PDA

View Full Version : AoS give it time problems.



Collector
21-11-2015, 13:24
Hello

I hear alot of oeople say AoS is new give it time it will get more lore amd so on. Bu there is a problem with saying that, this is not a book 20$ down and you go ok it has some good ideas I will check out the next one. They need people to spend hundreds if not more every month on products and then draw them in to buy impulse items like paints brushes and models they do not really want but think look good at the time.

This product needed to carry the old fans and connect them to new fans, they should of kept 8th and slowly brought the lore up to a point people wanted they would lose no money except on book costs which they could of cut and went all digital whcih are still there anyways. But with little to no lore present you cant really connect to any race realm or world. You got the golden tin men the ghost lizards or the endless hordes who do nothing but kill and mate. So much for slaanesh going mia.

Yes in 10 years they may have amazing lore like wfb did for most, but they need people to keep buying models with little to no lore for no reason other then he looks cool can't wait to spend 100$ on a 30mm toy.

What do you guys think is there anything to hang onto or anyone to care about?

hagen88
21-11-2015, 20:04
I see AoS like a huge experiment gw wanted (had) to make... trying to judge it from the provided bg is probably not the right way of looking at it as this was probably not the point they were trying to make.
Both rules and fluff points to a direction of customization and a more personal and free approach than the one wh used to promote. In wh they (gw) provided us with a very definite, carefully conceived back story and we had to move "behind the scenes" to create our own narratives, which couldn't really affect the status quo of the setting (I mean, it could have done it if we wanted but most of us probably were happy enough to follow their lead since they used to be really good in telling amazing stories).
AoS is, I believe, a completely different animal... gw is providing us with nothing more than a frame, both for rules and background, and implicitly ask us to flesh it up with our own stories and ideas which I believe is AoS greatest strength (because, let's face it, the rest is pretty dull by now).
So why are they doing that? Is it because they are too lazy to come up with something good? Is it because they need more time to push AoS to be comparable to wh? I think the OP makes a good point when he says that if we need to wait ten years to find the game interesting then it is a failure from gw's part, but I would say that if we want AoS to look like wh or even 40k before we dig it we are probably missing the point of it. It was not possible for gw to recreate something like that from scratch, they would need too much time and clever ideas, and they regretfully don't have neither right now.
So AoS is kind of the most honest things they could probably do to move on (which doesn't mean the most successful maybe). They are basically saying:"you know guys, we are not capable of creating something as rich and complex as warhammer, we don't have time for it, we are too busy producing minis now...but YOU are, you always thought you were better than us anyway, so why don't you try to work with this skeletal frame we are providing you and create your own game, rules and narratives? Oh, and don't forget to buy all the minis you always wanted, because that's what we are providing you now, the rest is up to you!"
In conclusion I think judging AoS in comparison to wh or 40k is a mistake, not just because it is too young to be compared to those titans of the hobby but mostly because it wasn't their goal to do something similar. It is an experiment for them, one that we all have to admit took some guts (desperation?) and should be approached as that: a new thing, a more flexible, free and customizable game. And as every novelty it requires some experimentation before being discarded as a failure, which is what some people are doing (and some of them are even having fun with it! BLASPHEMY!):D

Catweazle
21-11-2015, 21:02
My take on it...

Warhammer is essentially going back to it's roots. It's supposed to be a fun, narrative driven game played by friends. I think what they want is a lot of community produced content. This chimes with their claim to be a miniatures company and as people who browse D&D blogs of the OSR variety will know produces amazing content. Getting rid of points fascillitates this by freeing people up to create their own rules in a way they couldn't really do before and by forcing the players to decide what their goals are for a game. Pretty elegant IMO.

I think the real problem aos suffers from is a lack of communication on GW's part. If I'm right (and I accept people will disagree) why weren't we told that this was their intent and why it was a good thing? Could anyone who got the aos launch WD tell me if that kind of explanation is in there? I've not seen it anywhere else.

Smooth Boy
21-11-2015, 22:33
I think the real problem aos suffers from is a lack of communication on GW's part. If I'm right (and I accept people will disagree) why weren't we told that this was their intent and why it was a good thing? Could anyone who got the aos launch WD tell me if that kind of explanation is in there? I've not seen it anywhere else.

I agree mostly with that. Communicating with us would probably not have improved AoS a great deal but some explanation would have been nice. An honest 'heart to heart' as to why they did what they did may have taken the edge off.

Razios
22-11-2015, 18:05
"you know guys, we are not capable of creating something as rich and complex as warhammer, we don't have time for it, we are too busy producing minis now...but YOU are, you always thought you were better than us anyway, so why don't you try to work with this skeletal frame we are providing you and create your own game, rules and narratives? Oh, and don't forget to buy all the minis you always wanted, because that's what we are providing you now, the rest is up to you!"

More of "this setting is lock up and we cant do much anymore, so lets move on into something with more potencial to make minis and stories, so said goodby to the old world!"

And I agree with the others, GW have problems with comunications, expecting people to just buy their games, while fans can be tiriing and annoyings sometimes(just look comic fandoms) they are necesary.

The bearded one
24-11-2015, 10:24
One of the things bothering me about the AoS world is the sparcity and lack of depth to the fluff so far, but that can at least still be excused under the 'give it time' umbrella, at least until they've gotten around to filling it up a bit.

However a different thing bothering me about the AoS world is that I'm not sure what the "AoS aesthetic" is. Warhammer and 40k have their own kind of aesthetic. A sort of recognisable design ethos thanks to which I'd be able to pick them out of a line-up of random IPs. But with AoS - especially because apparently every realm is the size of whole planets' surface so "every possible thing probably exists somewhere in there" - I'm not sure what this IPs design aesthetic is. It's only a coherent aesthetic by virtue of being old warhammer fantasy design elements put through a blender. What kind if look would be 'typically AoS'? With 40k for example I'm thinking of the massive gothic architecture with those tubes that seem to go in and out of everything, and the ww1 tank design elements applied to all the imperial vehicles.

Catweazle
24-11-2015, 10:55
It's the same as it's always been. The same artists work on it and aos, wfb and 40k all fall under the warhammer brand. A good if small example is Archaon now has a topknot and his mount has skulls welling up from under it's skin. Another example would be the catholic vibe of Ionus complete with halo, relics and candles. All have been GW calling cards for decades. AoS is just more overtly fantastical.

I think wfb gained greatly from the existance of wfrp in terms of background. Past that it was the same dozen or so army books being recycled every few years. Everytime I saw those Ian Miller boarders in a chaos armybook I was just reminded how much better the original realm of chaos books were.

akai
24-11-2015, 19:21
I wrote this is another thread, but think portions of it seems to fit this topic:

Currently Age of Sigmar story is focus on the Realmgate Wars. That is Games Workshop ongoing narrative that they are telling at the moment. For me, it is not of great interest to me. That story does not draw me into playing AoS and does not spark my interest into creating background for my models to participate in the Realmgate Wars storyline. What does draw me into creating background for my models in the AoS game setting is the "infinite" realms or "bubbles" notion some people berate about. I found the realms to be so "open" that I can create my own narrative/background with "no boundaries" to limit my imagination. I can create my own detailed map of an area and it would not be contradictory to the official background. And when I want to jump back into the official background, it should not be too hard...find a realmgate or something :D.

So I guess I am in favor of the "points of lights" idea introduced to me in 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. I can pick and choose what I like from the large amount of fantasy settings out there to make it into my own unique or heavily-borrowed homebrew setting that have Warhammer aesthetics in it. Or create something entirely new! Whether that is Games Workshop intention, I don't know!

As for AoS aesthetic - it seems to be generic fantasy aesthetic (Old World) mixed with high fantasy to me.

Razios
24-11-2015, 20:42
As for AoS aesthetic - it seems to be generic fantasy aesthetic (Old World) mixed with high fantasy to me.

I call this metaphysical fantasy, that means when the "fantasy" part get over the top into the weird, like spelljammer or planescape, in a setting that anything goes

skeptico
24-11-2015, 21:26
Of all the objections to AoS, I find the objection that its background is too underdeveloped the most difficult to fathom. Do people not remember how sparse the background in most editions of Warhammer was? Take fifth ed. The Battle Book contained literally a couple of pages describing the warhammer world, which was mostly pictures, before spending about one or two pages describing each of the factions. Then, in the army books, you'd get about 10 - 20 pages of background on your race, perhaps a few short (1-2 page) short stories if you were lucky, and have to piece other details together from the fluff in bestiary entries. Compared to that, AoS fluff is already extremely well developed.

Razios
24-11-2015, 23:23
Of course but a least it give you a place to sit down in the world, we know the empire is united by sigmar and there are city like aldorft,middleheim and tabblaheim, that at least give you something.

In short the problem with GW is they dont devolpt background unless they have something to sell, the age of three emperor would be just a footnote if it wasnt for mordheim while warhammer role give us finally a inside look of the warhammer world.

Spiney Norman
24-11-2015, 23:31
I see AoS like a huge experiment gw wanted (had) to make... trying to judge it from the provided bg is probably not the right way of looking at it as this was probably not the point they were trying to make.
Both rules and fluff points to a direction of customization and a more personal and free approach than the one wh used to promote. In wh they (gw) provided us with a very definite, carefully conceived back story and we had to move "behind the scenes" to create our own narratives, which couldn't really affect the status quo of the setting (I mean, it could have done it if we wanted but most of us probably were happy enough to follow their lead since they used to be really good in telling amazing stories).

AoS is, I believe, a completely different animal... gw is providing us with nothing more than a frame, both for rules and background, and implicitly ask us to flesh it up with our own stories and ideas which I believe is AoS greatest strength (because, let's face it, the rest is pretty dull by now).

So why are they doing that? Is it because they are too lazy to come up with something good? Is it because they need more time to push AoS to be comparable to wh? I think the OP makes a good point when he says that if we need to wait ten years to find the game interesting then it is a failure from gw's part, but I would say that if we want AoS to look like wh or even 40k before we dig it we are probably missing the point of it. It was not possible for gw to recreate something like that from scratch, they would need too much time and clever ideas, and they regretfully don't have neither right now.

So AoS is kind of the most honest things they could probably do to move on (which doesn't mean the most successful maybe). They are basically saying:"you know guys, we are not capable of creating something as rich and complex as warhammer, we don't have time for it, we are too busy producing minis now...but YOU are, you always thought you were better than us anyway, so why don't you try to work with this skeletal frame we are providing you and create your own game, rules and narratives? Oh, and don't forget to buy all the minis you always wanted, because that's what we are providing you now, the rest is up to you!"

In conclusion I think judging AoS in comparison to wh or 40k is a mistake, not just because it is too young to be compared to those titans of the hobby but mostly because it wasn't their goal to do something similar. It is an experiment for them, one that we all have to admit took some guts (desperation?) and should be approached as that: a new thing, a more flexible, free and customizable game. And as every novelty it requires some experimentation before being discarded as a failure, which is what some people are doing (and some of them are even having fun with it! BLASPHEMY!):D

Seriously, this pretty well nails it

ewar
25-11-2015, 00:17
Of all the objections to AoS, I find the objection that its background is too underdeveloped the most difficult to fathom. Do people not remember how sparse the background in most editions of Warhammer was? Take fifth ed. The Battle Book contained literally a couple of pages describing the warhammer world, which was mostly pictures, before spending about one or two pages describing each of the factions. Then, in the army books, you'd get about 10 - 20 pages of background on your race, perhaps a few short (1-2 page) short stories if you were lucky, and have to piece other details together from the fluff in bestiary entries. Compared to that, AoS fluff is already extremely well developed.

What utter nonsense - you've just answered your own question. The 5th ed book didn't contain all lore for WFB (no one would expect it to) but it did at least give some background to all of the key players and the environment.

I think of all the things I hate most about AOS - the fluff is the worst offender. People say 'give it time', but really, it's not volume of content it's lacking. It's bloody quality it's lacking. The whole concept is just plain awful - the inception, execution and development of it is eye-gougingly bad. The names, the narrative, the blandness, the pointlessness... it has literally zero redeeming features to me.

I actually would have preferred the bubble rumour to have been true! How tragic is that? It honestly boggles my mind that people are paying actual, hard earned money for some of the dross put out so far. If you give it more time, it's not going to make Sigmaron go away or the Steamhead Duardin be renamed.

So in conclusion, I don't really like it :)

Buddy Bear
25-11-2015, 01:05
I'm looking at the 5th edition Battle Book right now, and what I see there are:

1) Maps giving you an overview of the entire setting
2) Descriptions of regions in the setting
3) Descriptions of each faction in the setting accompanied by art and pictures of miniatures

How much of that does AOS have? From what I've seen, unless they're Bloodbound Bloodsecretators and Sigmarite Sigmaron Sigmarines, Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, Orruks, Red Slayers, and even normal humans have none of that.

My favorite part, though, is at the end, pp. 144-152, where it talks about running campaigns. Now that is what I call narrative gaming. It was so much fun playing a campaign using those rules.

Kakapo42
25-11-2015, 01:56
The problem I have with the 'give it time' argument is that it doesn't work for me because I don't like the background that's already there. Assuming they don't discard the current background material entirely (which is unlikely in the extreme) then it doesn't matter how much development it gets, because the parts I don't like about it (which is pretty much all of it at this point) will still be there in X years' time.

And that's without going into the ongoing metaplot, which is supposed to be more prevalent and heavy-handed than ever (according to an article published at the time of the first AoS release it was stated that GW had the first year or so of background planned out already), which also totally undermines the idea of the AoS background providing more freedom for hobbyist-created background. There are just as much, if not more restrictions than Warhammer had, GW just hasn't taken the camouflage netting off them yet.

Spiney Norman
25-11-2015, 02:37
I'm looking at the 5th edition Battle Book right now, and what I see there are:

1) Maps giving you an overview of the entire setting
2) Descriptions of regions in the setting
3) Descriptions of each faction in the setting accompanied by art and pictures of miniatures

How much of that does AOS have? From what I've seen, unless they're Bloodbound Bloodsecretators and Sigmarite Sigmaron Sigmarines, Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, Orruks, Red Slayers, and even normal humans have none of that.

My favorite part, though, is at the end, pp. 144-152, where it talks about running campaigns. Now that is what I call narrative gaming. It was so much fun playing a campaign using those rules.

5th edition? You mean after Warhammer had already been around for 13 years and 5 edition?

No doubt if AoS makes it to its 5th edition the background will be a little fuller than it is now...

Azaireal
25-11-2015, 03:06
I cared about the old world and could campaign to conquer it.

AoS has the same problem as 40k. Limitless worlds to conquer create meaningless conflict.

The only way to pull me back in is to create a finite area, and dynamic encounters.

IE, Skaven thrived in the inderbelly of society, and had their own agendas and goals. Now they are Slaves of Chaos and nothing else.

Lexington
25-11-2015, 04:02
No doubt if AoS makes it to its 5th edition the background will be a little fuller than it is now...
I have my doubts. Putting aside the unlikely proposition of AoS making it past the five-year mark, the problem with AoS isn't that there's not enough background - there's already tons - it's that the guiding philosophy behind the game entirely prevents it from achieving any type of depth. The Warhammer World, whatever you want to say about it, was a world - it had people, societies, ideas, history and a sense of place wholly unrelated to the game it originated from. AoS, by comparison, is a product. There's supposed to be a large, undefined world out there, but Games Workshop is strictly uninterested in exploring a single element of it unless they can cast it in plastic and ring it up at a register. You're never going to get much of a setting out of that, because battles without stakes are boring. AoS is doomed for any number of reasons, but high up there is the fact that GW's suffered IP brain-drain to the point where they don't have the slightest idea how to cobble together an inspiring setting anymore.

Buddy Bear
25-11-2015, 04:14
Frankly, I don't feel the multiple edition theory holds water. Sure, Warhammer Fantasy needed a 2nd edition to gain depth, but we were talking 1982, when fantasy miniature games were in their infancy. Nowadays there's no excuse for a new game to come out with such a poorly thought out and threadbare setting. Could you imagine if Infinity, Malifaux, Kings of War, Warmachine, or any of the other systems released in recent years had setting material so barren that players knew next to nothing about so many of the major factions in the setting? They'd be laughed right out of the marketplace. And we're not talking about a company being run out of someone's basement with just three employees, but the biggest miniature game company in the industry. It's inexcusable that GW put out such a half-baked setting on what's supposed to be one of two premiere gaming lines.

As for why they did it, I have two theories on that.

1) They don't want second hand manufacturers to make copies. If they put Aelf, Orruk, etc art in the book, then they're worried that someone else will pull a Chapterhouse and make those miniatures before they do. Or, and I think this is the biggest and scarier reason...

2) They're not described because the setting writers, at the time of publication, themselves didn't have any idea what the deal was with all of those races. From what I read elsewhere, the way GW handles things now is that rules/background people have zero input into what's made, and don't even find out something is in the pipeline until it's made, painted, and put on their desk, at which point they're told to come up with rules and background for it. So as disturbing as it is, I think it's very likely that the background people wrote nothing about Aelfs, Orruks, Steamhead Duardin, etc., because when they were writing those books they didn't have the faintest idea themselves what those factions would look like, and they were waiting for those painted models to land on their desks so they could actual write rules and background for them and figure out exactly what a Steamhead Duardin or Orruk is.

Either way, it's a horribly backwards way of creating a brand new setting.

Asmodios
25-11-2015, 07:10
5th edition? You mean after Warhammer had already been around for 13 years and 5 edition?

No doubt if AoS makes it to its 5th edition the background will be a little fuller than it is now...
Imagine if this was the metric we used for everything. We could compare the graphics of new Mario games to the 64bit versions. The clarity of my TV with those produced in the 80s. New MMORPGS based on vanilla WOW, or better yet Age of Camelot. The fact is GW has to sell its games now, not in 20 years. You will always be the first to say that WHFB had to go because it was unprofitable, but why didn't we just wait a few editions for them to flesh out the kinks and attract new players? its because it wasn't selling at the time and you can nurture a game for 20 years hoping it will one day be good. AOS is no different then WHFB because they have the same goal (make GW money) and based on every bit of available evidence AOS is crashing and burning in that department. So no this "AOS has 5 editions to go before we can expect the depth 5th had" argument just wont work.

Wesser
25-11-2015, 07:55
If my local GW wasn't on my way home from work (thus making it my go-to for paint and glue) I believe I might have forgotten about AoS entirely

Both KoW and 9th Age have done a better job of conveying their thoughts while we don't know what GW plans to do with AoS once they stop putting out Sigmarines. I rushed getting what I needed for my Wood Elf army because I wasn't sure whatever the hell the plans for Sylvaneth was.

GW's famous lid on rumors means that if I don't happen to love Sigmarines then I don't know what to expect - and with no anticipation for my factions to get stuff then I can't muster any enthusiasm for the game. When someday Sylvaneth do get released... well by then I've probably forgotten the game exists. Keeping their customers flailing around in the darkness for an indeterminate amount of time just ain't good marketing

LotusCorgi
25-11-2015, 08:21
...compared to that, aos fluff is already extremely well developed.
bwahahahahaha!!!
😂😂😂

LotusCorgi
25-11-2015, 08:34
AoS has the same problem as 40k. Limitless worlds to conquer create meaningless conflict.

Interesting and valid point. An yet countless people, myself included, spend untold hours, dollars, and dreams on 40k. GW was shooting for the hopeless, limitless scope of 40k but sorely missed the target. It's easy enough to delvelop a bond towards your space marines or ork Whaaa! But can you care about your flock of dull, immortal, golden automatons? Or your pack of deranged cannalbalistic rapey maniacs? (Note: see Crossed by Garth Ennis. Note: not for children or weak of stomach). I'm not too sure...

Ben
25-11-2015, 08:59
If in five editions time AoS is a good game, I'll buy it.

But GW doesn't have an automatic right to my money, and I'm not 'failing' GW by not rewriting AoS to be playable and inventing a background to go with it, because that's what you'd expect from a game from a company that what to sell you minis at $10 a model.

smaxx
25-11-2015, 09:00
So AoS is kind of the most honest things they could probably do to move on (which doesn't mean the most successful maybe). They are basically saying:"you know guys, we are not capable of creating something as rich and complex as warhammer, we don't have time for it, we are too busy producing minis now...but YOU are, you always thought you were better than us anyway, so why don't you try to work with this skeletal frame we are providing you and create your own game, rules and narratives? Oh, and don't forget to buy all the minis you always wanted, because that's what we are providing you now, the rest is up to you!"
Perhaps. At the moment the best GW could do would be supporting Kings of War or 9th Age with new minis. There's no point doing anything with Age of Sigmar setting, it's just awful in every aspect. If they are miniature company, and as they obviously cannot design a game any more, they should start producing miniatures for real games. Not that I think they really will... But if GWs possibly coming Woed Aelffiens or Haeigh Aeilffins (or whatever stupid names they use) are nice and not too costly, I may consider purchasing them to be used with 9th Age or Kings of War. But most likely not :)

Zywus
25-11-2015, 09:11
The fact is GW has to sell its games now, not in 20 years. You will always be the first to say that WHFB had to go because it was unprofitable, but why didn't we just wait a few editions for them to flesh out the kinks and attract new players? its because it wasn't selling at the time and you can nurture a game for 20 years hoping it will one day be good. AOS is no different then WHFB because they have the same goal (make GW money) and based on every bit of available evidence AOS is crashing and burning in that department. So no this "AOS has 5 editions to go before we can expect the depth 5th had" argument just wont work.
This.
The idea that GW would support the failing AoS for 13 years when they just canned the allegedly still profitable WHFB instead of trying to fix it is; well, laughable to say the least.

skeptico
25-11-2015, 09:12
What utter nonsense - you've just answered your own question. The 5th ed book didn't contain all lore for WFB (no one would expect it to) but it did at least give some background to all of the key players and the environment.


Someone's talking nonsense, but it's not me. The Age of Sigmar starter book contains more background about the world than 5th edition Warhammer did. That's just a fact, going by volume of fluff. It says at least something about each race, just as 5th edition WH gave brief details about each race. For the rest of the background, you have to turn to the individual army books, which - get this! - were released in sequence, over time, and not all in one go.

So lets not criticise AoS, as Warhammer fans, for not meeting standards that editions of WH didn't meet.

And if your reply is that the richness of the WH background comes from its having been built up over many years and editions, that goes for AoS. All the previous background from WH is part of the AoS timeline. Objectively speaking, AoS has more background than WH, because it is an advance on the same timeline.

smaxx
25-11-2015, 09:38
Objectively speaking, AoS has more background than WH, because it is an advance on the same timeline.
Yeah right :) Just some of it is dead and not having any connection or anything to do with anything anymore...

Spiney Norman
25-11-2015, 09:51
This.
The idea that GW would support the failing AoS for 13 years when they just canned the allegedly still profitable WHFB instead of trying to fix it is; well, laughable to say the least.

Going by the date stamp on recent AoS sprues their lead time seems to be about two years, so I'd guess they've got around two years worth of releases already in the pipeline. Will AoS make it to 13, I've no idea, warhammer fantasy got to the ripe old age of 30 before it was cancelled and there had been rumours of it performing very poorly for several years before it was actually put out of its misery.

AoS was a last ditch attempt to keep the fantasy line going and I expect that it's long term viability depends largely on how it develops over the next year and a half and how successful it is at attracting new blood to the hobby.

EmperorNorton
25-11-2015, 10:55
AoS is, I believe, a completely different animal... gw is providing us with nothing more than a frame, both for rules and background, and implicitly ask us to flesh it up with our own stories and ideas which I believe is AoS greatest strength (because, let's face it, the rest is pretty dull by now).
Saying the blanks left to fill in an incomplete product are the best thing about it is a withering assessment and certainly not something that encourages me to buy other products related to it for exorbitant prices.

Arrahed
25-11-2015, 11:57
Since they seem to be really popular on the internet, I will try myself on a car analogy to try to explain why '1st edition WFB had no fluff either' is not a good argument:

Imagine you are a car manufacturer presenting your awesome new car. But its not a car. Its something new and awesome: a Sigmarmobile. It has 5 wheels instead of 4, which is awesome, but some parts that were common for old and stupid cars are simply not yet developed. For example it doesn't have a radio. It will never have a radio because that name is not copy-writable so it will have a Sigmarwavereciever. It doesn't have one yet but the name is there so nobody can complain.
Also, to start the Sigmarmobile, you have to exit the car (sorry. I mean Sigmarmobile) and start it manually. You know, like the really old cars. That is okay because this is a really new product as well and when cars were new they had the same problem.
It also cannot turn left because who needs that? You can simply turn right three times. Be reasonable. We cannot do everything for you and this way things are more like in the good ol days.

If you like the new fluff, fine with me. I wont argue about taste. But arguing that AOS cannot be criticized because its new and had no time to develop is nonsense. A bad product is a bad product and if you are selling a product today it has to be compared to today's competing products.

hagen88
25-11-2015, 13:14
Saying the blanks left to fill in an incomplete product are the best thing about it is a withering assessment and certainly not something that encourages me to buy other products related to it for exorbitant prices.

That is certainly a legitimate and understandable position. My point was just that somebody out there is actually enjoying the freedom AoS gives in terms of narrative and campaign. I know some people (at least two of my very good friends) who abandoned wh because they knew the Old World as their own pockets after countless years of playing and roleplaying in the same setting and did not find the same enthusiasm or surprise in creating stories in that world anymore. I personally did not reach that point yet, I always considered wh one of the best fantasy setting ever conceived, but I can understand people wanting to experiment the freedom 40k gives in terms of infinite possibilities and open scenarios. I do think that the basic principles of AoS as a more dynamic and customizable setting work pretty well considering the current situation of gw and their increasing incapability of innovation and the pretty evident, in my opinion, lack of ideas and creativity of the current studio. In fact I personally find most of the bg they did write for AoS to be really underwhelming to say the least and the stormcasts in particular as a very weak and kind of desperate manoeuvre to appeal to the space marines' crowd (yes, I know, crazy idea right?).
I really imagine that what they want from AoS is selling us all the minis we always wanted but we couldn't find an excuse to buy except for "I want to start a new army" with all that would have meant in terms of money, time and energies. Now they are telling us that if we like the dryads but do not want to collect an army of wood elves to play with them we can perfectly purchase a box and field them alongside our tomb kings... Why would that happen in terms of fluff? Because AoS that's why! They probably don't even bother if you buy their minis and then play at Kings of War or whatever, the important thing is that you buy their minis!

Now, as a collector and a painter I can understand that new direction and I even support it. I like the idea to be able to field whatever minis are in my cabinets and play with them a fast and fun scenario of my invention.
As a fluff lover I am really sad about what they are doing to my beloved fantasy but since I reckon I could do better I am actually enjoying the freedom that AoS gives me in terms of narrative. I just largely ignore their fluff and come out with my stories in the Mortal Realms, without being too afraid of invalidating the "canon".

pox
25-11-2015, 13:15
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What AoS needed and still needs is the new version of the Generals Compendium, married to the standard background seen in every edition release for 40k and fantasy. It also needs a full battery of battle reports, printed and video with explanations of how they envision the game to be played.

Many of the arguments are what to do with the rules, how this new style of play should work, and figuring out what they mean by scenario based games. It seems a lot of players get this, especially if they have a tabletop RP background. others that ARE in a more competitive mindset may find this new way to play difficult and confusing.
I'm not trying to insult anyone. what I mean by way of motorcycle example is even though they are all motorcycles a Hard-tail chopper, cruiser, street fighter, and dirt bike all ride VERY different. People tend to gravitate to one style of bike. If you want to convince a cruiser guy to go riding dirt bikes with you, you gotta show him how different riding it is and how to handle the bike.

They needed a book that had a full write up of the realms describing in a page or two what it is, who it's neighbors are, major settlements, and locales of major realmgates and where they go. their colorful maps would suffice for this, they just need a basic description of what each point on the map is!

The book should also include the same for each race. I understand they may not want to show models they are discontinuing, but artwork would have sufficed. Every army they plan on supporting should have a page or two describing where they live, their current state of affairs, major characters still alive, and who their major allies and enemies are.

Next part of the book would be rules followed by scenarios with alternate armies in each one. If carefully illustrated, by the end of the section players should have a general idea of how scenarios work instead of points. maybe the competitive player would like to try his hand at a difficult to win scenario? I know I'm not the only player who would like to try a "Dark Souls" style difficult game, then swap with my opponent and see how he does.

After the scenario section of the book, there should be a section on writing your own scenarios, how to balance armies for these scenarios, and key things to keep in mind. This section would basically be the DM guide of the book. Factors like terrain, winds of magic, realm gates, summoning, allies, and campaigns should be in here. Examples can easily be pulled from the Ghal Mraz campaign, but with many examples of other armies and how each mission could be adapted to different armies.

All that should have been in the first book released. They wanted to go in a radically different direction, so including a tutorial with designer thoughts and notes would have gone a long way to showing what they intended with this new direction, and how to get there.

To support this, they should have many written battle reports in WD or online, and maybe even a tutorial video.

Just my two cents.

Zywus
25-11-2015, 13:27
My point was just that somebody out there is actually enjoying the freedom AoS gives in terms of narrative and campaign.Having no boundaries might work for some (although one might question what the point of such a setting is).

For most people though. My impression at least is that restrictions is really helpful to creativity. Many people in 40k enjoy theming their marine forces around the themes of specific chapters picking more of certain minis and less of others to reflect a force specialized in a certain type of warfare. It's just in later years that the sentiment has become that everything has to have special rules and bonuses to show specialization and every White Scar marine has to ride a bike all the time...and so forth...

It might feel fresh to mix and match models however one like once in a while and come up with a story for why they're together. After the millionth army of space marines with Eldar and Tau allies it loses any novelty though and has just succeeded in lessening the character of the three forces. If everything is special and over the top, then eventually nothing is interesting anymore.

ewar
25-11-2015, 13:31
I think you've absolutely nailed it there Pox. As much as I don't like the direction they've gone, it has been handled so badly by their customer communications. All of those things you've said above would have made a huge difference to helping people transition. It still wouldn't work for everyone (or maybe even a majority) but it might have eased things along.

Arrahed
25-11-2015, 13:44
The Generals Compendium... sweet memories. It painted the picture of a company being passionate about their own product beyond squeezing the last penny of profit out of it. I got the impression that the only thing GW is passionate about now is sniffing golden spray paint. Too bad...
As low my opinion of AOS and its fluff is, I would love to see a new Generals Compendium. Even if it were about AOS stuff.
The internet provides a lot of alternative guides for hobby projects but it would still be great as a source of inspiration.

pox
25-11-2015, 14:04
The Generals Compendium... sweet memories. It painted the picture of a company being passionate about their own product beyond squeezing the last penny of profit out of it. I got the impression that the only thing GW is passionate about now is sniffing golden spray paint. Too bad...
As low my opinion of AOS and its fluff is, I would love to see a new Generals Compendium. Even if it were about AOS stuff.
The internet provides a lot of alternative guides for hobby projects but it would still be great as a source of inspiration.

The reason I always use the General's Compendium as my go-to argument for what AoS needs is because of why it was written! Right in the designers notes it talks about the book being used for different ways of playing, and that a lot of the contents are not suitable for tournament play. It was a tome SPECIFICALLY written as a counter to always playing pitched battles.

within two months of it being released even our hardcore tourney guys were building castes and defenses, siege towers, and boats. We built lava game boards, dessert game boards, and had several map campaigns going at once. Hell, they even had an Ultra-competitive rules set called "Deathmatch" to settle who was the better player and if that wasn't enough you went to "Grudgematch," where you played fixed lists, swapped armies, and played a series of scenarios meant to test every aspect of your army in order to clearly declare one player the clear victor over another. Our RP players had fun trying to combine siege rules with the boat rules, we had allied armies and four player games, and the tourney guys got busy calling each other out to declare who was king in a tournament-league based off of grudgematch.

Once I got over the shock of AoS, it was the first thing I went to to start solving the problems of no structure in AoS.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-11-2015, 14:38
Going by the date stamp on recent AoS sprues their lead time seems to be about two years, so I'd guess they've got around two years worth of releases already in the pipeline. Will AoS make it to 13, I've no idea, warhammer fantasy got to the ripe old age of 30 before it was cancelled and there had been rumours of it performing very poorly for several years before it was actually put out of its misery.

AoS was a last ditch attempt to keep the fantasy line going and I expect that it's long term viability depends largely on how it develops over the next year and a half and how successful it is at attracting new blood to the hobby.

We arlready dismissed that claim countless times.
But here we go, again...


ICv2 Top Five Non-collectable Miniature Games 2006
1. Warhammer 40,000
2. WarMachine
3. Hordes
4. Warhammer Fantasy Battles
5. Confrontation
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/10315/game-sales-revive-2006

ICv2 Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Games 2007
1. Warhammer 40K
2. WarMachine
3. Hordes
4. Reaper Dark Heaven
5. AT-43
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/12294/ccgs-miniature-games-up-07

ICv2 Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Games 2008
1. Warhammer 40K
2. Hordes
3. WarMachine
4. Reaper Dark Heaven
5. Warhammer Fantasy Battles
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/14724/top-winter--08--09-non-collectible-miniature-lines

ICv2 Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Games 2009
1. Warhammer 40K
2. WarMachine
3. Hordes
4. Warhammer Fantasy Battles
5. Reaper Dark Heaven
http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/15716/top-q2-2009-non-collectible-miniature-lines

ICv2 Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Games 2010 - 2011 - 2012
1. Warhammer 40K
2. WarMachine
3. Warhammer Fantasy Battles
4. Hordes
5. Malifaux
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/18046/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-lines-q2-2010
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/21404/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-lines-summer-2011
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/24225/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-lines-summer-2012

ICv2 Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Games 2013
1. Warhammer 40K
2. X-Wing
3. Warmachine
4. Warhammer Fantasy Battles
5. Hordes
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/27069/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-lines-summer-2013


there had been rumours of it performing very poorly for several years before it was actually put out of its misery

We are not in the 80's anymore. Facts are better than rumors. If i tell you AoS is rumored to perform very poorly you are going to tell me "there is no facts of it nanana". Stay consistent Spiney Norman.

The reality show that WHFB was a succesfull game both in sales and popularity but managed by GW very poorly for several years.
How can you expect to sell something when you do not upgrade your products on a regular basis ? And bad rules ?
Exemple with the Marauders, a ugly kit of 15 years old, worst unit choice in the WoC 8th book by far and GW expect us to buy, paint and play 100 of them ???

WHFB, with very limited official support, failed to be as succesfull as 40K. So here come 40K-fantasy aka AoS. Simple as that.

Zywus
25-11-2015, 16:13
within two months of it being released even our hardcore tourney guys were building castes and defenses, siege towers, and boats. We built lava game boards, dessert game boards, and had several map campaigns going at once.
Mmm, sounds yummy. Would that be the tabletop equivalent of candyland?:p

Lexington
25-11-2015, 16:21
I always considered wh one of the best fantasy setting ever conceived, but I can understand people wanting to experiment the freedom 40k gives in terms of infinite possibilities and open scenarios.
This comparison just doesn't pan out, I'd say. GW's brain drain has left them unable to grapple with a pretty basic worldbuilding fact - no one gives a damn about the quiescent perils of the C'Tan unless there's an Imperium guarding the Gates of Varl. Freedom within a setting's nice, but unless there's a strong starting point to investigate the world from, it's never going to capture people's imagination. "You define everything - the sky's the limit" is just trying to sell people a car they already own.

Dosiere
25-11-2015, 16:40
The reason I always use the General's Compendium as my go-to argument for what AoS needs is because of why it was written! Right in the designers notes it talks about the book being used for different ways of playing, and that a lot of the contents are not suitable for tournament play. It was a tome SPECIFICALLY written as a counter to always playing pitched battles.

within two months of it being released even our hardcore tourney guys were building castes and defenses, siege towers, and boats. We built lava game boards, dessert game boards, and had several map campaigns going at once. Hell, they even had an Ultra-competitive rules set called "Deathmatch" to settle who was the better player and if that wasn't enough you went to "Grudgematch," where you played fixed lists, swapped armies, and played a series of scenarios meant to test every aspect of your army in order to clearly declare one player the clear victor over another. Our RP players had fun trying to combine siege rules with the boat rules, we had allied armies and four player games, and the tourney guys got busy calling each other out to declare who was king in a tournament-league based off of grudgematch.

Once I got over the shock of AoS, it was the first thing I went to to start solving the problems of no structure in AoS.

This apparently is not what many AoS players want though. I think it would be seen as restricting the absolute freedom of the game as it is currently is. Playing with your miniatures with essentially no framework for doing so is actually a selling point at the moment. The optional nature of the campaign and army books is also seen as a positive since they don't really need them or the scenarios in them.

The time period of 6th ed WFB though was great for material like the Generals Compendium. The White Dwarfs at the time often contained loads of good campaign game material.

pox
25-11-2015, 16:46
Mmm, sounds yummy. Would that be the tabletop equivalent of candyland?:p

DAMMIT! I did the same damn idiotic misspelling in another thread a few weeks ago.


Hear me now, believe me later: rather then admit I'm wrong, I'm gonna double down. I'm gonna make a candy-land nightmare game board, based on a Slaanesh fever dream. This will give me the impetus to also make a candy-colored Slaanesh army. Once my models and game board are done, when I misspell desert I'll just link the army and terrain threads.

akai
25-11-2015, 17:07
Having no boundaries might work for some (although one might question what the point of such a setting is).

For most people though. My impression at least is that restrictions is really helpful to creativity. Many people in 40k enjoy theming their marine forces around the themes of specific chapters picking more of certain minis and less of others to reflect a force specialized in a certain type of warfare. It's just in later years that the sentiment has become that everything has to have special rules and bonuses to show specialization and every White Scar marine has to ride a bike all the time...and so forth...

It might feel fresh to mix and match models however one like once in a while and come up with a story for why they're together. After the millionth army of space marines with Eldar and Tau allies it loses any novelty though and has just succeeded in lessening the character of the three forces. If everything is special and over the top, then eventually nothing is interesting anymore.

One may indeed question the point of such a setting. It is not a novel idea though. The "no boundaries" abstract multi-verse/planes of existence type of settings has at least been an option in Dungeons & Dragons for 30+ years. It provide an expanded setting in which there are no limits and that smaller scale settings can be played within it and have no conflict with the larger background. When a player wants to expand their campaign/adventuring into a larger scale, the "no boundaries" multi-verse setting idea is there to allow it. I think it works well for players that have and is willing to push their limits of their imagination or have lots of experience with different fantasy genre.

So what do I mean by a smaller setting? This is where YOU YOURSELF can put the restrictions to what type of fantasy setting you wished your miniature collection to be in. For example, in my smaller scale setting, the gods are not directly and heavily involved in the denizens conflicts. The denizens within my setting knows nothing of realmgates of other realms or other areas within the same realm, at least not yet. Good and evil factions are not so black and white in my setting, such that not all Beastmen are devoted to the goals of "Chaos," not all Lizardmen fight for the goals of "Order." There! I have created boundaries and restrictions to help guide my creativity for a smaller scale setting within the "9 realms."

hagen88
25-11-2015, 18:08
One may indeed question the point of such a setting. It is not a novel idea though. The "no boundaries" abstract multi-verse/planes of existence type of settings has at least been an option in Dungeons & Dragons for 30+ years. It provide an expanded setting in which there are no limits and that smaller scale settings can be played within it and have no conflict with the larger background. When a player wants to expand their campaign/adventuring into a larger scale, the "no boundaries" multi-verse setting idea is there to allow it. I think it works well for players that have and is willing to push their limits of their imagination or have lots of experience with different fantasy genre.

So what do I mean by a smaller setting? This is where YOU YOURSELF can put the restrictions to what type of fantasy setting you wished your miniature collection to be in. For example, in my smaller scale setting, the gods are not directly and heavily involved in the denizens conflicts. The denizens within my setting knows nothing of realmgates of other realms or other areas within the same realm, at least not yet. Good and evil factions are not so black and white in my setting, such that not all Beastmen are devoted to the goals of "Chaos," not all Lizardmen fight for the goals of "Order." There! I have created boundaries and restrictions to help guide my creativity for a smaller scale setting within the "9 realms."

You got it in my opinion... it's all about exploring different possibilities through modelling and playing inside the very loose frame AoS provides. It is not wh but it is fun. D&D is a perfect example of an open multiverse setting which works well exactly because of the aforementioned reasons.

ewar
25-11-2015, 18:30
I have no idea why you need the crappy 9 realms concept to do that though?

My wood elves are from a completely made up part of the Cythral called Cyncaryg Vale, where it is permanently winter and they live closely with evil forest spirits and sacrifice humans.

It's not in the 8th ed fluff but a whole world is a big place. Just like my tomb kings are from a necropolis called Dja. You don't need GW to destroy such a detailed world and give you a literal blank canvass before you get creative.

Arrahed
25-11-2015, 18:41
You got it in my opinion... it's all about exploring different possibilities through modelling and playing inside the very loose frame AoS provides. It is not wh but it is fun. D&D is a perfect example of an open multiverse setting which works well exactly because of the aforementioned reasons.

I am not an expert on DnD but isn't DnD famous for its incredibly detailed worlds? Isn't that a huge difference to the AOS setting?

Buddy Bear
25-11-2015, 18:46
Yes. D&D campaign settings also typically provide background and history on the primary movers and shakers of their worlds, plus art depicting them, rather than just naming them with a one sentence description and leaving it at that.

Catweazle
25-11-2015, 18:49
The difference is aos has been out for five months.

Arrahed
25-11-2015, 18:52
The difference is aos has been out for five months.
That is no excuse at all. I own an Eberron campaign setting book because I loved the idea. From the moment it was released all the detail was there. There was some polishing here and there after release but the overall setting was complete.

MagicAngle
25-11-2015, 18:58
The idea that GW needed to vaporize the planet to stimulate creativity is utterly bogus. If you are the kind of person who is interested in creating your own fantastic worlds, you'll do it if the setting is AoS, Olde Worlde, Slough (1963), or your bathroom (present day). If you're not interested in imagining your own worlds, you wont, regardless of how "open" a setting it is.

pox
25-11-2015, 19:23
D&D has many detailed worlds, the closest to AoS would be Planescape or SpellJammer.

Both involve traveling to extreme places but Planescape had outer planes that followed all the major alignments, with a good chunk of mythological places thrown in (lots of greek and roman locales.) They also had the inner planes, that were the elemental planes.

Planescape was a hot mess but it worked, The basic book focused a few pages on each plane and the city of Sigil that tied it all together. It was just plot idea after plot idea for the entire book.

SpellJammer was shipping routes and pirates with boats in space. It was a hot mess but really, really good campy fun.

Catweazle
25-11-2015, 19:39
That is no excuse at all. I own an Eberron campaign setting book because I loved the idea. From the moment it was released all the detail was there. There was some polishing here and there after release but the overall setting was complete.

The detail was there because thats what WotC are in the business of selling. GW use the beckground and game as a pretext to sell miniatures. It's clear that they will flesh out the setting with future releases.

Personally I'd love nine lavish source books detailing the realms. Maybe we'll get a wfrp set in the nine realms one day.

Buddy Bear
25-11-2015, 19:44
So why aren't other miniature games as lacking in detail, then? Why does every other miniature game which has been released on the market in the past few years, all of which have been produced by companies unable to pour as much capital into their game as GW, have far more detailed worlds than AOS?

Arrahed
25-11-2015, 20:08
The detail was there because thats what WotC are in the business of selling. GW use the beckground and game as a pretext to sell miniatures. It's clear that they will flesh out the setting with future releases.

Personally I'd love nine lavish source books detailing the realms. Maybe we'll get a wfrp set in the nine realms one day.
So a crappy setting must not be called crappy if its from a miniature company?
If WotC are starting to release crappy sci-fi miniatures, would it be wrong to call them crappy because they create RPGs?

And how is it clear that they will flesh it out. If anything the LM release showed that they don't.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-11-2015, 21:04
The difference is aos has been out for five months.

So what ? Tolkien used 3 books to give us Middle Earth and an Epic Story, AoS used the same amount of paper for ********************.

akai
25-11-2015, 21:35
I have no idea why you need the crappy 9 realms concept to do that though?

My wood elves are from a completely made up part of the Cythral called Cyncaryg Vale, where it is permanently winter and they live closely with evil forest spirits and sacrifice humans.

It's not in the 8th ed fluff but a whole world is a big place. Just like my tomb kings are from a necropolis called Dja. You don't need GW to destroy such a detailed world and give you a literal blank canvass before you get creative.

If I want to create an entire kingdom the size of Bretonnia/Empire, or entire continents with large body of waters that would be more difficult to fit in the Old World map / setting. The old world is pretty well mapped out. You have made a completely made up setting within the old world. Good for you! In the end, its your game and you make out of it what you want.
Did GW need to destroy the old world? IMO, no.
Did GW destroy the old world? yeah, most of it.
Can you still play games in the old world? Absolutely
Are people still emotionally fraught that GW is moving in the direction that AoS is going? Apparently, yes!


I am not an expert on DnD but isn't DnD famous for its incredibly detailed worlds? Isn't that a huge difference to the AOS setting?
I have the core DnD books for 4th Edition and most of its supplements. I have DnD 5th Edition core books. In both 4th edition and 5th edition core books (5th in my hands right now), there is very little detail on the world settings beside mentioning there is a multi-verse and a conceptualize view of it. There are some maps for a city or just the surrounding areas around the cities (4th Edition, Nentir Vale) but no world map in either edition core books. They are mainly books acting as guides to create your own characters, your own world, and monsters. Because of that, the AoS hardback book actually have more world setting detailed than both DnD 4E and 5E core books :P.

Now if you want a well defined world made for you in DnD, you could go get a campaign setting book in Forgottten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, etc. (i think 5E only came out with Sword Coast and that is just a small portion of the entire Forgotten Realms' world). The default setting in 4th Edition, however, is "the points of lights" where "the setting is intentionally incomplete, allowing the gaps to be filled by imported or homebrew content."

Arrahed
25-11-2015, 21:46
If I want to create an entire kingdom the size of Bretonnia/Empire, or entire continents with large body of waters that would be more difficult to fit in the Old World map / setting. The old world is pretty well mapped out. You have made a completely made up setting within the old world. Good for you! In the end, its your game and you make out of it what you want.
Did GW need to destroy the old world? IMO, no.
Did GW destroy the old world? yeah, most of it.
Can you still play games in the old world? Absolutely
Are people still emotionally fraught that GW is moving in the direction that AoS is going? Apparently, yes!


I have the core DnD books for 4th Edition and most of its supplements. I have DnD 5th Edition core books. In both 4th edition and 5th edition core books (5th in my hands right now), there is very little detail on the world settings beside mentioning there is a multi-verse and a conceptualize view of it. There are some maps for a city or just the surrounding areas around the cities (4th Edition, Nentir Vale) but no world map in either edition core books. They are mainly books acting as guides to create your own characters, your own world, and monsters. Because of that, the AoS hardback book actually have more world setting detailed than both DnD 4E and 5E core books :P.

Now if you want a well defined world made for you in DnD, you could go get a campaign setting book in Forgottten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, etc. (i think 5E only came out with Sword Coast and that is just a small portion of the entire Forgotten Realms' world). The default setting in 4th Edition, however, is "the points of lights" where "the setting is intentionally incomplete, allowing the gaps to be filled by imported or homebrew content."
Okay, my interested in D&D died before the introduction of 4th Edition so I wasn't aware that they pulled off some similarly shady stuff. Although, I rather don't want to judge because there might be a way to create a 'enter user content here' setting that works nicely.

Concerning the fluff part in the Player Guides: I was thinking about the campaign settings. I always considered the Player Guide/Handbooks (whatever they were called) as the hard and dry rules with a rather loose connection to a setting.
I wouldn't blame GW for not including fluff in their rule books. It would be okay to sell it seperatly like many other companies do. I blame GW for not providing a decently development setting despite selling books that are supposedly campaign settings.

hagen88
25-11-2015, 21:49
Yes. D&D campaign settings also typically provide background and history on the primary movers and shakers of their worlds, plus art depicting them, rather than just naming them with a one sentence description and leaving it at that.

Well, they are trying to provide bg, it's just that it is not very good... They are not able to produce good bg for a fantasy setting anymore I'm afraid. You are right, there are hundreds of other companies providing much better background and settings than AoS (it's not that difficult actually) the difference is they do not produce some of the best minis to go with it (arguably, I realise many people think differently). I am on board with AoS because I enjoy collecting their minis very much and after ET I believe that, instead of putting my faith in gw's ability to write good fluff, I will use their model in my own narratives.
AoS comes at the right time for me since gw had just literally destroyed the greatest fantasy setting ever conceived (and I don't just mean ET, I mean the very bad and underwhelming fluff the studio is coming out with now) and they were not capable of creating something similar again, they could not possibly do it, and it is well possible that expecting that much from them was just unfair.
AoS does not substitute wh, not at all, but it might give me the chance to do it myself, using their models and the ideas I find good from their setting (there are some, by the way, just look behind those big golden dudes). I believe that was their goal... Is it being successful? I hope so for them and for us, since most likely they would simply stop producing fantasy minis if AoS fails.

Catweazle
25-11-2015, 21:51
Buddy Bear- Precisley because they can't invest as much. GW can plan further ahead and say "we're going to put out X campagin books, battletomes and novels over the next however many years, whilst other companies are wondering if their kickstarter will get funded.

Arrahed - Crappy is subjective and you seem to be deliberately missing my point. Without detailed background WotC literally have no product to sell you. The equivalent would be GW bringing out aos but not making any minis.

Drakkar du Chaos - Nobody world builds like Tolkien so bringing him up is pointless. Especially given that middle earth is terrible for gaming in precisley because everythings sewn up. Then again you are the guy that thinks if he bitches about aos enough on warseer GW will resurrect wfb.

Buddy Bear
25-11-2015, 22:00
Buddy Bear- Precisley because they can't invest as much. GW can plan further ahead and say "we're going to put out X campagin books, battletomes and novels over the next however many years, whilst other companies are wondering if their kickstarter will get funded.

That doesn't make the barest shred of sense whatsoever. So GW makes an inferior product... because they have more money? Shouldn't their ability to invest more mean that they can put out a product which is superior to that put out by a company like Privateer Press, or a company which funds its projects through Kickstarters like Mantic? And what good is it that they can plan further ahead if they have nothing to show for it for their initial batch of releases? If Warmachine, Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Kings of War, and the dozens of other miniatures games out there can produce fully realized settings in their very first outing, then GW has no excuse whatsoever for not doing the same with AOS, nor is there any benefit for not doing so, which you seem to be implying here.

akai
25-11-2015, 22:02
Okay, my interested in D&D died before the introduction of 4th Edition so I wasn't aware that they pulled off some similarly shady stuff. Although, I rather don't want to judge because there might be a way to create a 'enter user content here' setting that works nicely.

Concerning the fluff part in the Player Guides: I was thinking about the campaign settings. I always considered the Player Guide/Handbooks (whatever they were called) as the hard and dry rules with a rather loose connection to a setting.
I wouldn't blame GW for not including fluff in their rule books. It would be okay to sell it seperatly like many other companies do. I blame GW for not providing a decently development setting despite selling books that are supposedly campaign settings.

This is a very rough comparison, but the two "big books" in Age of Sigmar are more similar to DnD Adventure books rather than DnD Campaign Setting books. If Games Workshop release lets say a book called "Aqshy-the Realm of Fire" I think that would be more like a DnD Campaign setting book. But to be very honest, I'm not entirely sure what Games Workshop is planning to do!

akai
25-11-2015, 22:21
I am on board with AoS because I enjoy collecting their minis very much and after ET I believe that, instead of putting my faith in gw's ability to write good fluff, I will use their model in my own narratives.

There was one passage in the first hardback book of AoS that basically is what you wrote!

"The rules presented in the sections that follows give you a framework to make this tale your own. More than that, though, they enable you to tell your own stories set in the Mortal Realms, and use your collection of Citadel Miniatures in glorious battles of your own devising. Some will fight to free the realms form the horror of Chaos rule, others to crush the upstarts who dare challenge the Dark Gods, or for some other, personal agenda. Whatever your goals, these rules will allow you to live out one exciting tale of battle after another, your exploits through the fantastical landscapes of the realms limited only by your imagination."

Maybe there will be a day when Games Workshop sparks my interest with their ongoing narrative in the Realmgate Wars, but for now, my miniatures have no knowledge of it!

Catweazle
25-11-2015, 22:37
That doesn't make the barest shred of sense whatsoever. So GW makes an inferior product... because they have more money? Shouldn't their ability to invest more mean that they can put out a product which is superior to that put out by a company like Privateer Press, or a company which funds its projects through Kickstarters like Mantic? And what good is it that they can plan further ahead if they have nothing to show for it for their initial batch of releases? If Warmachine, Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Kings of War, and the dozens of other miniatures games out there can produce fully realized settings in their very first outing, then GW has no excuse whatsoever for not doing the same with AOS, nor is there any benefit for not doing so, which you seem to be implying here.

I'm really not sure why you're having so much trouble with this.

AoS isn't a static setting like wfb. GW are going to move the narrative on with campaigns (Slaanesh being missing etc). Over time this will give the nine realms history and depth. Not all the armies have been released yet nor do will really know much about them. This is probably for IP reasons but eventually they will be released.

Spiney Norman
25-11-2015, 23:04
I'm really not sure why you're having so much trouble with this.

AoS isn't a static setting like wfb. GW are going to move the narrative on with campaigns (Slaanesh being missing etc). Over time this will give the nine realms history and depth. Not all the armies have been released yet nor do will really know much about them. This is probably for IP reasons but eventually they will be released.

I think it's also to do with the 'no limits' philosophy that has been growing in GW games throughout 6th & 7th ed 40k, they want you to feel like you can buy whatever models you want and use it and that's totally fine, creating a more open-ended setting is part of that because it stops people from looking at your army and saying things like 'ahhh but those two armies would never fight alongside each other' (remember the White dwarf article around the time Storm of magic was released that drew universal horror from wfb fans because it featured a high elf army led by Teclis with a sorcerous pact with chaos daemons).

GW did not design the AoS setting the way they did by accident, they could have done it differently, heck they could have set it in the old warhammer world if they'd wanted to, but they intentionally chose to do it this way. It's about allowing the player to determine their own narrative rather than being told what they have to have in their army by artificial restrictions or points limits or official fluff.

I think that as each AoS army gets its new model range and/or battle tome we'll get more information about what they're like, but I still think they will want to preserve maximum flexibility to allow players to have full control over what models they use.

Spell_of_Destruction
25-11-2015, 23:29
Unfortunately, intent is not always sufficient to achieve a desired result. It's fine for GW to come to the conclusion that it's better to have fewer restrictions as to what models a player can use in his army. But they have to implement that philosophy effectively in order for it to have the desired effect of increased sales. Adopting such a strategy based on an intuitive 'hunch' that it's the right way to go in the absence of detailed market research is incredibly risky.

AoS is still salvageable. They could release a book containing something that we would recognize as an actual game system. The simple rules are still there for younger players and for casual store-play. Like I said on the other thread, GW don't even need to spend a lot of time and money developing a new system. They have a skirmish system - it's called 40k. A few tweaks and it can be adapted for Fantasy. Not that I'm saying WHFB with 40k rules is my idea of a good system but it would at least be workable. IMO, it also makes a huge amount of business sense for GW as it also plays into the idea that you can use any model from their range in any game. Want to play Dwarves vs Space Marines? No problem!

Catweazle
25-11-2015, 23:35
I'm a big fan of less limits. It's not even so much what GW actually put down but how players self censor, the teclis thing is a great example. He's one of the most powerful wizards on earth and he, in a pinch, decides to pluck some demons out of the aether. Yet people balk because he's a goodie and hates chaos or something. Same thing with the HE DE reunification in end times. People acting like it was so crazy that a civil war might end. Something that has happened many times throughout history becomes stupid or "lazy" because an army book says they really really hate each other. This kind of instinctive rigidity IMO really limited wfb.

My hope is that the aos community turns out like the D&D osr and Inq 28 communities.

Tokamak
25-11-2015, 23:58
Guys, we don't have to guess after GW's motives. Gw's motives are quite clear (http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-of-Sigmar-interview).

Kakapo42
26-11-2015, 00:33
The problem with the 'freedom' argument is that the AoS background doesn't provide more freedom than Warhammer did. As this article (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/07/04/games-workshop-reinvents-warhammer.aspx) from the original AoS release shows (and since GW linked to it in their news blog it presumably at least echoes their plans for AoS), GW plans to railroad the AoS background even more heavily than they did with Warhammer, which can only restrict freedom. The only reason it seems more open-ended now is because the metaplot hasn't fully gotten off the ground yet.

Claymore
26-11-2015, 02:18
I'm a big fan of less limits. It's not even so much what GW actually put down but how players self censor, the teclis thing is a great example. He's one of the most powerful wizards on earth and he, in a pinch, decides to pluck some demons out of the aether. Yet people balk because he's a goodie and hates chaos or something. Same thing with the HE DE reunification in end times. People acting like it was so crazy that a civil war might end. Something that has happened many times throughout history becomes stupid or "lazy" because an army book says they really really hate each other. This kind of instinctive rigidity IMO really limited wfb.

My hope is that the aos community turns out like the D&D osr and Inq 28 communities.

HE and DE reunification was frankly ridiculous, their ideology is the fundamentally the opposite of each other to the point where you could stick the two race together in a restricted space they'd fight to the death, it's like the orcs and Elves in lord of the rings suddenly getting friendly ROFL.

Can really see the HE enjoying watching the Witch elves dragging their family off to be sacrificed.....



The problem with the 'freedom' argument is that the AoS background doesn't provide more freedom than Warhammer did. As this article (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/07/04/games-workshop-reinvents-warhammer.aspx) from the original AoS release shows (and since GW linked to it in their news blog it presumably at least echoes their plans for AoS), GW plans to railroad the AoS background even more heavily than they did with Warhammer, which can only restrict freedom. The only reason it seems more open-ended now is because the metaplot hasn't fully gotten off the ground yet.

Pretty much this, one of the big reason GW seemed to have come up with AOS is IP control which as you say implies even tighter control of the fluff.

Voss
26-11-2015, 02:33
Well, they are trying to provide bg, it's just that it is not very good... They are not able to produce good bg for a fantasy setting anymore I'm afraid. You are right, there are hundreds of other companies providing much better background and settings than AoS (it's not that difficult actually) the difference is they do not produce some of the best minis to go with it (arguably, I realise many people think differently). I am on board with AoS because I enjoy collecting their minis very much and after ET I believe that, instead of putting my faith in gw's ability to write good fluff, I will use their model in my own narratives.
AoS comes at the right time for me since gw had just literally destroyed the greatest fantasy setting ever conceived (and I don't just mean ET, I mean the very bad and underwhelming fluff the studio is coming out with now) and they were not capable of creating something similar again, they could not possibly do it, and it is well possible that expecting that much from them was just unfair.
AoS does not substitute wh, not at all, but it might give me the chance to do it myself, using their models and the ideas I find good from their setting (there are some, by the way, just look behind those big golden dudes). I believe that was their goal... Is it being successful? I hope so for them and for us, since most likely they would simply stop producing fantasy minis if AoS fails.

So... you're going to do the work yourself (own narratives), but still buy in because they aren't capable?
I... don't get it. Is there a punchline? :eyebrows:

akai
26-11-2015, 04:40
The problem with the 'freedom' argument is that the AoS background doesn't provide more freedom than Warhammer did. As this article (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/07/04/games-workshop-reinvents-warhammer.aspx) from the original AoS release shows (and since GW linked to it in their news blog it presumably at least echoes their plans for AoS), GW plans to railroad the AoS background even more heavily than they did with Warhammer, which can only restrict freedom. The only reason it seems more open-ended now is because the metaplot hasn't fully gotten off the ground yet.

I assume you are referring to this portion of the article?

"Perhaps more importantly, Age of Sigmar represents Games Workshop’s goal to tell a more robust ongoing story. Sigmar’s initial assault sends his army of Stormcast Eternals down to retake the Realm of Fire from the Khorne Bloodbound army. From this starting conflict, Games Workshop hopes to unfold an evolving tale with greater narrative direction and depth than they’ve previously included. In fact, I’m told that the first full year of storylines is already clearly planned out."

I read that article which was written before the first Realmgate War supplement was released. With that frame of reference, I interpret it somewhat differently from your interpretation. I read it as Games Workshop attempts "to unfold an evolving tale with greater narrative direction and depth" through the ongoing events in Realmgate Wars. Only the relevant local regions are elaborated on in depth. Unless there is a dramatic departure to the format of how AoS books are presented in the future, than I don't think we will be seeing detailed, fleshed out maps of each realm in its entirety. Maybe an abstract depiction of the realms. I guess we will have a better picture when the next several barrages of supplements are released :)

DarkChaplain
26-11-2015, 05:21
As somebody who has been reading almost all Age of Sigmar stories published by Black Library and read a good amount of the big books, I cannot see where the "depth" is in those stories. It is extremely formulaic, and the only reason why the stories are okay reads is because of the authors putting their own strengths to bear in ways that GW's design team seems incapable of. And even then the worst parts about ANY of the BL fiction so far are simply down to Age of Sigmar's setting, design philosophy, and shallow representation in general.

There is no depth to be found. It is the same thing over and over: Chaos is dominating but complacent, Sigmarines arrive, kick bum, get slaughtered back, win pyrrhic victory that leaves the region they were fighting to save in ruins (see: Alarielle's hideout being flooded by blight, the Gates of Dawn exploded, the realmgate at Khul's hangout destroyed, ancient fortresses laid to waste, poor vampire monks going Vargulf and innocents slaughtered...). Not only that, but their leaders seem downright incompetent. Vandus Hammerhand is a fool beyond compare, and the rest sacrifice themselves over nothing because tactical approaches to battle are overrated when you can shout "for Sigmar" instead.

The ONLY normal humans seen in the stories so far were victims of chaos that were either forgotten after a chapter or two, got slaughtered and then forgotten, or are doing things entirely off-screen. The only other races we've seen so far are woodelf treespirits and such, and demonic lizardmen made up of memories and starlight, who bleed starlight and come from the stars, wear star-armor and rain comets upon their enemies, as well as Skaven which are usually just cannon fodder and are no better than footnotes so far.

I saw somebody here say that the first Age of Sigmar background book tells us about Aelfs and Duardin and such - but it really doesn't tell us jack all. It tells us how they're called and that they exist somewhere (though the Aelf dudes and dudettes don't seem to, considering they're gone and not to be found), but nothing about them as a society beyond the most superficial stereotypes - "Fyreslayers love gold", for example. It tells us nothing valuable to explain anybody's cultures beyond the Sigmarines.
Everything written so far is solely for the purpose of tying it into a product. And as there are no "Steamhead Duardin" or "Aelf" products soon to come, there is absolutely nothing about them being written or included in the setting. Even the "orruks" and "ogors" are barely worth mentioning at this point, though.
Even the novellas so far, like the Gates of Dawn and Eldritch Fortress stuff, are direct adaptations of the scenarios from the main books - they're not supposed to tell a story, they're just illustrating the dull scenarios without adding anything meaningful beyond them to the world. Heck, just reading the stories makes me shake my head over all the namedropping of supposedly awesome locals in the realms, with all their ridiculous names. But that's all they are: names and maybe, if we're lucky, a short line about them.

It is pretty damn pathetic how bare-bones the Age of Sigmar setting is at this point. There is nothing for me to love in a setting spanning 9 realms of sheer infinite dimensions, which are filled with nothing worthwhile at all. No cultures, no factions, no excitement, no adventure. They're simply a blank space for lightning dudes with thunder hammers to combat berserker dudes with bloodlust and skulladdiction to duke it out over and over again.

The fiction put out so far have been at their best when they haven't been Age of Sigmar. Plenty of them could have worked JUST AS WELL, if not better, had they been placed in the Old World instead. The Solace of Rage, for example, could've been set in Kislev's steppes, that's how empty the realm of beasts with its vast steppes is right now. Eye of the Storm could've played in the Chaos Wastes, considering the local it is set in is pretty much entirely that anyway. The Prisoner of the Black Sun would've been fine set in Sylvania during the Storm of Chaos, or the End Times, too.

I have yet to be convinced that Age of Sigmar, narratively, has ANYTHING worthwhile to offer that wouldn't have worked as well, or usually better, in WHFB's setting and context.

Okuto
26-11-2015, 05:39
The ONLY normal humans seen in the stories so far were victims of chaos that were either forgotten after a chapter or two, got slaughtered and then forgotten, or are doing things entirely off-screen


No cultures, no factions, no excitement, no adventure. They're simply a blank space for lightning dudes with thunder hammers to combat berserker dudes with bloodlust and skulladdiction to duke it out over and over again.

This just makes my empire army more sadder:(

Khaines Wrath
26-11-2015, 05:59
I'm a big fan of less limits. It's not even so much what GW actually put down but how players self censor, the teclis thing is a great example. He's one of the most powerful wizards on earth and he, in a pinch, decides to pluck some demons out of the aether. Yet people balk because he's a goodie and hates chaos or something. Same thing with the HE DE reunification in end times. People acting like it was so crazy that a civil war might end. Something that has happened many times throughout history becomes stupid or "lazy" because an army book says they really really hate each other. This kind of instinctive rigidity IMO really limited wfb.

My hope is that the aos community turns out like the D&D osr and Inq 28 communities.

It's not so much rigidity as it is a desire for consistency. It's one of the basics of story telling, if characters aren't portrayed in a consistent manner they cease to be characters and become plot tools. Same with settings. It's not inherently crazy that the civil war between Dark and High Elves would end its just in the way it's been handled. The unification of the elves made no sense in their current cultural presentations.

The Dark Elves are pillaging pirates and slavers with a hedonistic culture and a reverence for a god of murder culminating in religious ceremonies that involve mass slaughter and kidnapping.

The High Elves are an ancient culture that is involved in trade and maintaining order in the world to prevent chaos. They also have a culture that favours rigid, self control and self discipline.

The Wood Elves are fiercely isolationist with elements of both of their cousins wrapped in a fey, sprite package. They fight for control of Athel Loren with the forces of chaos but also embrace a more savage, bestial nature that would be seen as barbaric by their High Elf cousins.

Change is possible but when writers present a story in a certain way then certain change requires a hell of a lot more work than others.

E.g. It's not hard for me to believe that the Haradrim made peace with Gondor after the War of the Ring. It would be immensely hard for me to believe that Mordor and Gondor formed an alliance to slay a coalition of Easterlings, Dwarfs and Elves.

Buddy Bear
26-11-2015, 07:21
I'm really not sure why you're having so much trouble with this.

AoS isn't a static setting like wfb. GW are going to move the narrative on with campaigns (Slaanesh being missing etc). Over time this will give the nine realms history and depth. Not all the armies have been released yet nor do will really know much about them. This is probably for IP reasons but eventually they will be released.

You really find it that hard to understand?

Let me ask you: Would you go to a movie theater and pay a movie ticket price to see a teaser? Because that's what Age of Sigmar is, a teaser. It's not even a full trailer, much less an actual film.

DarkChaplain
26-11-2015, 07:28
This just makes my empire army more sadder:(

At least David Annandale's Knight of Corruption short story featured some totally-not-flagellants which did a decent enough job. Not that it helped them...

Arrahed
26-11-2015, 07:33
This is a very rough comparison, but the two "big books" in Age of Sigmar are more similar to DnD Adventure books rather than DnD Campaign Setting books. If Games Workshop release lets say a book called "Aqshy-the Realm of Fire" I think that would be more like a DnD Campaign setting book. But to be very honest, I'm not entirely sure what Games Workshop is planning to do!
Then I will try to look at them as an adventure book. I haven't read them to be honest because I won't spend that much money to proof a point. So this is speculation based on feedback by people who read the AOS books.

Do the AOS books contain interesting and detailed characters? Do these characters develop during the events of the adventure? Do you learn about the motivations of the characters?

What about the detail of the adventure setting? A DnD adventure usually shows the players many details up to the things they see when opening a door and stuff like that. Things you need to connect to the story. To feel like you are a part of it.

I could go on but I think my point is clear. Does AOS provide all of this? If it does, I stand corrected.

Asmodios
26-11-2015, 07:39
I think it's also to do with the 'no limits' philosophy that has been growing in GW games throughout 6th & 7th ed 40k, they want you to feel like you can buy whatever models you want and use it and that's totally fine, creating a more open-ended setting is part of that because it stops people from looking at your army and saying things like 'ahhh but those two armies would never fight alongside each other' (remember the White dwarf article around the time Storm of magic was released that drew universal horror from wfb fans because it featured a high elf army led by Teclis with a sorcerous pact with chaos daemons).

GW did not design the AoS setting the way they did by accident, they could have done it differently, heck they could have set it in the old warhammer world if they'd wanted to, but they intentionally chose to do it this way. It's about allowing the player to determine their own narrative rather than being told what they have to have in their army by artificial restrictions or points limits or official fluff.

I think that as each AoS army gets its new model range and/or battle tome we'll get more information about what they're like, but I still think they will want to preserve maximum flexibility to allow players to have full control over what models they use.
I'm confused how the AOS setting at all solves the issues of certain factions joining forces. If an AOS fan saw a battle report with sigmarites teamed with chaos it would be just as confusing as it would be to see Teclis with demons in WHFB. Personally i think it was a poor game design to just say "now you can use any army in the game in any battle so buy them all!!!!". If GW wanted to push people to simply be able to use more models in this way they could have added a fun skirmish sized game with lore to fit it. For example the chaos gods could have started a grand tournament in the warp where they bet against each other to see what combinations of soldiers would win in a fight and all the battles are simply projections of chaos energy.

What im getting at is the new setting in no way makes more sense then the old setting for teaming odd armies together and it was always easy enough to say "x army is under the spell of army y and is now helping them fight against army z". But creating realms with little to no lore and rules that were so poor comps were made before the game was even released, was not the way to go about recapturing market share. Also the excuse that the WHFB world was stagnate and thus had to be blown up is a poor example, because they simply could have made active changes. Similar to Game of Thrones where you hate to see your favorite character die but at the same time you love not knowing what could happen at any moment, I think people would have been happy with a moving story as long as it was well written.

Khaines Wrath
26-11-2015, 07:56
I'm always baffled people had a hard time finding reasons for their armies to fight and actually thought this was a legitimate problem with warhammer.

A bit of imagination was all you needed.

Asmodios
26-11-2015, 08:01
I'm always baffled people had a hard time finding reasons for their armies to fight and actually thought this was a legitimate problem with warhammer.

A bit of imagination was all you needed.
Yup whenever my goblins were fighting with an odd ally it was because i had tricked or been tricked by the allied general. My Lizardmen usually had a common enemy or had used magic to bend my ally to his will. You could simply be mercenary's. But, my all time favorite was having my fights in the chaos wastes and thus all types of wacky stuff could happen.

Arrahed
26-11-2015, 08:10
Arrahed - Crappy is subjective and you seem to be deliberately missing my point. Without detailed background WotC literally have no product to sell you. The equivalent would be GW bringing out aos but not making any minis.

Maybe I do miss your point but I assure you its not deliberate.
My point is: does it matter who made a product? A good product is a good product. A bad product is a bad product.
GW created a bad setting (AOS). WotC created good settings (Eberron).
GW created a good setting (Old World). WotC created a bad setting (<Enter bad setting here>).

It is like eating cake: if the cake is good you will probably agree that it is good cake. If the cake tastes horrible, the only reason why you are still saying that the cake tastes great is because you don't want to hurt the feelings of the person who made the cake.
Even though I strongly disagree with using illnesses to make a point, I think that is were the association with 'Stockholm Syndrome' came from. People are baffled that customers are willing to argue away so many flaws because they apparently like the company.

Spiney Norman
26-11-2015, 08:25
Maybe I do miss your point but I assure you its not deliberate.
My point is: does it matter who made a product? A good product is a good product. A bad product is a bad product.
GW created a bad setting (AOS). WotC created good settings (Eberron).
GW created a good setting (Old World). WotC created a bad setting (<Enter bad setting here>).

It is like eating cake: if the cake is good you will probably agree that it is good cake. If the cake tastes horrible, the only reason why you are still saying that the cake tastes great is because you don't want to hurt the feelings of the person who made the cake.
Even though I strongly disagree with using illnesses to make a point, I think that is were the association with 'Stockholm Syndrome' came from. People are baffled that customers are willing to argue away so many flaws because they apparently like the company.

But like cake, enjoyment of games is entirely subjective, I can enjoy a cake that you think is horrible because we like different tastes/textures. You might hate the taste of lemon, but telling me that I only like lemon cake because my auntie made it and I'm pretending so as not to hurt her feelings is not a fair accusation, I might just like lemon.

Arrahed
26-11-2015, 08:32
I didn't want to argue about taste. You can like whatever you want. I really don't care.
That was not the point I was trying to make. My cake analogy was a response to Catweazle who said it is okay for GW to make bad cake because they are a butcher shop not a bakery. Wait what??? Now I am confused. Can I get some cake now?

Zywus
26-11-2015, 08:38
But like cake, enjoyment of games is entirely subjectiveIn a way it is.

However there are components in games, like in cakes that people have a hard time believing that others would truthfully enjoy.

There probably is someone that likes their cakes to have five the times of reccomended amount of flour in them and be baked twice as long in the oven, making them taste mostly of flour and be extremely dry. If that is truly their subjective feeling, that can't really be argued with. I would still say that such a cake would be a poor product since it would appeal to very few and it certanly would be my subjective view that such a cake were not a good cake in any way.

It's just hard to believe that you truly subjectivly thinks that AoS is a good product since you use a comp system when playing it that drastically alter the game (I believe HK has said he would never play AoS without comp). And haven't you yourself said that you haven't purchased a single of the AoS background books?

I get the allure of playing devils advocate as some of the criticism of AoS could well be described as unfair. But much of it is not.

DarkChaplain
26-11-2015, 08:46
Then I will try to look at them as an adventure book. I haven't read them to be honest because I won't spend that much money to proof a point. So this is speculation based on feedback by people who read the AOS books.

Do the AOS books contain interesting and detailed characters? Do these characters develop during the events of the adventure? Do you learn about the motivations of the characters?

What about the detail of the adventure setting? A DnD adventure usually shows the players many details up to the things they see when opening a door and stuff like that. Things you need to connect to the story. To feel like you are a part of it.

I could go on but I think my point is clear. Does AOS provide all of this? If it does, I stand corrected.

The big book? No, it doesn't have detailed (or interesting) characters. It mentions a few Stormcast Eternals and champions of Chaos, but they are all basically cardboard cutouts without real depth. Their motivations are one-dimensional: Serve their patron god in whatever way they are ordered or see fit.

The setting is barely detailed. They throw names of locations at you and expect the reader to make something up to connect to them. It doesn't even really explain in which relation various parts of the setting stand to one another. Distance and dimensions of anything are absolutely random.

The Black Library fiction does far more than GW's own, but it still isn't enough to lift the characters from glorified servant-of-so-and-so status. One of the most interesting characters is Ushkar Mir, a Khorne champion who ends up with the Bloodbound out of swearing revenge against Khorne. He basically follows the eightfold path to get a chance to face Khorne and slay him. He blasphemes against his patron and gets punished for it, but for all his defiance, he is still just another Khorne champion who does the same thing all Khorne champions do: Reap a bloody tally.

That's pretty much the problem. There is not a single character right now who isn't a stand-in for a generic character model GW is selling. None of them manage to be unique enough to warrant their own, special miniature and armybook entry the way characters in WHFB or 40k did or do. Even across all the Stormcast Eternals' characters, they are all by the book - same gear as any other character of the same type or class, doing the same things as all the others. The only thing that keeps them somewhat interesting in BL fiction is the authors' own ideas for them when it comes to their general attitudes and dialogue. The GW books do jack all.


As for the whole cake topic:

It is the same thing with video games. Some people are SO invested in a title, often years before the product actually releases, solely based on marketing material and manufactured hype, that they will go to battle for the company in question. It gets worse with long-running franchises like Assassin's Creed, the Elder Scrolls or Fallout. They will ignore and deny every legitimate flaw to make it seem better than it is. In a way, they have to - they spent a ton of money on the product, and admitting it was a bad purchase, or doesn't live up to their own expectations, would mean they wasted money and time on it. When they are so involved in the company's business, their marketing etc, admitting that the result is mediocre at best results in feeling like a damned fool for falling for the hype.
Can't have that. They'd rather lie to themselves. And due to those franchises having huge fanbases, they gather around likeminded individuals who will confirm their own biases further. If somebody doesn't toe the line, he's usually "just a hater" anyway...

Pretty much the same is happening with GW. Brand loyalty is dropping significantly all across the board, but there's still a very vocal minority who will praise anything GW puts out as the second coming of the God-Emperor. Or Sigmar, for that matter. Doesn't matter if it is shallow and flat, or if the competition has long-since overtaken GW in various aspects. After all, it is GW who gave them so much enjoyment in the past - and letting go of an old "friend" like that is difficult.

Kakapo42
26-11-2015, 08:55
I assume you are referring to this portion of the article?

"Perhaps more importantly, Age of Sigmar represents Games Workshop’s goal to tell a more robust ongoing story. Sigmar’s initial assault sends his army of Stormcast Eternals down to retake the Realm of Fire from the Khorne Bloodbound army. From this starting conflict, Games Workshop hopes to unfold an evolving tale with greater narrative direction and depth than they’ve previously included. In fact, I’m told that the first full year of storylines is already clearly planned out."

I read that article which was written before the first Realmgate War supplement was released. With that frame of reference, I interpret it somewhat differently from your interpretation. I read it as Games Workshop attempts "to unfold an evolving tale with greater narrative direction and depth" through the ongoing events in Realmgate Wars. Only the relevant local regions are elaborated on in depth. Unless there is a dramatic departure to the format of how AoS books are presented in the future, than I don't think we will be seeing detailed, fleshed out maps of each realm in its entirety. Maybe an abstract depiction of the realms. I guess we will have a better picture when the next several barrages of supplements are released :)

Yes, that's the one. Except while you seem to have focused on the first part of that passage, what really jumped out at me was the end of it - "In fact, I'm told that the first full year of storylines is already clearly planned out."

What I find especially interesting/disturbing is their choice of words, storylines. Not storyline, but storylines. Plural. It could just be a reference to the different 'theatres' of the realmgate wars, but it seems to me like GW is not going to stop at just the Realmgate wars. My impression is that they have other big narrative events lined up too (which has some precedent - between the rapid sales of the ET books and the continuing success of the 40k campaign supplements they're producing, presumably GW will have noticed that background can get them a sizeable amount of money), and that they're going to keep inserting them in until everything has been painstakingly described in a campaign book. I actually think we will see detailed, fleshed out maps of each realm in its entirety, albeit ones that are spread out over several different publications, and that GW is attempting to go the Battletech route of an exhaustively mapped-out universe with everything described and accounted for (which is easily the aspect of Battletech that I like the least).

Of course, the statement was that everything for the first full year was already planned, so I suppose we'll have an answer by the end of next year at the latest.

Spiney Norman
26-11-2015, 09:00
In a way it is.

However there are components in games, like in cakes that people have a hard time believing that others would truthfully enjoy.

There probably is someone that likes their cakes to have five the times of reccomended amount of flour in them and be baked twice as long in the oven, making them taste mostly of flour and be extremely dry. If that is truly their subjective feeling, that can't really be argued with. I would still say that such a cake would be a poor product since it would appeal to very few and it certanly would be my subjective view that such a cake were not a good cake in any way.

It's just hard to believe that you truly subjectivly thinks that AoS is a good product since you use a comp system when playing it that drastically alter the game (I believe HK has said he would never play AoS without comp). And haven't you yourself said that you haven't purchased a single of the AoS background books?

I get the allure of playing devils advocate as some of the criticism of AoS could well be described as unfair. But much of it is not.

To be fair you're putting words in my mouth, I don't 'always' use comp, although I have a tried a few comp packs, and I dispute that simply adding points values to the game is 'drastically altering it', they're really just an aid to help players balance their armies, they don't override or modify any of the games core rules. It's worth mentioning that minor house ruling was fairly common with wfb and 40k even at the local level.

I've not bought any of the background books, but I have bought two of the battle tomes (not the Ltd eds I might add); Bloodbound & dreadhold and I thought they were both pretty good products all things considered, currently the storyline is very stormcast-focused and that's not an army I'm interested in so the realmgate war books don't offer me very much.

It's probably worth me pointing out (again) that my favourite 'flavour' where wargames are concerned is "models" and despite all the criticism of the fluff and game rules (some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with or at least think is grossly exaggerated) the AoS model range is jaw-droppingly good.

Zywus
26-11-2015, 09:32
As for the whole cake topic:

It is the same thing with video games. Some people are SO invested in a title, often years before the product actually releases, solely based on marketing material and manufactured hype, that they will go to battle for the company in question. It gets worse with long-running franchises like Assassin's Creed, the Elder Scrolls or Fallout. They will ignore and deny every legitimate flaw to make it seem better than it is. In a way, they have to - they spent a ton of money on the product, and admitting it was a bad purchase, or doesn't live up to their own expectations, would mean they wasted money and time on it. When they are so involved in the company's business, their marketing etc, admitting that the result is mediocre at best results in feeling like a damned fool for falling for the hype.
Can't have that. They'd rather lie to themselves. And due to those franchises having huge fanbases, they gather around likeminded individuals who will confirm their own biases further. If somebody doesn't toe the line, he's usually "just a hater" anyway...

Pretty much the same is happening with GW. Brand loyalty is dropping significantly all across the board, but there's still a very vocal minority who will praise anything GW puts out as the second coming of the God-Emperor. Or Sigmar, for that matter. Doesn't matter if it is shallow and flat, or if the competition has long-since overtaken GW in various aspects. After all, it is GW who gave them so much enjoyment in the past - and letting go of an old "friend" like that is difficult.
I believe the term is Cognitive Dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Basically, once you've declared support for something (internally or externally) you feel the need for the reality to match what you have claimed. If you have declared something to be good you subconsciously alter your perception of reality so that it's consistent with your statements (you actually subjectively do feel something is better that what you actually perceive it to be).* It's certainly nothing unique to defenders of AoS and we all probably do it to varying degrees everyday. And it's a much more fitting term to this situation than "Stockholm Syndrom"

To be fair you're putting words in my mouth, I don't 'always' use comp, although I have a tried a few comp packs, and I dispute that simply adding points values to the game is 'drastically altering it', they're really just an aid to help players balance their armies, they don't override or modify any of the games core rules. It's worth mentioning that minor house ruling was fairly common with wfb and 40k even at the local level.

I've not bought any of the background books, but I have bought two of the battle tomes (not the Ltd eds I might add); Bloodbound & dreadhold and I thought they were both pretty good products all things considered, currently the storyline is very stormcast-focused and that's not an army I'm interested in so the realmgate war books don't offer me very much.

It's probably worth me pointing out (again) that my favourite 'flavour' where wargames are concerned is "models" and despite all the criticism of the fluff and game rules (some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with or at least think is grossly exaggerated) the AoS model range is jaw-droppingly good.
Yea sorry. I was just going from memory.

*I might be misrepresenting the theory of Cognitive Dissonance here, but that's how I've understood it basically.

Catweazle
26-11-2015, 10:15
I believe the term is Cognitive Dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Basically, once you've declared support for something (internally or externally) you feel the need for the reality to match what you have claimed. If you have declared something to be good you subconsciously alter your perception of reality so that it's consistent with your statements (you actually subjectively do feel something is better that what you actually perceive it to be).* It's certainly nothing unique to defenders of AoS and we all probably do it to varying degrees everyday. And it's a much more fitting term to this situation than "Stockholm Syndrom"

Yea sorry. I was just going from memory.

*I might be misrepresenting the theory of Cognitive Dissonance here, but that's how I've understood it basically.

Please tell me this is bait.

It would only be cognitive dissonance is aos was objectively bad. I get you guys don't like it but you're far from objective. It could be that some, like myself, like aos but since you lot are still whining five months on we have to constantly try and explain things like "GW will release more background alongside models" as if it was ever in doubt. Of course it's not about how much background there is it's that some people are angry that wfb is gone and nothing will change that.

Personally I found warhammer stale. Karl Franz had been emperor since I was five years old. The 8th edition chaos book was a poor version of the 4th edition book, which was a poor version of the realm of chaos books. The less said about the drow fluff the better. Playing a 2000 point pitched battle with a stranger is just not my hobby.

I think a took the bait...

Zywus
26-11-2015, 11:21
Please tell me this is bait.

It would only be cognitive dissonance is aos was objectively bad.
Not at all. I'm not really saying that AoS is objectively bad since if we're gonna be literal, nothing can't really be claimed to be objectively anything. We could just be brains in jars and all that. It's certainly my subjective opinion that AoS is truly and utterly lacking as game system though and I can (and have) given my reasoning behind hat conclusion.

I haven't read the background supplements and haven't made any statement on that but nothing described second hand from either the yay- or nay side has given me any reason to invest money in checking it out for myself. The same can be said for the background of the Iron Kingdoms in Warmahordes. A setting beloved by many, but the onus is not solely on me to find reasons to check it out.

What I'm positing is that even the people defending AoS are aware of the problems that's being pointed out on this forum. An explanation for why some can overlook those problems and some can not might be due to cognitive dissonance. It could be said to work in both ways of course. If someone has declared their dislike of AoS it would be harder for that person to percieve any good parts to be good.

I don't think anyone doubts that GW will eventually release more models and more background. That doesn't improve the game or setting as it stands right now however. And if the models and the background are in the same vein as the AoS offerings so far I have a hard time seeing them appeal to anyone other then those who has bought into the AoS concept already.

Arrahed
26-11-2015, 12:49
It would only be cognitive dissonance is aos was objectively bad.

As stated before, truly objective is somewhat hard to achieve. But look at it this way:

You said



The detail was there because thats what WotC are in the business of selling. GW use the beckground and game as a pretext to sell miniatures. It's clear that they will flesh out the setting with future releases.

Personally I'd love nine lavish source books detailing the realms. Maybe we'll get a wfrp set in the nine realms one day.

Thereby implying that the background currently provided by GW is bad.
On the other hand you argue that this is not a big deal because they are not a RPG company and will surely fill in the lacking detail in the future.

If the currently demonstrated business practices of GW are any indication for the way they will do business in the near future, which I think they are, than your argument sounds like severe rose-tinting.

akai
26-11-2015, 15:22
Yes, that's the one. Except while you seem to have focused on the first part of that passage, what really jumped out at me was the end of it - "In fact, I'm told that the first full year of storylines is already clearly planned out."

What I find especially interesting/disturbing is their choice of words, storylines. Not storyline, but storylines. Plural. It could just be a reference to the different 'theatres' of the realmgate wars, but it seems to me like GW is not going to stop at just the Realmgate wars.

I agree, the Realmgate Wars is just one of the storylines in the pipeline. The Aelves and Slaanesh appears to be another one, unless they somehow shoehorned it to be part of the Realmgate Wars series.



Then I will try to look at them as an adventure book. I haven't read them to be honest because I won't spend that much money to proof a point. So this is speculation based on feedback by people who read the AOS books.

Do the AOS books contain interesting and detailed characters? Do these characters develop during the events of the adventure? Do you learn about the motivations of the characters?

What about the detail of the adventure setting? A DnD adventure usually shows the players many details up to the things they see when opening a door and stuff like that. Things you need to connect to the story. To feel like you are a part of it.

I could go on but I think my point is clear. Does AOS provide all of this? If it does, I stand corrected.

Again this would be a very rough comparison. There are sections in the book devoted to introducing the characters and motivations of the characters are explained and developed as the narrative progresses in the book. It is comparable to what you would get in a DnD adventure setting book. Now are those characters interesting? They are not interesting enough to me to draw me towards putting my miniature collection into the Realmgate Wars setting. Likewise there are characters detailed in DnD adventure books that are not interesting either though!

You are provided with maps of where the actions in the narrative are taking place...first big book had the Shimmerfall, the Brimstone Peninsula...second big book had the Shattered City and its surrounding area, Oak of Ages Past..There are more illustrations and less text in the AoS books compared to "modern" DnD Adventure books (the really old ones would be mostly text). You are also provided with maps/illustrations on how the "armies" have advanced or moved in the ongoing events. Now are there details like opening a door? Since the game is not about dungeon-crawling, nope! Are there things that allow you to connect to the story? Yes!

So the DnD "adventure book" follows this format - 1) An introduction to provide background for the adventures 2) the adventures/quest portion with specific rules for the adventures/quests 3) monsters. AoS big books are similar to that, imo, replacing adventures with battleplans and monsters with warscrolls. I'm not arguing to persuade this is the best format Games Workshop should have went. It's how I view the direction they did went though and its not a deal breaker for me.

Buddy Bear
26-11-2015, 18:25
Personally, I will say that the AOS setting is objectively bad. Not because I personally find respawning Sigmarines stupid, but because of just how bereft of detail it is. A brand new setting has certain minimum requirements it should meet when it's first released, and Age of Sigmar hits almost none of them.

For instance, imagine Warmachine just came out. Can you imagine if only Menoth and Khador were detailed to any degree? If Cygnar, Cryx, and Scyrah were just names in the book and had no real detail or meat beyond that. If they didn't even have art on them letting the customer know what they looked like, much less miniatures. Imagine there wasn't even a world map telling you where they were all located. I bet everyone here defending AOS would be lambasting Warmachine for being a shoddy, half-formed game setting, and they'd be absolutely right.

A new game setting, at a minimum, should give the new player a reasonable amount of information about all the factions, races, and players involved in the setting so that the new player can make an informed choice about what army they want to play. AOS doesn't do that, though. Aside from Fire Slayers fighting for "ur-gold", whatever the hell that is, what else is there to know about them? What do they look like? What's their society like? What do Aelfs look like? What's their society like? What's their motivation? How about Orruks, Ogors, Steamhead Duardin, and even run-of-the-mill humans? Think about that. Not even regular humans are detailed in this setting! What's the regular human faction all about? What does it look like? What's it even called? Nobody knows.

So on that basis I'll say that AOS is objectively bad, because it doesn't even provide the most basic information for many of its intended factions.

Voss
26-11-2015, 18:39
It's probably worth me pointing out (again) that my favourite 'flavour' where wargames are concerned is "models" and despite all the criticism of the fluff and game rules (some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with or at least think is grossly exaggerated) the AoS model range is jaw-droppingly good.

We're maybe back to subjective tastes again, but I've picked up and studied the AoS models from the starter set (there was a painted set sitting around in a corner of the LGS for some months). And they are amazingly bad. Details are lacking, the bloodborn are largely just pyramid-shaped wedges of flesh to act as torsos with a few shallow cuts to indicate ribs, and everything is just so bland and unfinished. Models from the dawn of the company make AoS models look like utter wastes of plastic.



It would only be cognitive dissonance is aos was objectively bad

It is. There are metrics you can apply to game design. That there is such a thing as game design is an indicator in at of itself. Now there are several philosophies of game design with different standards and some might find AoS better than others, but yeah. AoS is objectively bad. Both on the rules front and the background front. On the rules front, lack of standardization is a big one. 'Measure from the model' is the best and most incoherent example possible, especially from a company that sells models with bases. The huge bonuses some units get are another. In a dice-rolling game, you do not set up basic circumstances where dicerolling is irrelevant. Absolutely and utterly do not, as the whole system falls off a cliff at that point. Enter Empire state troops, which in large enough units just auto hit and auto wound anything. Same with dice multipliers simply for existing.

Mind you, from a design standpoint, most editions of warhammer have been pretty poor on the rules design front, with, among other problems, too much dicerolling complexity (hits, rerolls to hit, wounds, armor for a single action, repeated X times up to 3*X or even 4*X for a single unit) for little gain. But while subjectively the WFB background is lacking in a lot of ways (overly generic), that was a deliberate design decision to broaden the appeal. It is easy to understand why the choice was made, especially at the time it was started. None of the (few) background decisions for AoS share a similar kind of rationale or logical thought process beyond, "40K marines sell, if we make fantasy marines those will automagically sell too, because lacking market research, we feel this to be true."

DarkChaplain
26-11-2015, 19:09
I'll also say that AoS as a setting is objectively bad. That is not to say there are no good aspects about it, but as an overall setting, it is very bland, without reasonable depth or passion. Everything so far has been formulaic, contrived, repetitive and bereft of details.
Sure, one can find appeal in a blank slate setting, but even then, there are certain expectations of quality for the framing that AoS doesn't live up to either.

The whole "the realm is corrupted, we must cleanse it" angle is hardly new, but even then we know nothing of the realms before Chaos, and certainly don't see them after the cleansing - because usually they get destroyed rather than liberated. Right now, none of the realms are more than glorified "look, its so deep, we have 5 location names we don't tell you anything else about" battlefields for more of the same, formulaic good vs evil but nobody actually dies conflicts.

The background is bloody inconsistent too!
For example, dimensions of locations or size of Sigmar and friends. One moment they create canyons with their punshes, the next they are regular-sized dudes. And then you have Alarielle, who apparently was asleep and hiding for millennia, yet, once she wakes up, wipes the floor with all of Nurgle's chosen champions like it was nothing, but still condemned her realm to eternal blight even though she would've been capable of holding off the mightiest daemons nurgle could throw at her.

And then there's the matter of reproduction: Who the hell is breeding all those Chaos worshippers? Because so far, there hasn't been a single Khorne or Nurgle character who hasn't been male. Yet they speak of people "being born into" the Bloodbound and not knowing better. Born how? Did sexuality go out of the window alongside Slaanesh? How can the realms be swamped by untold hordes of Khornates when they die like Nurgle's flies on every occassion they get, and lack the means to resupply because the realms are done for? Even if we'd account for pillaging and forcing themselves on "free people" women, that'd still leave them without babes for 9 months, and ages before the newborn would be fit to wear their weapons. And yet, by the next engagement, there are countless new bloodbound to fill the ranks.
You can't have it both ways, be utterly bleak and empty because Chaos dominates, and then ignore that Chaos warbands themselves don't have supply lines, camps or anything to base them in any region of the setting. They are nomadic slaughterdudes who just happen to magically suffer 80% losses just to refill them within days.

There are so many holes, inconsistencies, disconnects and deus ex machinae in Age of Sigmar, it boggles my mind. I can still find enjoyment in some of the stories put out by Black Library, but that's despite the setting, not because of it.

Don't get me wrong: I can appreciate a BAD story or BAD setting. There's plenty of nonsense in stuff like Metal Gear, or Saints Row for example. They are over the top, make up the rules as they go, bring up contrived explanations for pseudo-science and politics. But at the end of the day, they still realize their own absurdity and make it a point to be entertaining despite it all, and impress you in other ways. Being able to appreciate them for what they do right doesn't need to make you blind to what they do objectively wrong and badly.


As for the models, I cannot comment on the production quality of the plastics themselves. I will say, however, that the whole aesthetic and design direction is uninspired and overloaded. Archaon, for example, is summing up what I hate about AoS, whereas his previous model is one of my favorites out of any GW has ever produced. The new model is crowded with detail, to the point where the whole loses focus and consistency. Just tacking on skulls, chaos stars, lightning bolts or hammers doesn't cut it, especially when one faction is pretty much copy and paste with different pauldrons and weapons.

Catweazle
26-11-2015, 19:42
Okay, I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Quoting multiple people on my tablet is a pain and we're going round in circles anyway.

Okuto
27-11-2015, 04:31
I'm always baffled people had a hard time finding reasons for their armies to fight and actually thought this was a legitimate problem with warhammer.

A bit of imagination was all you needed.

I do consider this a legitimate problem, sorry bout that;)

Again this wouldn't of been a problem if I didn't play empire and played something like chaos, lizardmen, skaven, etc. At least you know they exist in AoS, you don't fully understand their motivations but you know that they're there.

In my own case, the empire is straight up gone......tilea is gone, the border princes are gone. My exiled nobleman and his mercenary band have no home to fight for. My regiments carry flags with long gone places like Brass Keep and Zundap on them to remind them of their service during the storm of chaos. My crossbowmen dream of Tilea, while my knights wear the faded livery of Estalia, my priests pray to a dead god who no longer hears them (Ulric) and my proud pikemen wear the livery of long gone city states.

Believe me I tried the whole "survivors beset by new foes" and "time warp" but it just made me depressed the more games I played of AoS. There's no reason for my band of mercenaries from a bygone age to be fighting angels without resorting to "magic" or "high fantasy" tropes and and then that completely defeats my love for the "normal everyday blokes" just trying to survive this crazy world we're in"

Khaines Wrath
27-11-2015, 05:09
I do consider this a legitimate problem, sorry bout that;)

Again this wouldn't of been a problem if I didn't play empire and played something like chaos, lizardmen, skaven, etc. At least you know they exist in AoS, you don't fully understand their motivations but you know that they're there.

In my own case, the empire is straight up gone......tilea is gone, the border princes are gone. My exiled nobleman and his mercenary band have no home to fight for. My regiments carry flags with long gone places like Brass Keep and Zundap on them to remind them of their service during the storm of chaos. My crossbowmen dream of Tilea, while my knights wear the faded livery of Estalia, my priests pray to a dead god who no longer hears them (Ulric) and my proud pikemen wear the livery of long gone city states.

Believe me I tried the whole "survivors beset by new foes" and "time warp" but it just made me depressed the more games I played of AoS. There's no reason for my band of mercenaries from a bygone age to be fighting angels without resorting to "magic" or "high fantasy" tropes and and then that completely defeats my love for the "normal everyday blokes" just trying to survive this crazy world we're in"

Incredibly confused by this ^

Is this whole post in response to mine, if so I think you misunderstood.

Bloodknight
27-11-2015, 07:22
So what ? Tolkien used 3 books to give us Middle Earth and an Epic Story, AoS used the same amount of paper for ********************.

Tolkien didn't have to regularly pay the wages for 3000 people, though.
That said, LotR is debatable, too. It's the only book I know that profited from being translated into another language because the translator turned a boring mess into a well formulated story (the 1970s German translation). I still hate LotR in English, all the repeatedly used merrymaking and singing annoys me to no end, am I reading a Disney movie or what?


For example, dimensions of locations or size of Sigmar and friends. One moment they create canyons with their punshes, the next they are regular-sized dudes.

Well, Gods. Greek Gods changed shapes and sizes all the time.

Niall78
27-11-2015, 08:13
Tolkien didn't have to regularly pay the wages for 3000 people, though.
That said, LotR is debatable, too. It's the only book I know that profited from being translated into another language because the translator turned a boring mess into a well formulated story (the 1970s German translation). I still hate LotR in English, all the repeatedly used merrymaking and singing annoys me to no end, am I reading a Disney movie or what?



Well, Gods. Greek Gods changed shapes and sizes all the time.

First time I've ever heard LotR described as a boring mess. Or that one of the greatest books in the English language written by a master of the language benefits from translation into German.

It seems like some people will jump any shark to defend AoS disastrous setting and writing.

Arrahed
27-11-2015, 08:16
Tolkien didn't have to regularly pay the wages for 3000 people, though.
That said, LotR is debatable, too. It's the only book I know that profited from being translated into another language because the translator turned a boring mess into a well formulated story (the 1970s German translation). I still hate LotR in English, all the repeatedly used merrymaking and singing annoys me to no end, am I reading a Disney movie or what?



Well, Gods. Greek Gods changed shapes and sizes all the time.
The amount of employees should help to create detailed background. If it was one person, the person would need some way to account for costs of living and therefore needs to create content regularly.
In a company of 3000 people it is no problem to have one or two people dedicated for fluff production while the rest of them takes care of a steady stream of income.

Was the English version of LotR badly written? I only read some of it in Englisch since I mainly read the German translation which I agree is excellent. However the German version is just as filled with songs as the original. The only real difference I can think of is the translation of Elves to Elben instead of Elfen because Elfen are usually associated with fairies in Germany. I remember reading an article stating that Tolkien was very pleased with the translation because he liked the sound of Elben much better than Elves.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 08:28
First time I've ever heard LotR described as a boring mess.

Well that's on you I'm afraid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_of_J._R._R._Tolkien

Bloodknight
27-11-2015, 08:29
Was the English version of LotR badly written?

Took me four tries to read it fully. The Klett-Cotta translation has a much better flow. That said, I'm in general not a huge fan of the books, because I really hate the Hobbits. I liked the Silmarillion a lot more, although that is a little dry as well.


The only real difference I can think of is the translation of Elves to Elben instead of Elfen because Elfen are usually associated with fairies in Germany.
Some of the names are different, like She-lob and Kankra.

smaxx
27-11-2015, 08:45
First time I've ever heard LotR described as a boring mess. Or that one of the greatest books in the English language written by a master of the language benefits from translation into German.

It seems like some people will jump any shark to defend AoS disastrous setting and writing.
This just proves that people in favor of AoS are truly a bit different from the majority of folks ? LotR may have some unusua and debatable structures but it's intriguing and exciting and offers an enormously rich world. I've read it to my kids twice, and I do agree that there are parts that are slow, but as a whole it's just amazing still.

Arrahed
27-11-2015, 08:47
Took me four tries to read it fully. The Klett-Cotta translation has a much better flow. That said, I'm in general not a huge fan of the books, because I really hate the Hobbits. I liked the Silmarillion a lot more, although that is a little dry as well.


Some of the names are different, like She-lob and Kankra.

According to the Wikipedia article the reception of LotR was not overwhelmingly positive but I didn't get the impression that 'boring mess' is a suitable description. I also had a lot of trouble getting started with the books since all the stuff about hobbits in the beginning was a little dry. But that issue was not solved by translation.

To be honest, I am not huge LotR fan myself. I like the books but today there are more interesting and creative alternatives. Those are of course usually heavily influenced by LotR so I would never deny the importance and quality of Tolkien's work.

Bloodknight
27-11-2015, 08:59
Those are of course usually heavily influenced by LotR so I would never deny the importance and quality of Tolkien's work

Neither would I. I don't even criticise the story itself (ok, I think it would have been better with a Dwarf team, bloody Hobbits...;)), I just don't think that it's a great read from a technical point of view. The style bored me, and not because it was old (my favorite period of fantastic writing is the late 19th century (with some exceptions like the much older Frankenstein) till about 1940), it just didn't do it for me. And yes, I read that stuff in English almost exclusively, because I studied English literature and linguistics and work as a translator. :)

Holier Than Thou
27-11-2015, 09:33
Well that's on you I'm afraid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_of_J._R._R._Tolkien

You do realise that the Wikipedia article you linked names LotR as several nations' "best-loved book" and "favourite book". Yes, it says some critics at the time gave it negative reviews but most recognised it as being a classic.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 09:37
Yeah, that's fine. Personally, I love it too. But the poster said he'd never encountered the objection that the books are a mess, when those objections are familiar and long-standing. Even though I love the books, I can see exactly what the critics have in mind. There *are* problems with Tolkien's approach to structure, pacing, character development, representation of women, twee rural romanticism, etc etc.

Bloodknight
27-11-2015, 09:40
*shrug* Practically everything by Goethe and Schiller is a classic, but it doesn't mean that they're page-turners ;).

Spell_of_Destruction
27-11-2015, 09:48
Yeah, that's fine. Personally, I love it too. But the poster said he'd never encountered the objection that the books are a mess, when those objections are familiar and long-standing. Even though I love the books, I can see exactly what the critics have in mind. There *are* problems with Tolkien's approach to structure, pacing, character development, representation of women, twee rural romanticism, etc etc.

'Nothing's perfect' and 'You can't please everyone' spring to mind.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 10:46
'Nothing's perfect' and 'You can't please everyone' spring to mind.

Good luck trying to make that catch on around here :D

Dosiere
27-11-2015, 13:08
So... your point Skeptico in all this is that AoS is great literature because Tolkien had detractors that didn't like the pacing of his works?

Okuto
27-11-2015, 13:48
Incredibly confused by this ^

Is this whole post in response to mine, if so I think you misunderstood.

Perhaps that was the case, should of read the context

akai
27-11-2015, 14:08
Was the English version of LotR badly written? I only read some of it in Englisch since I mainly read the German translation which I agree is excellent. However the German version is just as filled with songs as the original. The only real difference I can think of is the translation of Elves to Elben instead of Elfen because Elfen are usually associated with fairies in Germany. I remember reading an article stating that Tolkien was very pleased with the translation because he liked the sound of Elben much better than Elves.

I think the issue here is what version of the book did you fell in love with or enjoyed first. Once a person founds something they like and then reads another version, it is understandable to me that they can find it not as good to what they have enjoyed reading before. Every single word can be subtlety different based on a reader's perception of how that word is used. We can be reading the same book with the exact words and interpret it differently. When you have a translation, you are now reading the book from the perception of another person.

DonkeyMan
28-11-2015, 02:50
In regard to LotR and it been 'slow'.
Fantasy these days is a well established genre. A lot people have read some fantasy books really.
So terms like Dwarves, Elves, Orcs & Goblins are very familiar to the most of the people. You don't need to describe any of these anymore. So if someone writes a novel these days and just mentions Dwarves, usually we will imagine a short, burly race with beards (& scottish accents often) living in mountains & mining metals.
When LotR came out, people had to be explained everything as fantasy really didn't exist in the form we know it now. It's hard to compare LotR to todays fantasy books.

As for AoS and giving it time. I really tried to like AoS. People have seen me been positive about it. For me WFB 8th edition ruined the game rulewise and GW also ruined the fluff for me by quite a few weird story desicions they made even before the 8th edition, but they kept mounting to an intolerable level eventually.
So I was happy to give them a chance with AoS. Two things that eventually scared me away. The prices (let's not talk about them) and the quality of the fluff.
I lend the AoS book from a mate of mine and I actually had issues finishing the fluff there. It's so badly written, it's just unbelievable. I'm okay whith only been told the basics of the AoS universe, but I would at least expect to like those. You need to have a good foundation to build on.
Right now I have no interest to read any AoS fluff and the only think that could change that, if there is an AoS book were a huge majority applaud the fluff.

Lord_Squinty
28-11-2015, 03:09
Saying the blanks left to fill in an incomplete product are the best thing about it is a withering assessment and certainly not something that encourages me to buy other products related to it for exorbitant prices.

And yet, that is EXACTLY what WH:40k is now.
If you're not old enough - go have a look at the Rogue Trader rulebook and see how fleshed out into one of the best Sci-fi backgrounds it has become.
(And I'm not a fan of the latest rules, but the background is almost unbeatable)

This is how we got to where we are today / a year or so ago.. GW started with a frame and little to no real background.
(apologies that I mostly refer to 40k, that's what I started with so know more about)
In 1st ed 40k Marines weren't that much better than slightly augmented humans, the Horus Heresy was only a paragraph in the book and Marines also drank in scummy mos-eisley style bars.

Time, good writers / background creators (John Blanche) and player enthusiasm for certain chapters/races shaped the worlds.

Is it possible GW are going back to that way of creating the universe?
Part of me agrees with the haters and thinks they gave up all that years ago, but it feels similar and maybe, just maybe.
Lets be honest GW doesn't set out to design sh1t, and background-wise, they've grown from strength to strength.
In that regard I would trust them to do what's right.

:)

SuperHappyTime
28-11-2015, 04:26
LotR is a well loved book among those who finished reading it. Until the movies, nobody read the books.

MohRokTah
28-11-2015, 05:27
LotR is a well loved book among those who finished reading it. Until the movies, nobody read the books.

I first read it at the age of 12 in 1975. All of my friends read it, too. Thus, your second statement is disproved.

Khaines Wrath
28-11-2015, 06:39
LotR is a well loved book among those who finished reading it. Until the movies, nobody read the books.

I'd argue the books gained mainstream popularity because of the movies but my understanding is they did have a decent sized following.

Not unlike the Song of Ice and Fire series, those books have been out for many, many more years than the tv show but now just about everyone has read them.

Zywus
28-11-2015, 09:57
LotR is a well loved book among those who finished reading it. Until the movies, nobody read the books.
That's just crazy talk.
While the movies obviously increased the popularity of the books, even before the movies an astonishing numbers of people had read those books. Even people with no interest in fantasy what so ever had often read the LotR trilogy at least.

Spiney Norman
28-11-2015, 11:30
That's just crazy talk.
While the movies obviously increased the popularity of the books, even before the movies an astonishing numbers of people had read those books. Even people with no interest in fantasy what so ever had often read the LotR trilogy at least.

Yeah, I've been reading and rereading Tolkien's works since I was in my early teens, in fact GWs LotR game was what actually drew me into the wargaming hobby, I doubt I'd even have looked at warhammer (or 40k) without that introduction.

Claymore
28-11-2015, 11:47
LotR is a well loved book among those who finished reading it. Until the movies, nobody read the books.

Lotr had sold over 100 million copies even before the movies which put it in the top 10 most sold books of all time it's up to 150-160 now I believe, only none bible type book that beats it is one of Dickens books.

Herzlos
29-11-2015, 00:07
LotR is a well loved book among those who finished reading it. Until the movies, nobody read the books.

I watched the LOTR films before reading the books, but I did actually own the book before the films were a thing. I assume that pretty much any fantasy fan older than, say, 30-35, probably read the books first. Almost everyone else I know read the book first.


I'd argue the books gained mainstream popularity because of the movies but my understanding is they did have a decent sized following.
I don't think the films would have been made if the books weren't popular. Plus there was definitely a mini's range and chess sets and stuff on the market long before the films were shot.



Lotr had sold over 100 million copies even before the movies which put it in the top 10 most sold books of all time it's up to 150-160 now I believe, only none bible type book that beats it is one of Dickens books.

It's 2nd only to "A Tale Of Two Cities" by Dickens (200 million copies), with about 150 million copies. The Hobbit comes in 3rd place with a measly 140 million copies sold.

There's no doubt the films boosted sales of the books somewhat, but the books predate colour recording, let alone the modern cinema.

scruffyryan
29-11-2015, 00:12
I watched the LOTR films before reading the books, but I did actually own the book before the films were a thing. I assume that pretty much any fantasy fan older than, say, 30-35, probably read the books first. Almost everyone else I know read the book first.


I don't think the films would have been made if the books weren't popular. Plus there was definitely a mini's range and chess sets and stuff on the market long before the films were shot.

The hobbit was a required read in my sophomore english class, well before there was any movie other than the cartoon one from the 70's

Dr.Zahnfleisch
29-11-2015, 00:37
LotR is a well loved book among those who finished reading it. Until the movies, nobody read the books.

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

Lars Porsenna
29-11-2015, 05:01
Completely agree with some of the comments WRT the Lord of the Rings book so far. I read it IIRC in 7th grade (US), absolutely loved it. I read the whole thing...all over 1000+ pages of the 3 volumes at a time when things like girls and video games were becoming a distraction. So no, I don't agree that no-one read the books, because I certainly did. I take out my omnibus HB edition every few years for another read-through. There are very few books I am willing to do that with...

Damon.

ihavetoomuchminis
29-11-2015, 06:15
It's amazing to see some of the arguments to support AoS. Truly amazing.

Not directed at everyone, as some people makes some good points about the game. I even agree with some things. But distortion of reality and making data up? Noooot

Dosiere
29-11-2015, 06:18
I even read the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales back in the day, when I was around 13. My great grandmother had original publication versions of both in her library so I read them. The Silmarillion had this huge red and black map that folded out of the back. It was dry reading sometimes but it was just so epic as well. The feeling that there is an enormous weight of history behind everything that happens in the later books lends them much of their charm for me.

hagen88
29-11-2015, 09:40
I am currently reading "The Children of Hùrin" and am utterly enjoying it! It is a fantasy saga set at the time of the Silmarrillion, but it have a wh feel to it... It is like watching the time of the creation of Middle Earth through the eyes of a common man, it's not just crazy epic, there is some true humanity in it and a touch of grim as well (especially the outlaws). I would really recommend it to people who want to be reminded how a good and solid fantasy saga is written, to me was a breath of fresh air after reading through the terrible AoS stuff BL published.

Reading it did not make me want to dump AoS though, it really inspired me to add elements and stories to the setting I am developing! It would be great if gw was capable of creating something with that richness and depth but we are not talking about the same gw of 1989. AoS feels like it does not have an heart but at least it gives us the possibility of giving it one ourselves! I don't know how successful this new approach will be but I would really like to see what they can do with the elves and the dwarves and especially what people like us can do with them, converting, kitbashing and having fun with different esthetics!

Sorry, can't remember if I already linked them, but I invite you to take a look at the work of good hobbysts inspired AoS, people who were capable of creating good narrative and nice, original and inspired fantasy models to go along it!

http://www.exprofundis.com/

http://technasma.com/

http://leskouzes.blogspot.co.uk/

DarkChaplain
29-11-2015, 12:10
"The Children of Húrin" is the book I'd pick if I had to narrow down my all-time favorite. It has so many brilliant parts and lines, it boggles my mind.
It is a story of great tragedy and sacrifice, but also human endurance and will to live and to defy the odds stacked against them. There are lessons about hubris and stubborness too.
The first chapter's scene of Túrin's birthday alone has me smiling every time I go back to read it.


‘All three gifts were your own to give, Túrin: love, pity, and the knife the least.’

Zywus
29-11-2015, 12:59
Reading it did not make me want to dump AoS though, it really inspired me to add elements and stories to the setting I am developing! It would be great if gw was capable of creating something with that richness and depth but we are not talking about the same gw of 1989. AoS feels like it does not have an heart but at least it gives us the possibility of giving it one ourselves!I guess what I (and others) find weird is why you'd want to try add richness and depth to a setting that you find lacking heart, instead of adding to one that you enjoy.

akai
29-11-2015, 18:19
It's amazing to see some of the arguments to support AoS. Truly amazing.

Not directed at everyone, as some people makes some good points about the game. I even agree with some things. But distortion of reality and making data up? Noooot

Yup I agree. Both sides have been guilty of it.


I guess what I (and others) find weird is why you'd want to try add richness and depth to a setting that you find lacking heart, instead of adding to one that you enjoy.

A somewhat blank canvas to take whatever information you want and create something that you can call your "own" setting is very common in the tabletop RPG community. Sure you can play within someone's else setting (ie Old World. LOTR) and have fun with it, but I find it more satisfying when you create your own setting (whether its actually unique or just a mix of different settings) with a group of friends.

I am actually very surprised and underestimate how many people were heavily invested into Warhammer for its official story lines and background. For me, Warhammer was primarily a way for me to play generic fantasy battle games. The offiicial story line and settings were more of a side thing. I mean, I have been in the Warhammer hobby for 20 years or so...so I do follow and am curious how the official story lines continues. But it is their (GW) stories that they are sharing with us (expensively, of course :)). The actual games I play casually are not heavily invested/dependent to the official story/setting.

Coldhatred
29-11-2015, 20:02
I am actually very surprised and underestimate how many people were heavily invested into Warhammer for its official story lines and background.

I think GW has (or will be) just as surprized by how invested people were into the Old World. I'm baffled that they threw away the best part of the whole endeavour.

Zywus
29-11-2015, 20:43
A somewhat blank canvas to take whatever information you want and create something that you can call your "own" setting is very common in the tabletop RPG community. Sure you can play within someone's else setting (ie Old World. LOTR) and have fun with it, but I find it more satisfying when you create your own setting (whether its actually unique or just a mix of different settings) with a group of friends.
To me; while I enjoy creating a setting (even if only in my head) it's important to have it in relation with an established setting.
My Dwarf army might not come from any of the official Dwarf holds but I know where in the map it's situated. I know with witch of the big holds or nearby human settlements it does most of it's trade. Perhaps a established lair of goblins exists nearby, with whom constant battles has to be fought. I can decide the nobility of the hold is is descended from one of the big Karaks. Perhaps an ancestor fought in one of the great historical battles like Hel fen or was slain by one of the known Elf heroes during the war of the beard. And so on.

Sure, I couldn't say (with it fitting into the old background) that my dwarfs live on a huge floating island bigger than Lustria, and they all have perpetually burning beards or whatever. But once again; actual interesting background, that actually feels like it's "real", is helped immensely by having it placed within the confines of something.

If we just want to create everything from scratch, what's the point in having an established setting at all? Why not just sell some models and let people create whatever world they like for them to fight in.

akai
29-11-2015, 21:05
If we just want to create everything from scratch, what's the point in having an established setting at all? Why not just sell some models and let people create whatever world they like for them to fight in.

Exactly, if I want to create everything from scratch, I would not need an established setting. Some people want an established setting, such as yourself. Others pick and choose from established settings to make their own homebrew setting. Lots of companies just sell models and let people create whatever world they like for them. I doubt GW would object if you buy their models for just that reason :P

Hishbishy
29-11-2015, 23:13
Exactly, if I want to create everything from scratch, I would not need an established setting. Some people want an established setting, such as yourself. Others pick and choose from established settings to make their own homebrew setting. Lots of companies just sell models and let people create whatever world they like for them. I doubt GW would object if you buy their models for just that reason :P

Which would be great, except AoS DOES have an established setting.

And it's crap.

DarkChaplain
29-11-2015, 23:24
Bingo, Hishbishy. Its not like GW recognized that people don't want/need a setting. It is just that what they came up with is mindless drivel. And not only that, they are selling overpriced "novels" and short stories for that setting too.

akai
29-11-2015, 23:35
Which would be great, except AoS DOES have an established setting.

And it's crap.


Bingo, Hishbishy. Its not like GW recognized that people don't want/need a setting. It is just that what they came up with is mindless drivel. And not only that, they are selling overpriced "novels" and short stories for that setting too.


AoS have an established setting...so you can't create your own setting because of that!?

ihavetoomuchminis
29-11-2015, 23:59
AoS have an established setting...so you can't create your own setting because of that!?

But wasnt the established WHFB setting restraining people's creativity?

Arguments swinging all day long

DarkChaplain
30-11-2015, 00:22
AoS have an established setting...so you can't create your own setting because of that!?

Nobody besides you has actually made that argument.

Kakapo42
30-11-2015, 00:24
But wasnt the established WHFB setting restraining people's creativity?

It certainly never restricted my creativity. That only started happening wit the last couple of 8th edition army books (in particular the 8th edition Wood Elf one) and the ET series, and even then I eventually found ways to work around both (though at the steep cost of never being compatible with GW canon again in the case of the latter).

akai
30-11-2015, 00:31
Nobody besides you has actually made that argument.

Quote me where I said an established setting prevents me from creating my own setting?

Spiney Norman
30-11-2015, 00:56
AoS have an established setting...so you can't create your own setting because of that!?

Or even play AoS in the Old World setting (I know a number of people personally and online who are doing just that). Let's face it aside from the End times and the aborted Storm of Chaos nothing had changed in the Warhammer Setting for about a decade anyway. As much as people like to complain about GW 'destroying' the old world, that is what happens when you take a world set on the brink of Armageddon and roll the story line forward.

Aside from the poorly written elf storyline I think they actually did a pretty good job of the end times narrative, I guess I would have preferred the orks to get a proper 'Ragnarork' but all things considered I think they handled an 'end of the world' story line quite well. At least we didn't end up with another ultra-lame 'chaos gets defeated and everything went back to the way it was' they tried to swing with the storm of chaos.

Rakariel
30-11-2015, 02:20
...I think they actually did a pretty good job of the end times narrative....
Yes they did indeed.

Thats why it baffles me to no end how they could come up with such a ridiculously bland written setting that seems to be the foundation of AoS. For me the setting is pretty much everything, I could maybe even forgive them getting rid of the ranked battle system in favour of yet another skirmish game (yawn). But what they did with the fluff makes me shake my head in disbelief. No amount of time, nor no amount of additional content will change the fact that for me this is one of the worst written pieces of garbage I have read in my entire life.

SuperHappyTime
30-11-2015, 04:23
Or even play AoS in the Old World setting (I know a number of people personally and online who are doing just that).

*Nervously raises hand*

I couldn't tell you what was going on in AoS though. There's the gold dude, and eight single ecosystem planets (like Hoth, Tatooine, the Swamp one), some massive battle ongoing, blah blah blah.

50% of the failure of AoS' plot involves how poorly the story is being told, which leads to the other 50% of the failure being because nobody cares enough about the story to discuss it (mostly because there isn't any personal investment). In both cases, look back at The End Times. It had a good story, and there were plenty of people invested in it to write post after post telling the rest of us the story.

Mike3791
30-11-2015, 05:23
The lack of rules ruined the release

However GW can afford to have no AoS customers in the short term, that might even knock sense into them to create an actual rulebook.

But in the long term it will definitely need a rulebook, a good one.

DarkChaplain
30-11-2015, 06:02
The problem with the End Times was that they rushed it. They didn't take the necessary time to let each installment sink in, and barely supported them with Black Library fiction. Most of the short stories they published came shortly before the finale, for example, and the novels were mostly incapable of showing the conflicts sufficiently.

This could have been WHFB's Horus Heresy series. They could have milked it for a year, like they're now trying with The Beast Arises. They could have released countless new and updated models - Malekith, Tyrion, Teclis, Van Horstmann, Chaos Dragons, updating barbarians, bringing back Storm of Chaos characters and units... There was SO much potential in the End Times that it seems pathetic for them to not have capitalized on it.

Just think of how many factions never really got the spotlight, or existed solely for the trashing. They could have taken a good look at Grimgor's Waaagh against the Chaos Dwarves and brought those back into the fold, picking up from Forgeworld. They could have shown Cathay battling Orcs - there are tidbits of info about that floating around as it is. They could have brought back the White Dwarf for good, and introduced bloody fishmen too if they cared.
There was so much hype about The End Times when they started, but it became clear far too quickly that GW simply didn't care to elaborate on the events much, or add new products besides a few Khornates and big character models like Nagash and the Mortarchs. The Elves had nothing at all, for example.

The first book was excellent, but after that it became too apparent that quality was dropping both lore and release wise

Buddy Bear
30-11-2015, 06:14
Yeah, End Times started great with the first book, but the plotline quickly started to fall apart. Just look at Bretonnia. They made a big deal about the return of Gilles Le Breton in the first book, and then...? How ridiculous is it that Gilles Le Breton himself is leading an entire army of Grail Knights to fight a last stand alongside Abhorash, and that's not even mentioned in the final End Times book, much less elaborated on. What was he doing? What was he fighting for? Why did he take his army of Grail Knights there instead of leading them against Archaon? Why was he fighting alongside Abhorash? What was the history there?

Oops, the planet just blew up. It doesn't matter now.

How much better would it have been if they'd slowed the pace down? Released one book per year? It would have been amazing if they'd released a 9th edition and the End Times extended throughout the entire life of the edition. There was so much they could have done, but instead they rushed it along so they could drop a deuce with Age of Sigmar.

NagashLover
30-11-2015, 06:42
I personally would have handled the End Times differently (as I'm well aware many others here would as well). Nagash would win obviously!

Seriousness I would have had Chaos win develop a transition phase where gates to the magical realms were open, having areas of Chaos similar to Zones found in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R like games and it could still have introduced the "Sigmarines" as the side of good being on the back foot but ready to push back against Chaos along with the other armies. You keep the Old World in a sense while opening up possibilities with the Warcraft portal ideas. Though in truth it's still a scenario where we play in the "last hours", but at least as a transition period for the setting.

More to the point the setting needs more time to grow and unlike many here I have patience and I lack the mouth frothing blind hatred of zealotry many on this boards screech about. So I'll wait, it isn't as if my options have been limited (we still play previous editions of WFB along with the hordes of other game systems available). Still yet to play a game of AoS (lack of interest in general as well as no actual need to shift into due to the gaming environment). If AoS doesn't go in a direction interesting enough for me (gameplay wise as well as fluff) I avoid it like I do now, if it does then I give it a shot (and if I still don't like it oh no! I just spend my money on other systems...).

Oh, the horror. The drama! *sarcasm*

Ronin[XiC]
30-11-2015, 06:43
Actually, I never liked the way they released half a dozend 60€ books.
Seriously, that's waaaay too much money for something that could've fit into maybe two books. So much money just for some super mediocre rules and a story that ended in total distaster like the older Storm of Chaos Campagne..

Kahadras
30-11-2015, 07:20
Yeah, End Times started great with the first book, but the plotline quickly started to fall apart.

I honestly think they tried to do too much with the End Times. I would have prefered each book to contain an idea of how the Warhammer universe ends rather than some overarcing plot.

DarkChaplain
30-11-2015, 08:20
I don't think they tried too much - they just didn't let things sink in and simmer with the community, and rushed it. They literally FORGOT about characters and plotlines from the first few installments. Josh Reynolds wrapped up a bunch of plotlines on his own (he had a good amount of freedom it appears), while the writers of the last installments couldn't be bothered anymore.

I have to wonder, really, how much the design team actually knew. I know that David Guymer wrote the Kinslayer Gotrek & Felix novel without actually knowing what the End Times were going to bring. He had rough directions and that was it. I don't think Matt Ward was necessarily aware of the books after his own (Khaine), and I could definitely see the team being in good spirits with the first one or two, and then becoming more and more anxious as the upper management told them what they were supposed to do next.

This would make sense considering how disjointed the books really were, and how many things happened between them, or off-screen entirely.

The Bretonnia plotline was never elaborated on, the whole Settra part would've been gone had it not been for Reynolds, Alith Anar didn't do much after Khaine, Skarsnik was forgotten, the Orcs only arrived at the very end, Lizardmen had hints in the first book that never were acted on... The list is ridiculously lengthy.

Kahadras
30-11-2015, 10:29
I don't think they tried too much - they just didn't let things sink in and simmer with the community, and rushed it. They literally FORGOT about characters and plotlines from the first few installments.

It's why I think they aimed too high. A tighter, more focused narrative would have done the world of good IMHO.

hagen88
30-11-2015, 15:57
I guess what I (and others) find weird is why you'd want to try add richness and depth to a setting that you find lacking heart, instead of adding to one that you enjoy.

Well, I did exactly that for the past 15 years with warhammer and I plan to keep doing it in the future, since the ET did not change much for me in terms of appeal toward the Old World (if anything it woke strange nostalgia feelings and inspired many ongoing projects)... My point concerning AoS is that, although gw's writing is really bad, the main frame I don't find that distasteful after accepting it is NOT wh (in fact is as far form wh as 40k is).
Let's see:
- we have a multiverse with different worlds connected by Stargat... erm, Realmgates. Hardly new but offers almost infinite options for interesting narratives/gaming scenarios.
- we have the post apocalypse vibe of once powerful kingdoms fallen to chaos. Again not very innovative but enjoyable nonetheless.
- we have countless centuries of grimness and despair and we are actually seeing a new dawn rising. For once hope is coming back after disaster instead of GoT/wh trend of "the End is Nigh!". Now that is different form almost every other gw setting I've seen and got me intrigued.
- we have Nagash finally achieving godhood. Now that is cool:D!
- Apart from that, gods are missing (slaanesh) heroes are ascending, immense areas are left unexplored and in general new opportunities/ideas are rising after decades of immobility. That took courage and MAYBE, maybe it means gw is about to change direction in the future and develop interesting narrative alongside the old ones we already love!

So yes, I believe AoS can be made into a pretty enjoyable setting and even offer some great opportunities to ambitious hobbysts and provide simple fun for newcomers (apart from bonker prices), we just have to accept it is not warhammer and sigmarines are not it's only essence, just like space marines are not 40k.
AoS just lacks a more regular and relatable point of view, the really bad idea was choosing the stormcast as the observers while we would have needed common humans views.

tmod
03-12-2015, 10:56
5th edition? You mean after Warhammer had already been around for 13 years and 5 edition?

No doubt if AoS makes it to its 5th edition the background will be a little fuller than it is now...

It was the same in 2nd edition...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

DarkChaplain
03-12-2015, 14:32
Yep, even back then WHFB as a setting was solid and rich. AoS has problems with its whole foundation and design philosophy. I don't think that further editions will fix the core problems of the setting.

Zywus
03-12-2015, 16:02
AoS also have an uphill struggle going forward in that most (or at least a significant part) of the potential customers have already seen the product in it's early state and dismissed it.

Even if AoS would eventually have rules and background that would appeal to many more than what it did at release and the coming months; it might be hard to convince people to give it a second look no matter how appealing future models might look.

malisteen
03-12-2015, 17:38
Really loved the first end times book. Second was ok, but too soon. By the third, it was a disaster. Plot hardly made sense, rules were clearly never tested because they worked just horribly. By the skaven book, nobody cared anymore, because Khaine was awful to play, and strong rumors of Age of Sigmar were already coming in.

Such a shame. Such a pity. As for Age of Sigmar, I could almost like it, if it were maybe an 8-12 page ruleset instead of a 4 page one, allowing for just a touch more complexity and better clarity, and was sized on wound count instead of model count, which actually is pretty passable (I've found none of the homebrew points based comps to produce results noticeably better than just playing equal wound totals). Make reserves a more overt element of the game (ie, reserves count towards wound count, and effects like summoning that bring on new units have to pull them from reserves), slightly better and more varied default scenarios, and AoS, despite how poorly it's been handled and how shamefully GW's treated their customers, could be a game I might really like.

Honestly, I do really enjoy a lot of the faction rules, the monsters that power down on wounds suffered making them function like actual units, the static hit and wound values bringing everything much closer together in power, lots of it. Just... the core game isn't there, and the setting is impossible to engage with.