible approach, but for reasons I can't understand GW decided to avoid this path - probably in order to maximixe their cash flow with the army books and novels that are being published gradually with the miniatures. Stubbornly refusing to accept this and pretending something that the company is obviously not going to provide for monetary reasons is quite childish, IMHO. GW reasons could be sound or could be moot, it depends on what side you analyze the issue...but we'll get more info gradually. That's it, deal with it.

What? It's childish to not accept that GW are taking the ****? I'm sorry, but nobody is obligated to spend hundreds of pounds on a product that they find to be inferior. That's GW's problem, not ours. I bought every single End Times book. I have every single Warhammer Army Book. I will not touch Age of Sigmar's overpriced and narrow offerings with a barge pole, however. If you think that consumers demanding quality for their hard earned money is childish then I have to suggest that the label might be better applied to yourself.


And, for Pete' sake, at least TRY to read some fluff about AoS before coming down hot on it.

I did. It's terrible. It is the worst attempt at a serious setting I have ever read about. It's been designed for 9 year olds. So much of it makes no sense, the warring is incredibly pointless and it's been made abundantly clear that any pretense of credibility has been abandoned by GW in favour of MORE AND BIGGER BATTLES.

It's great that you can rationalise "well they're a company looking for a better cashflow", but I'm not a shareholder and I'm not a GW manager. That's not my concern. My job as a consumer is to look for the best product I can get at the best possible price. AoS fails on both counts when it comes to fluff.


Steamhead Duardin being a laughable name and concept? Yeah, because probably overly stereotypical Tomb Kings were somehow creative masterpieces back then.

Steamhead Duardin IS a laughable name. That's why so many people laugh at it. The Tomb Kings is evocative. If you like 'Steamhead Duardin' then fair play, but don't get mad when the majority of us (and it is a majority on this forum and on Bugman's Brewery) think it's silly.


Bloodreavers of the Bloodgod ravaging bloodily in the Blood Peninsula sounding corny and uninspired? Ok, because the very concept of the Old World, Nippon, Norsca and a gazillion of other things were definitely way more inspired and innovative.

What has innovation got to do with it? I don't understand the comparison you're trying to make here. You're the one bringing up whether or not Age of Sigmar is 'inspired' (probably so that you can then say the Old World wasn't). It seems like whataboutery to me. "This awful, overly described garbage might be bad... but this OTHER setting had real world analogues and wasn't entirely unique!". Yeah, you're right. So? I obviously would rather have the real world analogues that were less creative than the stupidity of the former example. Creatively innovative garbage is still garbage. It's that fact that is putting people off.

How do you think that this example you've given, of Nippon verus the Bloodreavers of the Bloodgod Ravaging Bloodily in the Blood Penninsula, will alter anyone's view on whether or not AOS fluff is any less garbage? Even the AOS players seem to ignore the AOS fluff, lol.


The fluff about the Seraphons isn't bad, if we compare it to some of the WHFB Army Books of the last years. I don't want to be an AoS apologist, but good God, if we have to criticise it at least let's try to do it constructively and realistically. Nerdraging does not bring us anywhere.

Oh, so I should buy every single Age of Sigmar product before commenting? Yeah, no thanks. I've read enough of it to be able to formulate an opinion. The Seraphon might have some nice ideas, I couldn't tell you. Which again is GW's fault, because they've put that information out at a premium. But I haven't read the third Twilight Novel either and I can still say with reasonable assurance that it isn't for me. No matter how much you might tell me that the love triangle between Bella, Edward(mund?) and Wolfboy speaks to the heart and soul on a whole other level. I've spent my money and been a fan of fantasy settings for long enough that I think I'm in a reasonable enough position to share my view.

You really are being an AoS apologist here, despite your apparent efforts to the contrary. Honestly that's how it comes across. It's fair enough that you don't feel about this as strongly as I do, or even like the setting, but some of the barriers-to-criticism that you're trying to construct are very forced.

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 14:28
AOS does not work at all without playing cooperatively instead of competitively. That is not the same thing as encouraging a cooperative mentality.

Note: I am talking about AOS, not AOS+<insert arbitrary comp system here

Then how have we been playing, RAW, without any comps, and still playing competitively?

Allen
13-11-2015, 14:42
The setting is incredibly flimsy. It's not that it's new and yet to be filled in, it's that they haven't even made ANY effort towards world building. Look at new roleplaying games, new tabletop games and most other new settings for an indication of what sort of information you can put out. Kings of War has very little fluff, and yet there is enough in there to imagine a world. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st edition came out 3 years after Warhammer Fantasy Battles 1st edition. AOS is shockingly weak when it comes to world building. Especially after charging hundreds of pounds for lore books.

Sorry, but "the setting is incredibly flimsy" and "they're haven't even made ANY effort towards worldbuilding" aren't something that should be discussed after a little more than a few months after AoS launch? Isn't a little...I don't know, early?


What? It's childish to not accept that GW are taking the ****? I'm sorry, but nobody is obligated to spend hundreds of pounds on a product that they find to be inferior. That's GW's problem, not ours. I bought every single End Times book. I have every single Warhammer Army Book. I will not touch Age of Sigmar's overpriced and narrow offerings with a barge pole, however. If you think that consumers demanding quality for their hard earned money is childish then I have to suggest that the label might be better applied to yourself.

Dude, I'm a customer. If I like something and I have the cash to pay for it I buy it. If I don't like it and/or I don't have the cash, I don't buy it and go on with my life. What I carefully avoid to do is raging on the web, demanding that something I clearly don't like should be tailored to my expectations in order to consider the opportunity to buy it or, more likely, continue to sneer on its inadequacy. THAT is the "childish" part I was trying to convey in the discussion. You don't like it, as many others: we get it. No-one is forcing AoS down your throat and stealing your hard-earned money. No-one is forcing you to endure the pain of buying and using a sub-par product you don't need and/or like.

But you, like so many other, pass an ungodly amount of time and dedicate a very disconcerting amount of effort into flaming about something you don't like, don't own and don't want to buy. I'm quite tired of the "AoS is crap" crowd, you know. I understand that in this community many had some kind of "emotional investment" on WHFB, but that's not a get-out-of-jail free card for storming in every single thread with negativity and entitlement.



I did. It's terrible. It is the worst attempt at a serious setting I have ever read about. It's been designed for 9 year olds. So much of it makes no sense, the warring is incredibly pointless and it's been made abundantly clear that any pretense of credibility has been abandoned by GW in favour of MORE BATTLES.

It's great that you can rationalise "well they're a company looking for a better cashflow", but I'm not a shareholder and I'm not a GW manager. That's not my concern. My job as a consumer is to look for the best product I can get at the best possible price. AoS fails on both counts when it comes to fluff

Read above. You don't like it? Behave like a normal customer and go on with your business. Discussing with people that like the product trying to clumsily (and aggressively) point out how worthless it is and how much they should hate it like you...well, that may not be the best course of action.



Steamhead Duardin IS a laughable name. That's why so many people laugh at it. The Tomb Kings is evocative. If you like 'Steamhead Duardin' then fair play, but don't get mad when the majority of us (and it is a majority on this forum and on Bugman's Brewery) think it's silly

Personal preferences should never be laughed on. You and many others don't like it? Honestly, who cares. I'm not you and I'm not "many others", whoever they may be. Tomb Kings, Bretonnians, "The Empire", Norsemen, Araby...the list goes on and on and on. They're as uninspired and as clichè-y as the worst AoS can offer. Some of them are better than the others? They look and sound pretty bland to me. Nothing evocative, nothing particularly creative.

Personal preferences, you know.



What has innovation got to do with it? I don't understand the comparison you're trying to make here. It seems like whataboutery to me. "This awful, overly described garbage might be bad... but this OTHER setting had real world analogues and wasn't entirely unique!". Yeah, you're right. So? I obviously would rather have the real world analogues that were less creative than the stupidity of the former example. A creatively innovative piece of **** is still a piece of ****. How do you think that will alter anyone's view on whether or not the Bloodreavers of the Bloodgod Ravaging Bloodily in the Blood Penninsula is any less garbage?

If you really can't get it, there's no need to waste both my and your time trying to explain it, mate.



Oh, so I should buy every single Age of Sigmar product before commenting? Yeah, no thanks. I've read enough of it to be able to formulate an opinion, thanks. I've spent my money and been a fan of fantasy settings for long enough that I think I'm in a reasonable enough position to share my view

You should simply avoid commenting, if you're not interested. I tried Flames of War and I tried Impetus...I didn't like them. I don't go on their dedicated forums bashing the games and trying to steer people away from them. But maybe it's just me and the correct thing to do is hunting down those unwashed savages, trying to enlighten them...you know, the Only Sane Man's Burden. You gotta go and make the difference, show 'em how foolish they are if they like something I don't like :D


You really are being an AoS apologist here, despite your apparent efforts to the contrary. It's fair enough that you don't feel about this as strongly as I do, or even like the setting, but some of the barriers-to-criticism that you're trying to construct are bizarre.

Yeah, keyword here being "feel". WHFB was a wargame for me, not some sort of important part of my life or whatever. When was discontinued I didn't like it, but I didn't go around all Punisher-like trying to avenge GW wrongdoings.

Shifte
13-11-2015, 14:46
Good for you? Warhammer is something that I care about, evidently. I'm sorry that I am not as cool as you are. You're right, I should be ashamed about my posting re: AoS.

Please, write another long post about how I put too much effort in to this again.

:rolleyes:

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 14:51
Then how have we been playing, RAW, without any comps, and still playing competitively?
You tell me. I am curious.
But so far I have no reason to believe that this is even possible .

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 14:58
You tell me. I am curious.
But so far I have no reason to believe that this is even possible .
Well, we have been playing the rules, without adding or removing any.
We have been playing the scenarios in order straight out of the books.
If you go into a game with a mindset that everything is broken, then you will make the game break.

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 15:17
Well, we have been playing the rules, without adding or removing any.
We have been playing the scenarios in order straight out of the books.
If you go into a game with a mindset that everything is broken, then you will make the game break.
I do believe you that you can follow the rules as written.
I do not understand how that can result in a competitive game.

PS: I went into my first AOS games with a very neutral and open mindset. My current opinion of AOS is based on experience not prejudice.

Bloodknight
13-11-2015, 15:19
'Steamhead Duardin'

I assume that the Steamhead is a place, most likely some mountain or volcano;. i.e. that those are the Duardin from the Steamhead.

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 15:31
I do believe you that you can follow the rules as written.
I do not understand how that can result in a competitive game.

PS: I went into my first AOS games with a very neutral and open mindset. My current opinion of AOS is based on experience not prejudice.

I guess it depends on how you define "competitive".
If you mean from a Tournament viewpoint, I could not say. I have never been a tournament player.
If you mean from a "I am trying to win by beating your army or finishing an objective before you", which is how I define it, then it can be very competitive.

Kahadras
13-11-2015, 15:33
I doubt WHFB fluff was complete, exaustive and well-defined during WHFB launch. Because that's what is happening here with AoS: it's a new wargame in a new setting and it's mere months old. It's not an expansion, it's not an additional rulesets to WHFB: it's a new product. Demanding a completely fleshed-out fluff immediately, something with the level of detail WHFB's background developed after decades of being in the market, is simply absurd.

The WHFB fluff might not have been 'exhaustive' and 'well defined' at launch but it could be pointed out that this was back in the days where GW wasn't in the position that it is now. AoS was created by a company that is a lot bigger and more experienced than it was a few decades ago and has been in the works for some time now. TBH I think GW aren't really interested in producing massive amounts of background for AoS as it would take time and effort.

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 15:33
Personal preferences should never be laughed on. You and many others don't like it? Honestly, who cares. I'm not you and I'm not "many others", whoever they may be. Tomb Kings, Bretonnians, "The Empire", Norsemen, Araby...the list goes on and on and on. They're as uninspired and as clichè-y as the worst AoS can offer. Some of them are better than the others? They look and sound pretty bland to me. Nothing evocative, nothing particularly creative.

There is an important difference between laughing about the name 'steamhead duardin' and laughing about someone liking the name. IIRC the latter never happened on this forum.



You should simply avoid commenting, if you're not interested. I tried Flames of War and I tried Impetus...I didn't like them. I don't go on their dedicated forums bashing the games and trying to steer people away from them. But maybe it's just me and the correct thing to do is hunting down those unwashed savages, trying to enlighten them...you know, the Only Sane Man's Burden. You gotta go and make the difference, show 'em how foolish they are if they like something I don't like :D
.
This is a warhammer forum not a dedicated AOS forum. Doesn't that make you more or less the one 'hunting down the unwashed savages, trying to enlighten them'?

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 15:43
I guess it depends on how you define "competitive".
If you mean from a Tournament viewpoint, I could not say. I have never been a tournament player.
If you mean from a "I am trying to win by beating your army or finishing an objective before you", which is how I define it, then it can be very competitive.

I agree with your definition of competitive play.
How does that work with AOS without holding yourself back purposely during deployment? How can you defeat your opponent in a fair game if there is no fair game?
There is a very recent post from a AOS-Fan advertising counter deployment as a balancing mechanism. How does that work if the most effective counter to every enemy is simply putting down significantly more units?
How can you make better use of your available resources - which should be the prerequisite for victory- if resources are limitless?

You could play the predefined scenarios with predefined armies. (I suppose those exist somewhere in the books?) But a tabletop game without customized armies is not a real tabletop game, in my opinion.

Allen
13-11-2015, 15:48
There is an important difference between laughing about the name 'steamhead duardin' and laughing about someone liking the name. IIRC the latter never happened on this forum

I don't know. The subtexts of many of the messages coming from the "no AoS ever" crowd are pretty judgmental and often boils down to "I don't like it, and you shouldn't too if you're smart enough". I think that's the reason behind the general lack of patience on the endless stream of threads and posts about how much AoS sucks and no-one should like it.


This is a warhammer forum not a dedicated AOS forum. Doesn't that make you more or less the one 'hunting down the unwashed savages, trying to enlighten them'?

Honestly, my very few posts that ridicule the entitled attitude of some AoS haters pales in comparison to the various multi-pages threads detailing why people shouldn't even look at AoS without spitting on the ground. Taking pot shots at overly dramatic/emotive posters now and then can hardly be described as "hunting down" anything. The anti-AoS crowd, on the other hand...:D

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 15:51
I agree with your definition of competitive play.
How does that work with AOS without holding yourself back purposely during deployment? How can you defeat your opponent in a fair game if there is no fair game?
There is a very recent post from a AOS-Fan advertising counter deployment as a balancing mechanism. How does that work if the most effective counter to every enemy is simply putting down significantly more units?
How can you make better use of your available resources - which should be the prerequisite for victory- if resources are limitless?

You could play the predefined scenarios with predefined armies. (I suppose those exist somewhere in the books?) But a tabletop game without customized armies is not a real tabletop game, in my opinion.

Well, your definition of a "real" tabletop game and mine differ greatly.
To me, a real tabletop game, is any game that can be played on a table. That is it.
Also, whoever said the armies we play are not customized?
We started with the suggested armies in the starter set book, and from there we are adding more units between each scenario. This is not a "comp" or changing the rules in anyway.

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 15:54
I don't know. The subtexts of many of the messages coming from the "no AoS ever" crowd are pretty judgmental. I think that's the reason behind the general lack of patience on the endless stream of threads and posts about how much AoS sucks and no-one should like it.



Honestly, my very few posts that ridicule the entitled attitude of some AoS haters pales in comparison to the various multi-pages threads detailing why people shouldn't even look at AoS without spitting on the ground. Taking pot shots at overly dramatic/emotive posters now and then can hardly be described as "hunting down" anything. The anti-AoS crowd, on the other hand...:D
My (poorly made) point was that your claim that the Anti-AOS crowd should 'stop complaining because one does not go and post on forums of a game one doesn't like' is inappropriate because this is not a dedicated AOS forum.
This is just as much the playground for AOS-fans as for AOS-critics.

KieranHayns
13-11-2015, 16:02
Wood elves. Like the setting. like the lore. like the game. and since its a new game im sure the kinks will get ironed out if people give it a chance

Allen
13-11-2015, 16:03
My (poorly made) point was that your claim that the Anti-AOS crowd should 'stop complaining because one does not go and post on forums of a game one doesn't like' is inappropriate because this is not a dedicated AOS forum.
This is just as much the playground for AOS-fans as for AOS-critics.

My point is: if you're not interested in a wargame, don't discuss it (or at least avoid being the party pooper for the people that like it). If you don't like a product, the most easy (and reasonable) thing to do is going on with your life, not trying to produce the forum equivalent of War and Peace, discussing in thread after thread, month after month how crappy AoS is or how bad it is in comparison with X, Y or Z. You're not interested, no-one is forcing you to play (or even buy) it...leave it alone. No need to try to convert people that like it, too. Why bother? They like it, you don't like it. Accept it.

I don't mind honest and constructive criticism when discussing, but too many of the issues discussed on the web about AoS boils down to:

1) it's not WHFB
2) they killed WHFB in order to give us AoS

After you take away all the wordsmithing, all the sugar candy around it that's what remains in roughly 80% of the discussions. It's not what I liked so much and they discontinued what I liked so much in order to commercialize it - so I hate it. Not "I don't like it", there are people here that literally hate AoS.

God knows how much criticism (honest, realistic criticism) should be done on AoS. There's a lot of room for improvement...but everything is buried under pages of nerdrage about the death of WHFB. Yeah, ok, bad move GW...but can't we simply discuss normally about the good and the bad things of AoS? Is it really so difficult?

Holier Than Thou
13-11-2015, 16:33
Well, we have been playing the rules, without adding or removing any.
We have been playing the scenarios in order straight out of the books.
If you go into a game with a mindset that everything is broken, then you will make the game break.

Have you been placing models on top of other models' bases to get them within 1/2" to complete a charge?

Have you been measuring the movement of every single piece of every model to make sure no piece moves further than the model's movement rate?

Have you been allowing opponents to chain summon if they choose to?

I find it very difficult to believe the answer to all of these, let alone just one of them, is yes.

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 17:20
Well, your definition of a "real" tabletop game and mine differ greatly.
To me, a real tabletop game, is any game that can be played on a table. That is it.
Also, whoever said the armies we play are not customized?
We started with the suggested armies in the starter set book, and from there we are adding more units between each scenario. This is not a "comp" or changing the rules in anyway.

There might be a language issue here. In Germany tabletop games are what you might call war games. I don't like the term war game and am not used to it but we are most certainly talking about the same thing.

If you add units to your army, I don't see any way you could create a competitive experience. The reasons have been discussed abundantly.

Shifte
13-11-2015, 17:24
But we -are- interested in Warhammer and this is Warhammer General Discussion. If you're not interested in reading what people here want to say, don't read it. You seem to forget: Age of Sigmar is a continuation of the Warhammer Fantasy setting. It isn't an entirely new game, entirely new IP and entirely new community. You fail to appreciate that this is something that some of us have played, participated in and been part of for decades. This is absolutely not the equivalent of discovering a game you dislike and posting about it regularly on some new forum for fans of that game. This is liking a game lots, investing time and money into it, then finding that it has been morphed into a new product that you really dislike. Then going to the community forum that you have used for years and continuing to converse will like minded sods who are in a similar position. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Get over yourself. Or perhaps check out this thread, which you'll find is populated by AoS fans who as far as I am aware go mostly uninterrupted:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412393-Age-of-Sigmar-friendly-active-thread-Fans-only-please!/page25

And by the way, I -am- entitled. Most of us are. we've spent thousands of pounds on this hobby over the years, that more than entitles me or anyone else to discuss the direction that the beneficiaries of that custom take it. If on a rainy, stormy day like today (or one full of sunshine and rainbows) I want to spend ten minutes (or one hundred) of my time posting a big piece on why I think the lore is bad then I will damn well do that. ;) And no, your assessment is wrong. It's not "I liked WFB and they replaced it" in every single thread. You can't actually be reading what people are saying if you think that. I mean seriously, you defended the Bloodtide Blood Warriors Bloodily charging across the Blood Fields by saying that, in comparison, Nippon, the Old World and Cathay are unoriginal. I half suspect that you're trolling with a comment like that. There is no comparison and you know it.

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 17:49
Have you been placing models on top of other models' bases to get them within 1/2" to complete a charge?

Have you been measuring the movement of every single piece of every model to make sure no piece moves further than the model's movement rate?

Have you been allowing opponents to chain summon if they choose to?

I find it very difficult to believe the answer to all of these, let alone just one of them, is yes.

We have had no need to place models on other bases to get them within 1/2" to complete a charge, as all of our models have parts that extend past the base's size.
See above. Yes, if a model has a spear that reaches 2 inches off the base, and you only spin your model around, it counts as 2" of movement, as the rules state. The point of measurement has moved 2".
So far, the armies we have been using do not use summoning spells, but we will still use rules as written when it comes to summoning. Our next game will probably be Seraphon vs. Skaven, so we will use the normal summoning rules. Seraphon kind of need to use summoning to be effective, and yes, Slaan will be able to attempt 3 summons per turn if I so choose.
So all of the answers are yes, and it has not made the game "unplayable" for us.

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 17:49
If you add units to your army, I don't see any way you could create a competitive experience. The reasons have been discussed abundantly.
Wait! What?!?!?
If we add units to an army, it can no longer be competitive?!?!?!

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 17:57
Wait! What?!?!?
If we add units to an army, it can no longer be competitive?!?!?!



How does that work with AOS without holding yourself back purposely during deployment? How can you defeat your opponent in a fair game if there is no fair game?
There is a very recent post from a AOS-Fan advertising counter deployment as a balancing mechanism. How does that work if the most effective counter to every enemy is simply putting down significantly more units?
How can you make better use of your available resources - which should be the prerequisite for victory- if resources are limitless?

You could play the predefined scenarios with predefined armies. (I suppose those exist somewhere in the books?) But a tabletop game without customized armies is not a real tabletop game, in my opinion.


10 characters

HelloKitty
13-11-2015, 17:58
Competitive environments assume that the forces at the start of the game are somewhat equal (I feel that this is of course a joke with GW games as the list building phase is all about trying to make your force as unequal as possible in the beginning of the game but thats a topic for another discussion) and when you can just plop models down freely you lose that illusion of even forces at the beginning of the game, so to some that means uncompetitive.

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 18:06
I think you are mixing terms here that have no business being mixed.
You can have a competitive game without being "fair" or "balanced", it depends on the objectives.
Most of the starter book scenarios are not balanced in anyway, but are still competitive to win and fun to play.
You also can easily add units without "holding yourself back".
After the main part of the stater book scenarios, we each added 3 units to our armies. I added a Warshrine of Khorne, 3 Skullcrushers, and a Chimera.
My opponent added a War Altar of Sigmar, 15 Greatswords, and 15 handgunners.
So how did either of us hold ourselves back in that case?!?!
We may not have added "balanced" units, and we still stuck to the rules, had a competitive and fun game, and we both felt the game was fair in the end.

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 18:13
Have you been placing models on top of other models' bases to get them within 1/2" to complete a charge?

I totally forgot, but our first attempt at AoS, before we got the starter set, I played Ogors. I did indeed put some models on top of other models' bases, because otherwise I would have more than a 1" gap between models of a unit. My opponent even questioned it at first, but once the rules about bases were pointed out and read, we did indeed do just that.

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 18:13
Competitive environments assume that the forces at the start of the game are somewhat equal (I feel that this is of course a joke with GW games as the list building phase is all about trying to make your force as unequal as possible in the beginning of the game but thats a topic for another discussion) and when you can just plop models down freely you lose that illusion of even forces at the beginning of the game, so to some that means uncompetitive.
I don't know what you mean by 'competitive environments'? It kind of reminds of something like 'hostile work environment' but I assume I am just reading too much into it?

I believe two opponents building their armies as strong as possible is creating more or less equal forces. The problem were rather people not interested in building the best army possible playing against those who do. No one is right. Just different attitudes.

HelloKitty
13-11-2015, 18:16
Competitive environment is an environment such as a tournament or a league or an FLGS where the bulk of players are playing the game competitively. Playing the game competitively is as you describe it, creating the hardest possible lists using whatever legal means to do so.

You are correct the problem is when a competitive minded person rolls up to a table against a person not interested in having to use one of the competitive builds to have a good game, thats where a lot of conflict arises.

Arrahed
13-11-2015, 18:27
I think you are mixing terms here that have no business being mixed.
You can have a competitive game without being "fair" or "balanced", it depends on the objectives.
Most of the starter book scenarios are not balanced in anyway, but are still competitive to win and fun to play.
You also can easily add units without "holding yourself back".
After the main part of the stater book scenarios, we each added 3 units to our armies. I added a Warshrine of Khorne, 3 Skullcrushers, and a Chimera.
My opponent added a War Altar of Sigmar, 15 Greatswords, and 15 handgunners.
So how did either of us hold ourselves back in that case?!?!
We may not have added "balanced" units, and we still stuck to the rules, had a competitive and fun game, and we both felt the game was fair in the end.

I think in this context 'fair' and 'balanced' are pretty much interchangeable.

So you have decided that your army is equal to your opponents army before starting the game. Sounds like an ad hoc comp system to me. What if your next opponent adds ten clones of Nagash. You know, because that chimera is pretty scary.

Shifte
13-11-2015, 18:29
HelloKitty is right when he/she says that it was hard to get a narrative game versus a random opponent. Standard WFB was definitely tournament style. I only ever did weird scenarios with good friends. It's like 40k now, actually. Someone playing a standard Ultramarines Army with 40 foot slogging marines would get creamed by most competitive builds.

I'm not sure AOS has helped that though it seems harder than ever to get a game.

Choombatta
13-11-2015, 18:58
I think in this context 'fair' and 'balanced' are pretty much interchangeable.

So you have decided that your army is equal to your opponents army before starting the game. Sounds like an ad hoc comp system to me. What if your next opponent adds ten clones of Nagash. You know, because that chimera is pretty scary.

There is a very good reason why it works for us.
We each know all the models the other side owns. I know I will never face 10 Nagash models, because my opponent does not own even 1.
Also, currently the way we are playing, I already know the bulk of the opposing army's models, just not what the next 3 units added will be. It could be 3 heroes. it could be 3 horde units. The balancing factor is the fact my opponent is in the exact same position as I am going into each scenario.

WarsmithGarathor94
15-11-2015, 08:33
my elves will be fighting for Tzeench while right now i only.have dark.elves.im.planning to expand into high and wood elves too

Durloth
16-11-2015, 19:08
I'm not saying it doesn't matter what fluff has been released. I'm saying that when I first got in to warhammer nearly 20 years ago it was the same situation, the fluff was not as developed as it was now, heck I couldn't even afford all the books to read about the fluff if I wanted to. So we made up the fluff from what was there.


I'd say the situation is very different. The strength of the Warhammer fluff was it's use of tropes and stereotypes from history and fantasy.
It was very easy to imagine how a Brettonian farmer lived, based on the name "Brettonia" and the medieval fantasy look of the miniatures.
When you see a Wood Elf, a renaissance-clad imperial swordsman, a fur clad marauder or a vampire, it's not that hard to spin a fantasy around it, thanks to hundreds of years of development of tropes in history and popular culture. Some might call using those tropes lazy, I'd say it was a stroke of brilliance, as it made it very easy to imagine the societies and backgrounds of the miniatures on a pretty microscopic level.

Looking at a Sigmarine, I find it very hard to imagine how the life of.. say... a clerk is in their society, without first reading volume upon volume of books detailing their society. Do they even have clerks, or do spirits or-maybe robots- keep their armor clean and their armies supplied with arrow heads and bow strings?

Khaines Wrath
17-11-2015, 07:52
Or worse, Sigmarscouts...

Cheeslord
17-11-2015, 12:57
Looking at a Sigmarine, I find it very hard to imagine how the life of.. say... a clerk is in their society, without first reading volume upon volume of books detailing their society. Do they even have clerks, or do spirits or-maybe robots- keep their armor clean and their armies supplied with arrow heads and bow strings?

I assume it is all magic. They are made of magic and souls ... and sigmarite. Their arrows are made of magic. Their magic armour is always clean because it is magic. They do not eat or sleep because magic. Etc.

Of course I may be jumping to totally wrong conclusions.

Mark.

Captain Marius
17-11-2015, 18:26
My group is slowly playing through the End Times using AoS rules. ive started a Bloodbound force to use as the Skaramor in the later games, but we're only on the Glottkin games at the moment. With the Sigmarines in the boxed set Im increasingly tempted to have them arrive at the climax of the Fall of Altdorf and finish the End Times along a crazy What If storyline (the world is still gonna blow up, but its the journey not the destination!) Has anyone else tried this out?