PDA

View Full Version : So just popped in out of curiosity, AoS - WTF?



Burnthem
21-11-2015, 13:42
First time on these forums in a LONG time, just had a look about out of curiosity, and Age Of Sigmar has just come completely out of the blue at me.

Has GW seriously completely ripped up and torn out the old Warhammer World and setting, mashed up all the armies ans races (renaming half of them) and basically thrown decades of work and history down the drain?

Have I got this completely wrong because to me this seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do even by GW standards.

Can anyone give a quick run down of what exactly happened and why? Thanks.

pox
21-11-2015, 13:58
Story wise, The end times happened, Chaos won, the Lizardmen ported to space, and the world was destroyed. Sigmas escaped on a comet made from the cooling center of the world, and found a friendly dragon. He learned about the nine realms, which is the new setting. Choas attacked there too, and sigmar fled to Azrheim and locked all the realm gates. There, using the core metal from the comet called sigmarite, he forged the Stormcast eternals from the souls of fallen heros and pissing off Nagash in the process. The Stormcast can die, but they are remade with some memory loss. Sigmar then opened the sealed gates and sent out his new troops to retake the realms, and recover his hammer Ghal Mraz. The Sylvaneth armies are fighting Nurgle. The Lizardmen (now called Seraphon) are only Slaan now, who live in outer space but project their dreams of the Lizardmen onto the Realms who coalesce into a physical presence but have no blood. Khorne marauders through the realms, killing villagers except the strongest who can either die, or eat their own kin in a big banquet. Slaanesh is dead or missing, and The Great Horned Rat is now a chaos god.


That's the gist, I may have missed some points. On the meta side of things, GW put all their eggs into the AoS basket, even switching the statue in front of HQ and dropping the Aquilla for Sigmars lighting bolts. It's a scenario driven game, all the rules are free but you have to buy the scenarios in 80 dollar books. There are no points or army comps, but there are battle formations that give bonuses like in 40k. The rules are four pages long, you can just download the App to read them, or get a PDF from the GW website.

It was received with more fighting across the internet than D&D 4.0, with many people banned on many forums, a guy set his army on fire, and the pro and con camps of AoS continue the never ending fight. Multiple comps have come out, some very large and others just an algorithm based on stats. There's even the "9th age," a massive crowd sourced re-write of 8th and all the army books. for tourney comps Azyr is popular, as is a massive interest in KoW and anything from Osprey publishing.

did I miss anything?

Burnthem
21-11-2015, 14:03
That is mental. And not in a good way. An alternate game I can understand, an expansion or something, but totally ditching everything like that? That's some serious balls.

pox
21-11-2015, 14:06
Anything that cannot by copywritten or trademarked will be drastically changed. all names and generic models will at some point be dropped or changed. I'd assume anything that's historical based or Tolkien based along with any generic fantasy themes will be dropped.

And yeah, it was completely unbelievable no matter what side you fall on.

Burnthem
21-11-2015, 14:11
Thanks for clearing it up a little, I was reading about and couldn't quite believe what I was seeing.

Kahadras
22-11-2015, 03:01
Thanks for clearing it up a little, I was reading about and couldn't quite believe what I was seeing.

Probably best to think of AoS as Warhammer lite. Rules have been simplified. Background has been dumbed down. Balance has been chucked out of the window all together. The RAW for AoS is pretty much DoA so I'd advise house ruling it right from the get go if you want to give it a try.

MusingWarboss
22-11-2015, 03:19
Story wise, The end times happened, Chaos won, the Lizardmen ported to space, and the world was destroyed. Sigmas escaped on a comet made from the cooling center of the world, and found a friendly dragon. He learned about the nine realms, which is the new setting. Choas attacked there too, and sigmar fled to Azrheim and locked all the realm gates. There, using the core metal from the comet called sigmarite, he forged the Stormcast eternals from the souls of fallen heros and pissing off Nagash in the process. The Stormcast can die, but they are remade with some memory loss. Sigmar then opened the sealed gates and sent out his new troops to retake the realms, and recover his hammer Ghal Mraz. The Sylvaneth armies are fighting Nurgle. The Lizardmen (now called Seraphon) are only Slaan now, who live in outer space but project their dreams of the Lizardmen onto the Realms who coalesce into a physical presence but have no blood. Khorne marauders through the realms, killing villagers except the strongest who can either die, or eat their own kin in a big banquet. Slaanesh is dead or missing, and The Great Horned Rat is now a chaos god.


That's the gist, I may have missed some points. On the meta side of things, GW put all their eggs into the AoS basket, even switching the statue in front of HQ and dropping the Aquilla for Sigmars lighting bolts. It's a scenario driven game, all the rules are free but you have to buy the scenarios in 80 dollar books. There are no points or army comps, but there are battle formations that give bonuses like in 40k. The rules are four pages long, you can just download the App to read them, or get a PDF from the GW website.

It was received with more fighting across the internet than D&D 4.0, with many people banned on many forums, a guy set his army on fire, and the pro and con camps of AoS continue the never ending fight. Multiple comps have come out, some very large and others just an algorithm based on stats. There's even the "9th age," a massive crowd sourced re-write of 8th and all the army books. for tourney comps Azyr is popular, as is a massive interest in KoW and anything from Osprey publishing.

did I miss anything?

Best summary ever! Covered the lot there. Let's just throw in the gold spray paint outrage and we're all done!!

Dosiere
22-11-2015, 04:08
Outrage? The thirty dollar can of gold spray paint is the best thing to come out of the AoS release so far.

Krenz
22-11-2015, 06:14
Just want to express my surprise that one of the regular anti-anti AoS folks hasn't replied yet.

My gaming group has one, grinning and smug at the whole thing. Why are you hating so much he seems to say. Why not happy like me?

9th ed is worth a shot by the way. They did a hell of a job, that game actually has the warhammer feel to it.

Spiney Norman
22-11-2015, 08:32
Just want to express my surprise that one of the regular anti-anti AoS folks hasn't replied yet.

My gaming group has one, grinning and smug at the whole thing. Why are you hating so much he seems to say. Why not happy like me?

I think most of the pro-AoS posters now realise that however much you enjoy playing AoS there are people on Warseer who will never believe that you actually do however well you explain why, it's not even about making converts to the game, it's about the right to use the forum without being called things like 'smug', 'apologist' or 'Stockholm syndrome', I'm sure the hate will burn itself out eventually.


9th ed is worth a shot by the way. They did a hell of a job, that game actually has the warhammer feel to it.

I guess that depends what you personally think the 'warhammer feel' is, I read through the army books for the armies I collect and honestly it feels kind of sterile, I'd much rather continue to play 8th edition, for all its flaws it has way more character.

lbecks
22-11-2015, 09:06
They also switched from square to round bases. Which is nuts!

Krenz
22-11-2015, 10:13
I think most of the pro-AoS posters now realise that however much you enjoy playing AoS there are people on Warseer who will never believe that you actually do however well you explain why, it's not even about making converts to the game, it's about the right to use the forum without being called things like 'smug', 'apologist' or 'Stockholm syndrome', I'm sure the hate will burn itself out eventually.

I guess that depends what you personally think the 'warhammer feel' is, I read through the army books for the armies I collect and honestly it feels kind of sterile, I'd much rather continue to play 8th edition, for all its flaws it has way more character.

I didn't realize mentioning that this guy had a smug attitude (if you saw his face you'd agree) would offend you or infringe on your rights to use the forum in peace or something. I apologize if I made you fell bad.

Its not like the constant posts in every thread by some very active posters to counter every point of criticism isn't contributing to a hostile atmosphere or anything.

And if you haven't even played 9th ed before coming to the conclusion that it is sterile, well I don't feel that argument holds much weight without having tried it. I played age of sigmar and it only loosely reminds me of warhammer.

There's no flee, facing, charge reactions, rank bonus, characters in units leading them, marching, pivoting, flank charge bonus, I can go on and on.

They took all the classic mechanics out and massacred all the characters I had written background for. And destroyed their nations. How can that have the warhammer feel?

2DSick
22-11-2015, 10:16
Just want to express my surprise that one of the regular anti-anti AoS folks hasn't replied yet.

Here he comes to save the daaaaaaaaay

Hahaha


I think most of the pro-AoS posters now realise that however much you enjoy playing AoS there are people on Warseer who will never believe that you actually do however well you explain why, it's not even about making converts to the game, it's about the right to use the forum without being called things like 'smug', 'apologist' or 'Stockholm syndrome', I'm sure the hate will burn itself out eventually.



I guess that depends what you personally think the 'warhammer feel' is, I read through the army books for the armies I collect and honestly it feels kind of sterile, I'd much rather continue to play 8th edition, for all its flaws it has way more character.

Handmaiden
22-11-2015, 11:10
I agree about 9th's sterility.

9th age focuses on balance over fluff and character. (When asked to justify the nerfs to the Cauldron of Blood they went on about how it's great with Spears for killing blow, and Tower Guard. Basically troops that have never carried a CoB to battle in their lives.) It's gamey tournament meta-design.
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.

8th was the middle ground and it was a great game IF you could overcome the entry costs. It struck that delicate balance. Where it didn't make you feel like it was pointless and a waste of time to play aka moving models around just for the sake of it (AoS), without taking itself too serious and making you feel like you have to study the damn game like a 2nd degree like 9th age aka learn "finesse". When there's barely any opponents left to play against. Dialing down the powerlevels of armies and magic across the board makes dramatic turnarounds much less likely, the game more predictable and thus dull. IMO.

2DSick
22-11-2015, 11:53
I agree about 9th's sterility.

9th age focuses on balance over fluff and character. (When asked to justify the nerfs to the Cauldron of Blood they went on about how it's great with Spears for killing blow, and Tower Guard. Basically troops that have never carried a CoB to battle in their lives.) It's gamey tournament meta-design.
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.

8th was the middle ground and it was a great game IF you could overcome the entry costs. It struck that delicate balance. Where it didn't make you feel like it was pointless and a waste of time to play aka moving models around just for the sake of it (AoS), without taking itself too serious and making you feel like you have to study the damn game like a 2nd degree like 9th age aka learn "finesse". When there's barely any opponents left to play against. Dialing down the powerlevels of armies and magic across the board makes dramatic turnarounds much less likely, the game more predictable and thus dull. IMO.

The entry costs were a symptom of 8th rules. It scaled down terribly and made it difficult to use centre piece units without using large armies.

I don't feel that tweaking 8th has solved this.

75hastings69
22-11-2015, 12:01
.......AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance.

Which it does almost as poorly as balance. Blood mad blood murders are rampaging across nameless endless plane X in the ripped off realm of Z, for a mighty clash with the seraphon (who are the old lizardmen models) for no purpose at all, as no one will ever be any closer to achieving any end goal as the realms are infinite. How is that good fluff or story?

Arrahed
22-11-2015, 12:16
I don't get that either. I played some AOS games and I watched some battle reports. I have not once seen a fluffy army. (I am not suggesting that it doesn't happen. I just never saw it.) It is always Mr. Superhero with his super elite bodyguards beating up Mr. Super-Superhero with his slightly more elite bodyguards. I mean there is a whole new faction build around that concept.
There is always the argument that the absence of points (or lack of point value precision in several comp systems) encourages the use of weaker troops which is not only logical nonsense but also an effect I never witnessed.

Tokamak
22-11-2015, 12:47
Oh the ripping up of the world was glorious. It generated tons of content, hobby incentives and amazing miniatures. The problem is that the ripping eventually stopped.

silverstu
22-11-2015, 12:52
I don't get that either. I played some AOS games and I watched some battle reports. I have not once seen a fluffy army. (I am not suggesting that it doesn't happen. I just never saw it.) It is always Mr. Superhero with his super elite bodyguards beating up Mr. Super-Superhero with his slightly more elite bodyguards. I mean there is a whole new faction build around that concept.
There is always the argument that the absence of points (or lack of point value precision in several comp systems) encourages the use of weaker troops which is not only logical nonsense but also an effect I never witnessed.

I have no interest in the "super human" trope either in AoS or 40K so fluff wise the new releases have no appeal. Maybe this might change if/when we see new releases for the factions like dwarfs. I think the fluff in AoS really needs filled out a lot more- warhammer had years to develop the depth of fluff, possibly AoS might evolve into something more substantial over time. At the very least I'm hoping for some more nice dwarf models like the most recent dwarf kist and maybe some new zombies [all for my 8th armies].

Geep
22-11-2015, 13:02
I think most of the pro-AoS posters now realise that however much you enjoy playing AoS there are people on Warseer who will never believe that you actually do however well you explain why...
I fully believe that you like AoS, and that others do too. Some people enjoy Battleships, Monopoly, or a host of other games that don't appeal to me- and they honestly like them. The reason people remain grumpy is because AoS was such a sudden and dramatic departure from Fantasy. People are understandably angry, and that won't be going away since this forum keeps rubbing the noses of Fantasy fans into AoS, which fuels the fire. 8th ed players and 9th age players still have a fair bit of crossover, but as things are now it's pretty inevitable that this forum will gradually fracture as people find other groups with less conflict to their preferences, so talk can be on the games rather than the conflict.

I don't think anyone (sensible) on this forum has an actual dislike of the players of AoS, many people are just poor at communicating their true meanings (especially via the written word). It's easy to confuse the players and the game in this context.

Kahadras
22-11-2015, 13:12
9th age focuses on balance over fluff and character. (When asked to justify the nerfs to the Cauldron of Blood they went on about how it's great with Spears for killing blow, and Tower Guard. Basically troops that have never carried a CoB to battle in their lives.) It's gamey tournament meta-design.
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design

I would disagree. What we are seeing with 9th ed vs AoS is the extremes of balance. 9th ed works hard to try to achieve a balance while AoS makes no attempt at all. The results of this, IMHO, is that 9th ed has to tackle issues that AoS simply doesn't care about because it puts the onus on the player. So in 9th ed they nerf the CoB because it's synergy with Tower Guard was concidered to be too good, in AoS nothing is changed because GW expects the players to agree that the synergy is too good and they won't use it.

IMHO the basic rules of AoS doesn't really focus on 'fluff' and 'story' at all. It's just a bare bones war game that people can get for free.

Folomo
22-11-2015, 13:47
I must say I really disliked the change to the TK feel in AoS.
The army was always about loyal soldiers who sacrificed themselves when they lord died and where interred with him, to come back to life to defend him in death. This was a clear difference to VC, who could just animate random corpses on the field, represented by they ability to summon models.
But now that TK started summoning models into the game (mechanically), they are doing basically the same thing :(.
I feel dirty when someone mentions at the end of a game "Now your army will be shock full with fresh corpses". And this happen too with every summoning in the AoS for TK.

Also I miss animosity on the AoS greenskin. They may have tamed it in 9th, but in AoS the orcs apparently are as disciplined as imperial soldiers. Really weird.

From most of their post, I think that the people who where posting angrily against AoS where doing to protect new wargamers from making the "mistake" of getting into AoS without trying other games before. Can't confirm if this is their intent, and I doubt we can really know for sure via internet. There is a TON of context lost without body language and tone. I have seen jokes being taken as insults and vice versa among my friends when speaking in a chat, just because we can't know if the other people is being sarcastic, joking, serius or where he is putting the emphasis.

Soundwave
22-11-2015, 13:50
I will agree with Kahadras. Also adding that some of the new rules for the 9th age such as the warrior's of the wastes "inspire greatness " are particularly fluffy and functional.
Yes it is designed for tourney play, yet it is far from gamey. I find it more fluffy than 8th with the balance, there was nothing fluffy about trying to use a tomb kings, beastmen or bretonnian army and copping a flogging at the mercy of elves every single game. (Unless of course you found that fluffy.).

Deadhorse
22-11-2015, 15:48
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.

Really? Because I actually believe that the terrible background/fluff for AoS is the worst thing about it.
The rules place it somewhere between checkers and pokemon. Which is poor for a veteran wargamer, but at least could appeal to someone.
The fluff on the other hand is so bad, it makes Power Rangers seem like a masterpiece. At least there, the protagonists have human traits, whereas sigmarines are pretty much Necrons. I also distinctly feel the names in Power Rangers are more creative, I mean Zordon (IIRC, I was a small kid when I watched the show) only has Zords named after him and not half the damn universe including cities, metals, weapons, characters and so on.

Drakkar du Chaos
22-11-2015, 16:31
Really? Because I actually believe that the terrible background/fluff for AoS is the worst thing about it.
The rules place it somewhere between checkers and pokemon. Which is poor for a veteran wargamer, but at least could appeal to someone.
The fluff on the other hand is so bad, it makes Power Rangers seem like a masterpiece. At least there, the protagonists have human traits, whereas sigmarines are pretty much Necrons. I also distinctly feel the names in Power Rangers are more creative, I mean Zordon (IIRC, I was a small kid when I watched the show) only has Zords named after him and not half the damn universe including cities, metals, weapons, characters and so on.

If i am into this hobby it's because of the setting of Warhammer. It's generic but have his own identity and i like it like that. Don't care if the rules are bad or the prices too high.
But AoS is worse than WHFB on every aspect and the worst part is the fluff so no wonder why i hate it so much.

Dosiere
22-11-2015, 16:58
I still don't understand the assertion that AoS is focused on story/narrative or fluff. It's fluff is intentionally very vague and the rules are adaptable because of their simplicity but also lack the granularity seen in actual narrative games, like RPGs. The game has many pre-made official scenarios but that at best makes it a scenario based game. The pre-made scenarios aren't even really set up for a branching campaign or anything, just one-offs meant to be played but they remain disconnected from outside events. At best I can see AoS giving a player essentially a blank canvas for you to make your own stories, but that can be said of ANY game and compared to a game actually designed to help players do just that like an RPG AoS has no competitive advantage over them.

Star Wars : X-Wing has more scenarios than AoS currently does I believe, including interconnected branching campaigns, does that mean X-Wing is a game at the extreme end of wargaming design focusing on fluff and story over anything else? For that matter the campaign books for WFB and 40K have special scenarios in them as well, with usually much more content and fluff than any of the AoS books. The old White Dwarfs use to have TONS of great content to play WFB through campaigns and scenario play. That was back in 6th ed. though.

What AoS is focused on is the models themselves. The game is nothing more than a vehicle to allow you to play and showcase your GW models in extremely casual games. It's not about the game, the game is just an excuse to put the models on the table. GW finally did what they have been threatening to do for years, which is behave like a dedicated model company rather than a gaming company. The first hard break was when they stopped supporting/pretended it no longer existed organized play for their games. My first real exposure to them as a company was when I went to my first Grand Tournament right after I started playing. It was awesome.

If GW put the same kind of effort and investment into making great games in the same way they have done to make great miniatures, they would rule the (hobby) world. Instead they have been slowly losing ground to their competitors for years because of their abandonment and lack of investment into the gaming side of the hobby.

shelfunit.
22-11-2015, 16:59
Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.

Well, true balance is the holy grail of wargame design, achieve perfect balance and you can build up all the fun around it. In that respect the two games most certainly would be at the extreme ends of wargame design.

75hastings69
22-11-2015, 17:10
Really? Because I actually believe that the terrible background/fluff for AoS is the worst thing about it.

As much as I think AoS is a terrible "game" I have to agree with this ^

For me everything that has been put into print so far is simply dreadful.

I agree the sole purpose of AoS "the game" is nothing more than a suggestion of something to do with your model collection.

Tokamak
22-11-2015, 17:32
I'm all about fluffy armies. I see very little reason to play cookie-cutter setups. However, the real satisfaction comes from having a themed army despite all the consequences that come with the inevitable asymmetry that arises.

Making a themed army in 8th is hard. You have to think hard about your choices and weigh all the costs. This gets lost once you can just throw everything you want together in AOS and trust the lack of rules to smudge the lack of balance.

Kahadras
22-11-2015, 17:49
I agree the sole purpose of AoS "the game" is nothing more than a suggestion of something to do with your model collection.

I would agree with that to a certain point. I think the basic GW plan was to produce a 'skeleton' of a game which would need almost no work to create and almost no work to maintain. Whenever a new unit comes out somebody in the office can quickly whip up a stat line and some special rules with no worry about whether it will unbalance the game or not. GW probably decided that they weren't going to be getting much money for the core rules if they were going to give them away for free so that's probably why we have battleplans. I'm pretty sure that battleplans were designed to add 'meat' to the skeleton.

Basically people would get the starter set, play with the basic rules a couple of times and would then go and buy the battleplan books. Obviously this would work well in the long term as, again, little work has to go into making up scenarios. GW can therefore run AoS with maybe only a couple of people comming up with background/rules/battleplans etc. They can then charge £30 a pop for each battleplan book and make money on the rules that way.

Holier Than Thou
22-11-2015, 18:29
In the fans only thread they are celebrating having almost 500 posts.

This is almost 500 posts on EVERYTHING positive about it, not a single aspect, everything. And it's only taken since early August to get there. An average of 4 posts a day WORLDWIDE on good things about it.

Take from that what you will.

Arrahed
22-11-2015, 18:44
You're wrong. There is so little positivity about AOS because the game is so good everybody is busy playing instead of posting.;)

Holier Than Thou
22-11-2015, 18:51
You're wrong. There is so little positivity about AOS because the game is so good everybody is busy playing instead of posting.;)

Aah, that must be it. Probably the same reason you never hear about how awesome it is to smear **** all over your face.

broxus
22-11-2015, 20:26
Aah, that must be it. Probably the same reason you never hear about how awesome it is to smear **** all over your face.

Yes most people don't bother posting here in the old fantasy forums that enjoy AoS. The old WHFB edition people are just to bitter about the changes. I am not sure why they are so bitter since the 8th edition rules and models still exist. If you want to know what's going on with AoS just look on Twitter that is where all the action is, not on on old WHFB forums.

Of note most of the old WHFB players should be happy that AoS is keeping the old fantasy model range alive. WHFB was a dying game at least now there is a future. In many communities lots of new players are starting to play AoS and there is excitement for it.

Holier Than Thou
22-11-2015, 20:39
Yes most people don't bother posting here in the old fantasy forums that enjoy AoS. The old WHFB edition people are just to bitter about the changes. I am not sure why they are so bitter since the 8th edition rules and models still exist. If you want to know what's going on with AoS just look on Twitter that is where all the action is, not on on old WHFB forums.

Of note most of the old WHFB players should be happy that AoS is keeping the old fantasy model range alive. WHFB was a dying game at least now there is a future. In many communities lots of new players are starting to play AoS and there is excitement for it.

Well it seems the lots of new players who like AOS and don't post here also don't play in Games Workshops or independent gaming stores or clubs, don't buy the limited edition items, don't attend tournaments or events. But yeah, seems to be a lot of excitement. :rolleyes:

MagicAngle
22-11-2015, 20:52
I think the basic GW plan was to produce a 'skeleton' of a game which would need almost no work to create and almost no work to maintain.

Don't you mean "'deathrattler' of a game"? :p

Which, actually, is surprisingly apt as AoS does feel very much like the deathrattle of Warhammer.

SuperHappyTime
22-11-2015, 21:16
We still having the same old Anti-AoS arguments? I thought the Anti-s won several months ago.

The good of AoS, I don't have to spend hours developing an army or reading through messy rules. I can play a game by playing a game.
The bad of AoS, The game has no internal balance to allow for a (relatively) fair pick up game
The ugly of AoS, Some rules are horribly written or broken, and the fluff is a giant ****.

If you have models, run through a game of AoS or two and decide for yourself. If you don't like it, you can always play 8th, KoW, or 9th Age. If you don't have Fantasy models, check out some of the other games (40K, WMH, X-Wing, Malifaux, Infinity) and see if the pique your interest. I shouldn't have to state any of this, it's a pretty simple conclusion.

2DSick
22-11-2015, 21:27
We still having the same old Anti-AoS arguments? I thought the Anti-s won several months ago.

The good of AoS, I don't have to spend hours developing an army or reading through messy rules. I can play a game by playing a game.
The bad of AoS, The game has no internal balance to allow for a (relatively) fair pick up game
The ugly of AoS, Some rules are horribly written or broken, and the fluff is a giant ****.

If you have models, run through a game of AoS or two and decide for yourself. If you don't like it, you can always play 8th, KoW, or 9th Age. If you don't have Fantasy models, check out some of the other games (40K, WMH, X-Wing, Malifaux, Infinity) and see if the pique your interest. I shouldn't have to state any of this, it's a pretty simple conclusion.

Last weekend I played 2 games of AoS on the condition that they gave me a game of KoW in return... we now have 2 more KoW players in the area ;-D

Deadhorse
22-11-2015, 21:40
If you want to know what's going on with AoS just look on Twitter that is where all the action is..

Or maybe snapchat, that's why there's so little evidence of any AoS activity. It gets erased minutes after being posted.

Anyhow, in my experience AoS gets as much "action" as Theon Greyjoy. The designers simply cut off the parts that were responsible for any of that. Now some people of peculiar taste might enjoy playing with this sad little corpse of a game, but it's just not mainstream any more. Less so than the "dead" WFB was.

So, what can I say, enjoy your specialist game while it lasts, I give it 18-24 months to go before it is silently walked out the back door and put out of its misery.

Voss
22-11-2015, 21:43
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.
.
I entirely disagree with all of this. Fluff/story and balance are not the extreme ends of game design. They are the basic goals and any worthwhile company will try to do both as best they can. They are NEVER in competition, largely because they are very rarely (and only by the smallest of start up companies) being done by the same people at the same time. Having a balanced set of rules doesn't mean you have to have an incoherent skeleton of a setting, nor does having a detailed setting necessitate slipshod rules.

In any case, it has little to do with AoS, as GW went to great lengths to have neither story nor balance. I really think they intentionally expended actual manhours to produce a lack of balance and a junk B-movie story that would have been held in contempt by MST3K as not worth parodying.

Vulgarsty
22-11-2015, 21:50
I agree the sole purpose of AoS "the game" is nothing more than a suggestion of something to do with your model collection.

Agreed, and given that I, and everyone I know only "collect" for the purposes of wargaming, it means that my regular and considerable GW purchases have dwindled to nothing. Also the round bases is a killer. A stupid shift that is irrelevent in AOS but means your minis are incompatible with a proper adult wargame that offers some tactical challenges (you know like flanks and basic stuff any general ever might recognise). More than one army has gone unbidden on by me on ebay because the creator chose to limit its options (and therefore value) by round basing - an unthinking vandalism that I certainly couldn't be bothered to rectify.

broxus
22-11-2015, 22:33
Or maybe snapchat, that's why there's so little evidence of any AoS activity. It gets erased minutes after being posted.

Anyhow, in my experience AoS gets as much "action" as Theon Greyjoy. The designers simply cut off the parts that were responsible for any of that. Now some people of peculiar taste might enjoy playing with this sad little corpse of a game, but it's just not mainstream any more. Less so than the "dead" WFB was.

So, what can I say, enjoy your specialist game while it lasts, I give it 18-24 months to go before it is silently walked out the back door and put out of its misery.

Not what I have seen AoS is growing with almost all many players and plenty of tournaments (in the UK). However, if AoS dies, almost all intrest in anyone playing fantasy games will die out. GW had name recognition, outstanding models and was one of the few companies that could draw new wargamers into the hobby. Really fantasy already died awhile back, AoS is one of the few things bringing people into the hobby. You simply can't make 300 page rule books now and get new younger people to play games with it. We are now seeing generation Facebook and Twitter which makes it hard to get their attention to even read 4 pages.

Khaines Wrath
22-11-2015, 22:49
"Generation Facebook"...that's not patronising at all. But good to know your idea of positive change is the dumbing down of tabletop gaming for dumb kids right?

Handmaiden
22-11-2015, 23:43
I entirely disagree with all of this. Fluff/story and balance are not the extreme ends of game design. They are the basic goals and any worthwhile company will try to do both as best they can. They are NEVER in competition, largely because they are very rarely (and only by the smallest of start up companies) being done by the same people at the same time. Having a balanced set of rules doesn't mean you have to have an incoherent skeleton of a setting, nor does having a detailed setting necessitate slipshod rules.

In any case, it has little to do with AoS, as GW went to great lengths to have neither story nor balance. I really think they intentionally expended actual manhours to produce a lack of balance and a junk B-movie story that would have been held in contempt by MST3K as not worth parodying.

I'm not talking about theory or what could be. I'm talking about the attitudes of those at 9th age, who promote balance over narrative (being designed by tournament players) and GW, with their DnD style narratives and no balance.

Those are the extreme ends of wargaming design philosophy. Metagame vs beer and pretzels. Can you have both strict balance and characterful rules? In theory but its very very very very difficult to pull off.

I don't believe in the idea that balance is either strict or slipshod. I say a decent chance of winning+ more varied and characterful rules is better than an equal chance and very conservative rules.

Kal Taron
22-11-2015, 23:53
To be fair Warhammer never had 300 pages of rules. If you were concise and keeping the examples and illustrations out you could get almost all of the rules on maybe 8 pages tops.
They had those nice reference sheets I believe in 4th edition and they were pretty much complete at 2 pages.
What bloated the rules was the many examples and exceptions. And of course that a large part of the books always was pictures and fluff.

SuperHappyTime
22-11-2015, 23:57
I'm not talking about theory or what could be. I'm talking about the attitudes of those at 9th age, who promote balance over narrative (being designed by tournament players) and GW, with their DnD style narratives and no balance.

Those are the extreme ends of wargaming design philosophy. Metagame vs beer and pretzels. Can have both strict balance and characterful rules? In theory but its very very very very difficult to pull off.

There are other reasons why The 9th Age's fluff is slipping. Attitude is one thing, but someone at legal has told the fluff team that copying the fluff will get the project killed (as opposed to straight up copying the rules, which I assure you is as IP as the fluff is). As such, the fluff team has kept fluff generation almost entirely offline, which some of us aren't too keen about.

Fluff and Rules affect each other, but are not dependent on each other. We can pair the WFB fluff to AoS ruleset as easily as pairing the AoS fluff with the WFB Ruleset (I've done the former quite easily). It's when my fluff creates rules such as summoning 10 more units for free because that's what the Daemons would be able to do. And it could be fine, but it has to be balanced among the ruleset (which AoS has been failing to do).

SuperHappyTime
23-11-2015, 00:02
To be fair Warhammer never had 300 pages of rules. If you were concise and keeping the examples and illustrations out you could get almost all of the rules on maybe 8 pages tops.
They had those nice reference sheets I believe in 4th edition and they were pretty much complete at 2 pages.
What bloated the rules was the many examples and exceptions. And of course that a large part of the books always was pictures and fluff.

Realistically, a simple rulebook of about 15-20 pages and probably 100 full pages of comprehensive rules. Rules necessary to play Magic the Gathering can fit on a poster sized page of moderate sized text, but the actual rules are 210 pages of text (examples, but no pictures).

scruffyryan
23-11-2015, 00:11
Realistically, a simple rulebook of about 15-20 pages and probably 100 full pages of comprehensive rules. Rules necessary to play Magic the Gathering can fit on a poster sized page of moderate sized text, but the actual rules are 210 pages of text (examples, but no pictures).

Small book is even less, 183 including index. The rules summary, the part most referenced is like 5 pages. Also includes 6 scenarios, 4ish pages of pointless bestiary and a slew of needless examples/fluff

Handmaiden
23-11-2015, 00:24
There are other reasons why The 9th Age's fluff is slipping. Attitude is one thing, but someone at legal has told the fluff team that copying the fluff will get the project killed (as opposed to straight up copying the rules, which I assure you is as IP as the fluff is). As such, the fluff team has kept fluff generation almost entirely offline, which some of us aren't too keen about.

Fluff and Rules affect each other, but are not dependent on each other. We can pair the WFB fluff to AoS ruleset as easily as pairing the AoS fluff with the WFB Ruleset (I've done the former quite easily). It's when my fluff creates rules such as summoning 10 more units for free because that's what the Daemons would be able to do. And it could be fine, but it has to be balanced among the ruleset (which AoS has been failing to do).

I'm not just talking about fluff, I'm talking about rules themselves. Chess has has close to perfect balance as possible as there's a minimum of variation in rules. The closer to perfect balance any game gets, the less rules variation they have to have. Or else they're just kidding themselves and creating as much imbalance as they're solving. Which seems to be the case judging from the amount of complaining going on at their website.

SuperHappyTime
23-11-2015, 00:44
Small book is even less, 183 including index. The rules summary, the part most referenced is like 5 pages. Also includes 6 scenarios, 4ish pages of pointless bestiary and a slew of needless examples/fluff

I was counting those :). But there are plenty of things (What are compulsary moves, who can attack in combat, chariot rules, etc.) That adds above 5.


I'm not just talking about fluff, I'm talking about rules themselves. Chess has has close to perfect balance as possible as there's a minimum of variation in rules. The closer to perfect balance any game gets, the less rules variation they have to have. Or else they're just kidding themselves and creating as much imbalance as they're solving. Which seems to be the case judging from the amount of complaining going on at their website.

Balance is actually pretty hard to do. Probably why GW said to heck with it with AoS.

stirogiperogi
23-11-2015, 00:44
I agree about 9th's sterility.

9th age focuses on balance over fluff and character. (When asked to justify the nerfs to the Cauldron of Blood they went on about how it's great with Spears for killing blow, and Tower Guard. Basically troops that have never carried a CoB to battle in their lives.) It's gamey tournament meta-design.
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.

8th was the middle ground and it was a great game IF you could overcome the entry costs. It struck that delicate balance. Where it didn't make you feel like it was pointless and a waste of time to play aka moving models around just for the sake of it (AoS), without taking itself too serious and making you feel like you have to study the damn game like a 2nd degree like 9th age aka learn "finesse". When there's barely any opponents left to play against. Dialing down the powerlevels of armies and magic across the board makes dramatic turnarounds much less likely, the game more predictable and thus dull. IMO.

Great analysis! One of the best posts describing the fragmentation of the groups of people who played WHFB.

The 9th age crowd got its "... gamey tournament meta-design...." and thus will burn them selves out in game world that is "....predictable and thus dull...".
Not to fully defend AOS - the game play is refreshing - but the story arc is horrible.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 00:46
I agree about 9th's sterility.

9th age focuses on balance over fluff and character. (When asked to justify the nerfs to the Cauldron of Blood they went on about how it's great with Spears for killing blow, and Tower Guard. Basically troops that have never carried a CoB to battle in their lives.) It's gamey tournament meta-design.
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.

8th was the middle ground and it was a great game IF you could overcome the entry costs. It struck that delicate balance. Where it didn't make you feel like it was pointless and a waste of time to play aka moving models around just for the sake of it (AoS), without taking itself too serious and making you feel like you have to study the damn game like a 2nd degree like 9th age aka learn "finesse". When there's barely any opponents left to play against. Dialing down the powerlevels of armies and magic across the board makes dramatic turnarounds much less likely, the game more predictable and thus dull. IMO.

This is why I cannot get into Kings of War or 9th age. Nailed to the letter. Thank you.

Voss
23-11-2015, 03:45
I'm not talking about theory or what could be. I'm talking about the attitudes of those at 9th age, who promote balance over narrative (being designed by tournament players) and GW, with their DnD style narratives and no balance.
Don't know any of the '9th age' people, nor do I really care. But they're probably rules focused because the warhammer background already exists- the point of 9th (at least as I understand it, I've no interest in fan work to save a dead game) is to make something playable in the preserved playground of the old setting. As for D&D style narratives, you give GW far too much credit. And seem to be operating from a point of confusion, since most editions of D&D are heavily balanced obsessed.


Those are the extreme ends of wargaming design philosophy. Metagame vs beer and pretzels. Can you have both strict balance and characterful rules? In theory but its very very very very difficult to pull off.
So you keep saying. Now say why.
It doesn't have to be perfect, but it is easy to tell when someone doesn't make an effort at either story or balance.

I don't believe in the idea that balance is either strict or slipshod. I say a decent chance of winning+ more varied and characterful rules is better than an equal chance and very conservative rules.You're conflating completely unrelated things, and I don't know why. Neither 'strict' nor 'slipshod' balance (nor anything the huge spectrum between them) prevents a decent chance of winning. Varied and characterful rules are unrelated to balance or story or winning. Some games focus on tidy design, others on more detailed design. Others prefer specific methodologies like exception based design or universal rules. None of which suggest you can't have a story, can't have balance and can't win games. Very conservative rules... I'm not even sure where you're going with this one. Is turned based conservative because chess does it that way, or is it merely practical?

Holier Than Thou
23-11-2015, 09:41
Not what I have seen AoS is growing with almost all many players and plenty of tournaments (in the UK). However, if AoS dies, almost all intrest in anyone playing fantasy games will die out. GW had name recognition, outstanding models and was one of the few companies that could draw new wargamers into the hobby. Really fantasy already died awhile back, AoS is one of the few things bringing people into the hobby. You simply can't make 300 page rule books now and get new younger people to play games with it. We are now seeing generation Facebook and Twitter which makes it hard to get their attention to even read 4 pages.

Where exactly have you seen this? I and several other posters are in the UK (I'm in Manchester) and we haven't seen AOS growing or "plenty" of tournaments, quite the opposite in fact.

Horace35
23-11-2015, 10:21
This is why I cannot get into Kings of War or 9th age. Nailed to the letter. Thank you.

I do sort of agree. For some people, balance means the same as removal of anything random. They like the game to be rigid where everything runs on rails like chess.

I personally like the chaos and how you can win/lose the game in a turn of horrible dice rolls.

It certainly is admirable the way the 9th guys ripped through everything and tried to sort the problems out though. It is amazing what you can achieve in a short amount of time if you put the work in, and is a damning indictment of the care GW put into maintaining one of their core games


I'm all about fluffy armies. I see very little reason to play cookie-cutter setups. However, the real satisfaction comes from having a themed army despite all the consequences that come with the inevitable asymmetry that arises.

Making a themed army in 8th is hard. You have to think hard about your choices and weigh all the costs. This gets lost once you can just throw everything you want together in AOS and trust the lack of rules to smudge the lack of balance.

I think in 8th making a themed army is just the same. You feel like playing a Khorne army? Put all your Khorne models down and try your best to smash your opponent to pieces, even if you lose it will be fun.

Malagor
23-11-2015, 10:39
Well not all tournament games rip out anything random.
Warmahordes is a tourney game, it's balanced, still uses templates(which apperently tournies don't like) and yet it embraces the randomness of the hobby.
The armies have their own unique feel to them as well.
So you can make a tourney game and yet keep the randomness but it takes alot of work.
AoS is really not that far from a "classical" tourney game when you think about it.
They removed the templates completely, removed any risk from the magic phase, static hit and wound stats and with various rules that influence those stats encouraging min-maxing.
If there was a point system and a bit tighter ruleset then it would be a tourney's wet dream.

Deadhorse
23-11-2015, 11:07
The argument about Beer and Pretzels being incompatible with balance is fairly easy to demolish: popular beer and pretzels games are actually very balanced.

Darts? Great balance. How about those little soccer tables? Ditto - symmetrical game.

And what about miniatures games, you ask? I honestly don't think any miniature game is a perfect "beer and pretzels" experience as there's too much effort required to prepare/set up, and they don't scale well to different numbers of players. Also, they put emphasis on intellectual skills rather than dexterity. However, of the games I know, X-wing beats the hell out of AoS as a beer and pretzels game. The "unpredictability" is delivered by pre-planned movement, a single game is quick as it lasts 60-75 minutes, setup is almost instant, the basic rules are extremely easy to teach (easier than AoS) and almost everyone likes Star Wars and is drawn to playing with tie fighters/x-wings if given the opportunity.

And guess what, x-wing also has very good balance - that's the reason I play it.

Arrahed
23-11-2015, 11:27
I do sort of agree. For some people, balance means the same as removal of anything random. They like the game to be rigid where everything runs on rails like chess.

Balance means same chances for everyone. It has nothing to do with randomness. There are totally random games that are perfectly balanced like deciding a rule conflict by rolling a dice. There are also non random games that are totally balanced like Chess.

The reason why too much randomness is disliked in some cases is that the chances are not equal for both players.
For example the WFB scenario with randomly split deployment zones. A cavalry army would not care if their army is split thereby negating the possibly negative effect of the dice rolls.
A VC player on the other hand can get completely screwed by the same dice roll.
The result: Unbalanced rules.

Rolling for charge distances is another example:
Most units are treated equal when rolling for charge distances. Therefore the system is more or less balanced. A cavalry unit depends on charging to make use of their abilities. This is taken into account by making charging longer distances more probable for them.
If you think the risk is too high, set your units up cleverly to reduce the risk of failed charges.
The result: Balanced rules.

skeptico
23-11-2015, 11:33
I've never understood the appeal of a beer and pretzels game. Anyone with salty pretzel crumbs on their fingers would NOT be allowed to touch my miniatures...

TheLionReturns
23-11-2015, 11:44
I think some posters are being a bit harsh on 9th age. Yes the team developing it are tournament players and looking to fix some of the flaws that could be exploited competitively, but that doesn't mean the offering is bland. I have only really kept a firm eye on the development of the Wood Elves (Sylvan Elves) but, whilst not everything is exactly what I would want, there are huge improvements.

In 8th edition the design of the rules, the armybook and its balance against other lists meant that many players tended towards heavy shooting lists capable of avoidance playstyles. Many opponents found these games very dull. However, it was difficult to bring other types of list because there was pretty poor internal balance in the book (ie problems with dryads, wardancers etc).

Boosts to dryads, and changes to flammable and cannons have bought treemen and dryads back as realistic options, as have changes to wardancers. Shooting, meanwhile has been toned down a touch, and rules have changed on sisters and mounted characters, to stop those avoidance buses. So now we have more units to choose from realistically, especially combat units, allowing for more varied styles. Indeed the ability to take command on dryads and a treekin hero as a bsb has made all forest spirit lists viable for the first time in ages.

Furthermore some old favourite like spites and kindreds have been re-introduced. While the benefits of fighting in forests have remained (to my disapproval), spells and magic items have allowed us to move/create/simulate woods in order to allow those bonuses in a more dynamic style.

For me some of the old flavour has come back to wood elves in 9th age, which was lost in the transition to 8th. Don't get me wrong the old glade guard rules would be welcome and changes to the bonuses from woods, but overall the 9th age team are doing a pretty good job I feel.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 11:59
What is and is not bland is in the eye of the beholder.

To me, 7th edition warhammer was the most stale pos ever. To others, it was the pinnacle and glory of fantasy gaming.

To others age of sigmar is an abomination while others still find it fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
23-11-2015, 12:11
I think some posters are being a bit harsh on 9th age.

hey if it works for you then go for it, they basically removed animosity from greenskins because they didn't like it and the casket of souls lost its fluffy light of death spell and gained some random heavens spells instead. In most of the armies I play all I see in the 9th age documents are missed opportunities and removal of characterful special rules which made warhammer was it is to me.

Dosiere
23-11-2015, 13:08
And yet fixed a lot of what aggravated people in the process as well. The viability of more units and most importantly an update to certain armies is most welcome. Animosity shouldn't have gone, but a hundred other things should have and did. Personally I think the pros more than outweigh the cons. They've already put forth more effort and had more good ideas than the entirety of AoS from GW, and their effort is free.

Kahadras
23-11-2015, 16:06
I do sort of agree. For some people, balance means the same as removal of anything random. They like the game to be rigid where everything runs on rails like chess.

I think that it's less to do with the removal of 'random' and more to do with the removal of 'broken'. Refering to the Cauldron of Blood point made by Handmaiden. It didn't get nerfed because it was too random, it got nerfed because it was percieved to have such good synergy with particular units in the Dark Elf army. IMHO GW games have become less and less rewarding to play as I feel they've made them easier and easier.


In most of the armies I play all I see in the 9th age documents are missed opportunities and removal of characterful special rules which made warhammer was it is to me.

It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about AoS.

Arrahed
23-11-2015, 16:26
Was the question how animosity works in AOS answered already or am I wrong assuming it is gone?

So the argument so far is:
AOS dropped the animosity rule to create a more fluffy and narrative gaming experience.
9th Age dropped the animosity rule and therefore is a stale competitive game with no soul.

Or did I miss something?

theunwantedbeing
23-11-2015, 16:32
And yet fixed a lot of what aggravated people in the process as well. The viability of more units and most importantly an update to certain armies is most welcome. Animosity shouldn't have gone, but a hundred other things should have and did. Personally I think the pros more than outweigh the cons. They've already put forth more effort and had more good ideas than the entirety of AoS from GW, and their effort is free.

A man comes to your house to give you a cheque for a million pounds.
You open the door and your dog greets him.
He shoots the dog dead, hands you your cheque and leaves.

Hooray! a million pounds.
That guy sure is great for giving you all that money right?

Kahadras
23-11-2015, 16:35
Was the question how animosity works in AOS answered already or am I wrong assuming it is gone?

Gone as far as I can see. I've had a look on the O&G warscroll and I can't see any mention of it there.


A man comes to your house to give you a cheque for a million pounds.
You open the door and your dog greets him.
He shoots the dog dead there, hands you your cheque and leaves.

Hooray! a million pounds.
That guy sure is great for giving you all that money right?

I think it's more like the guy turns up and gives you £990,000. Then you complain that he didn't give you a million (or in the case of animosity, £800,000).

Antigone1977
23-11-2015, 16:37
A man comes to your house to give you a cheque for a million pounds.
You open the door and your dog greets him.
He shoots the dog dead, hands you your cheque and leaves.

Hooray! a million pounds.
That guy sure is great for giving you all that money right?

Don't you just buy another dog?

Arrahed
23-11-2015, 16:38
A man comes to your house to give you a cheque for a million pounds.
You open the door and your dog greets him.
He shoots the dog dead there, hands you your cheque and leaves.

Hooray! a million pounds.
That guy sure is great for giving you all that money right?

That escalated quickly...

Are the quoted post and your post somehow logically connected or are we throwing around arbitrary stuff now?

Denny
23-11-2015, 16:41
Don't you just buy another dog?

Not for a million pounds.
You'd have to buy loads of dogs and kill the spare ones.

Holier Than Thou
23-11-2015, 16:43
That escalated quickly...

Are the quoted post and your post somehow logically connected or are we throwing around arbitrary stuff now?

Agreed, I see no connection between the two posts. One is about people making an effort to improve something, the other is about a million pounds and a dead dog???

If it's something to do with not being charged for the 9th age rules but them not being perfect then a similar analogy for AOS would be

A man arrives at your house, you are expecting him to bring you a million pounds. Instead he shoots your dog and charges you for the bullet.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 16:46
I think the analogy is more that they improved a lot of things and then killed something that a lot of people loved.

Arrahed
23-11-2015, 16:51
Okay, so the 'dead dog analogy' describes how GW canned WFB and gave us AOS. (Except that one might have to exchange a million dollars with a bag of the dog's poo.)
9th Age would be something like a guy knocking at your door asking if you want to trade your dog for a million dollars.

Kahadras
23-11-2015, 16:51
I think the analogy is more that they improved a lot of things and then killed something that a lot of people loved.

I suppose we could say that AoS then is like a guy showing up at you house, shooting your dog, kicking you in the stomach, setting your house on fire, stealing your wallet and driving off in your car. :D

At least with 9th ed you can campaign to have some form of animosity put into the game. You'll stand more chance of success than getting GW to update it's warscrolls.

Zywus
23-11-2015, 16:52
In that analogy, shouldn't GW be the guy killing the dog (the old world) and the 9th age guys is trying to cheer you up with the million? (A million Turkish Lira rather than a million pounds perhaps, but a million none the less)

It's interesting how animosity can apparently be a dealbreaker for some, but playing a rule system that has almost nothing in common with the game and world that those orcs and goblins came out of is just fine for those very people.

Malagor
23-11-2015, 16:55
Well I was upset about animosity being removed but talking to the other players in my area most agree that it was a bad move and that when we move over to 9th age, orcs will get a house rule for the tournaments that puts animosity back in since the main O&G players want it back.

Kahadras
23-11-2015, 16:58
It's interesting how animosity can apparently be a dealbreaker for some

It's the way most people work. The rest of 9th ed could be really good but it's got no animosity so it's a bland, boring game. On the other hand AoS doesn't have animosity but we haven't seen people complaining about that. IMHO it's a good sign that a lack of animosity is such a big issue in 9th ed as it's a pretty small thing in the wider game.

Holier Than Thou
23-11-2015, 17:03
It's the way most people work. The rest of 9th ed could be really good but it's got no animosity so it's a bland, boring game. On the other hand AoS doesn't have animosity but we haven't seen people complaining about that. IMHO it's a good sign that a lack of animosity is such a big issue in 9th ed as it's a pretty small thing in the wider game.

To be fair, the lack of animosity is the least of the problems with Age of Sigmar.

Kahadras
23-11-2015, 17:12
To be fair, the lack of animosity is the least of the problems with Age of Sigmar.

Probably why the point about the lack of animosity hasn't been raised yet. When it does people can then accuse AoS as being bland and obsessed about balance. :p

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 17:29
Animosity is just one of several things that point to 9th age being bland and obsessed with balance. Much like kings of war is in the same boat.

That doesn't make it bad, because obviously a ton of people love games that are bland and obsessed with balance, as balance is the #1 factor for a lot of people and the rest they can take or leave.

Arrahed
23-11-2015, 17:32
Animosity is just one of several things that point to 9th age being bland and obsessed with balance. Much like kings of war is in the same boat.

That doesn't make it bad, because obviously a ton of people love games that are bland and obsessed with balance, as balance is the #1 factor for a lot of people and the rest they can take or leave.
Then please explain why the lack of animosity is not a problem in AOS.

akai
23-11-2015, 18:15
Then please explain why the lack of animosity is not a problem in AOS.

If you are looking at AoS game system as a replacement for Fantasy Battle game system - sure its a negative if you like animosity rule.
If you are looking at 9th Age game system as a replacement for Fantasy Battle game system - sure its a problem if you like animosity rule.

I look at AoS as a completely different game compared to Fantasy Battle. You use the same miniatures for two very different game systems. I think I will play Fantasy Battle when I want to imagine battles between thousands of rank and file troops. I think I will play Age of Sigmar when I want to play "small" war parties from tens to hundreds of troops on missions or what else.

I am not sure about Kings of War, but 9th Age is an adaptation of Fantasy Battle. And it seems very much both games represent battles between thousands of rank and file troops. I can't picture myself switching between 8th Edition, 9th Age, and Kings of Wars game system since all three represents Fantasy rank and file type of game. I can see myself switching between 8th Edition and AoS, between 9th Age and AoS, or between Kings of War and AoS.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 18:25
Then please explain why the lack of animosity is not a problem in AOS.

Because taken as a whole the two systems accomplish two very different things.

One system puts narrative and story telling in the foreground with rules ancillary.

The other system puts rules in the foreground and everything else is ancillary.

Homing in on one thing not mattering vs another is a bit pedantic when we are discussing overall feelings in the system.

Animosity being left out by itself is not a big deal in either system.

Skargit Crookfang
23-11-2015, 18:26
Animosity is just one of several things that point to 9th age being bland and obsessed with balance. Much like kings of war is in the same boat.

That doesn't make it bad, because obviously a ton of people love games that are bland and obsessed with balance, as balance is the #1 factor for a lot of people and the rest they can take or leave.

Well, considering how often you bring up the defense of AoS being "exactly what you want, and fine as is", is it not a little..odd... to be calling "9th age being bland and obsessed with balance"?

The second part, I'll give you, while the first is entirely subjective- something you have argued time and again with regards to AoS.

The balanced thing is fine, but calling it bland twice is one post is pretty hypocritical of you, considering you also state: "a ton of people love games that are bland and obsessed with balance"

I'm not sure how insulting other gamers helps anyone, much in the same way insulting those who play AoS helps no one.

scruffyryan
23-11-2015, 18:41
Summary of discussion so far: 9th age is a work in progress, animosity is missed by some but could be added in with little work. Making AOS a viable tournament or competitive format would require much more work. People who like AoS are taking the opportunity to bag on 9th age in the same way they complain about people bagging on AoS. Circle of gamer life.

Urgat
23-11-2015, 18:42
What people got to explain to me, is why people bitch about AoS not being the Old World, and then advocate 9th Age... which brings their own background which has nothing to do with Warhammer either excepted offering proxies for the Old World armies (like almost every other fantasy setting out there). What is "9th age" about it? It's just house rules (yes, really) tacked on 8th ed, and removing the Old World lore all the same.
Color me confused.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 18:48
Well, considering how often you bring up the defense of AoS being "exactly what you want, and fine as is", is it not a little..odd... to be calling "9th age being bland and obsessed with balance"?

The second part, I'll give you, while the first is entirely subjective- something you have argued time and again with regards to AoS.

The balanced thing is fine, but calling it bland twice is one post is pretty hypocritical of you, considering you also state: "a ton of people love games that are bland and obsessed with balance"

I'm not sure how insulting other gamers helps anyone, much in the same way insulting those who play AoS helps no one.

I've never once said AoS is exactly what I want and fine as is. In fact I have in about 50 places said that without the comp we use I wouldn't be playing it at all. I've said of any of the supported game systems out there for fantasy that AoS is the closest to what I want and thats why i play it.

I just had this conversation over the weekend over some beers. In the company of three infinity players who all said they vastly prefer bland balanced games (their words) because game balance is their #1 concern when playing games and narrative and story should be reserved for RPGs and not tabletop wargames, so I don't see how that is an insult when those words come from the very players' mouths themselves and as such color what terms I use in my own vocabulary and conversations.

I'm pretty sure when they said that they weren't insulting anyone and nor was I.

2DSick
23-11-2015, 18:51
What if I told you that wargames can be characterful and...

Wait for it...

Balanced :O

Malagor
23-11-2015, 18:53
What if I told you that wargames can be characterful and...

Wait for it...

Balanced :O
Like Warmahordes.

LotusCorgi
23-11-2015, 18:54
If any one shoots my dog they're going to learn what animosity is all about.

Cybtroll
23-11-2015, 18:55
I always thought that stripping the point systems from AoS was the biggest mistake GW made... not because points where necessary, meaningful or even useful. But because they were a standard... and people love their standards. A lot. Even when they can be removed.

Anyway, I don't think you need a lot of effort to create some "balancing" layer into the AoS experience. On the contrary, I think it's pretty easy... if you forget once and for all the "points" point of view.

IMHO, the solution is something similar to a scenario generator. I'm trying to putting one together (it's still under play testing, so any feedback is much appreciated. Also, it will be physically impossible to test any ages combination by myself... so any feedback in even more appreciated). ^^

tiny.cc/aos_scenario

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 18:57
heh

warmahordes. balanced and characterful. When I see a big characterful warmahordes campaign run with emphasis on story and not on mechanics I will reevaluate my opinion of that game. I've never since warmachine came out however long ago seen one though. I'm sure a campaign COULD happen (we tried twice, never could get more than three players despite there being over 30 people that play it locally) but never seen one or read about one online.

As for balanced, while its definitely better than whfb and 40k, its still by far imo not very balanced. There are still always takes and never takes and competitive lists (which is what I see most of the time) are dominated by the same few builds with some minor variations.

I'm sure games can be characterful and balanced. The games that people are flocking to right now aren't it though. Maybe Armada could get that tag. X Wing has star wars behind it but really its from what I've seen nothing more than another min/max list building exercise where dice is used.

I guess that can be another topic. What does it mean to be balanced and have character? I bet we get 100 answers that are all different :)

Samsonov
23-11-2015, 19:10
For what is worth, loads of historical games managed to be balanced and characterful. Also, what of Warmaster? The ancients version is certainly balanced and characterful, whilst I've never played the fantasy version but the rules and army lists are very similar.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 19:17
I love warmaster. I have several warmaster armies and a roman warmaster ancients army. (I come from historicals so I have a lot of historicals period)

Warmaster and ancients never took off here. Ever. It is one of my favorite systems... but I could never find opponents.

And I agree that warmaster is an example of a game that was fairly balanced and had a lot of character and campaign hooks in it.

The main reason it never took off here is that list building is huge here and warmaster has a pretty strict comp system where you need to take "garbage" as its called here, and people didn't like having to take "garbage units".

2DSick
23-11-2015, 19:21
Example 2 - flames of war

Malagor
23-11-2015, 19:21
As for balanced, while its definitely better than whfb and 40k, its still by far imo not very balanced. There are still always takes and never takes and competitive lists (which is what I see most of the time) are dominated by the same few builds with some minor variations.

Well depends, yes some units are underpowered but they do try to fix them either by erratas or by releasing unit attachments that tends to fix the problems.
Khador's iron fang pikemen is a good example of a unit that was considered underpowered but then PP released a new unit attachment for them and now they are a good choice for Khador.
Add to this when new units/characters/solos are released, that too changes how other units are. A unit that was rarely taken by players might be a good choice against this new unit/character/solo. So things can swing left and right in Warmahorde.
It's not perfect(a goal that is unattainable so using that as a goal is pointless and will only add to disappointment) but it's still damn good and PP are actively putting in the effort atleast to smoothing things out further.

Arrahed
23-11-2015, 19:22
Homing in on one thing not mattering vs another is a bit pedantic when we are discussing overall feelings in the system.

So what makes the lack on animosity a bad thing for one system and irrelevant for another is basically gut feeling.
Not that there is anything wrong with that but I think you should make that clear when discussing why AOS is a good game.




[The AOS] system puts narrative and story telling in the foreground with rules ancillary.

How? I don't see any indication for that. What makes AOS a game that puts narrative and story in the foreground?


I just had this conversation over the weekend over some beers. In the company of three infinity players who all said they vastly prefer bland balanced games (their words) because game balance is their #1 concern when playing games and narrative and story should be reserved for RPGs and not tabletop wargames, so I don't see how that is an insult when those words come from the very players' mouths themselves and as such color what terms I use in my own vocabulary and conversations.
Interesting considering there are few games I would consider less bland and more characterful than Infinity especially since it has officially supported rules for fusing RPG and tabletop game.
If we want to continue this discussion we should probably agree on a definition of
- a narrative focused game
- a bland game
- a competitive mindset
- a balanced game
because I get the impression that those change at will.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 19:44
I'm not going to go round and round on this topic again. I've already been through two of these on here. You can refer to my comments on those same questions in my posting history.

scruffyryan
23-11-2015, 20:28
Most of the "always takes" and "never takes" in Warmahordes are a result of forum chatter rather than any real inferiority or superiority.

Assault Kommando's were viewed as utter crap but have been taken in more and more successful lists of late. The forum reception of the new skorne caster has been utterly negative, but people are posting some crazy high win/loss ratios with him because of the wild difference in playstyle he brings the faction.

Arrahed
23-11-2015, 20:43
I'm not going to go round and round on this topic again. I've already been through two of these on here. You can refer to my comments on those same questions in my posting history.
I briefly skimmed through your history. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find anything from the last few days. Would you mind to enlighten me? At least for one or two of the points.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 21:02
I dont' really feel like getting into the same conversation no.

I can give you the summary though based on the other two conversations that were the same thing:

I give you a reason why I feel that way.

You try to convince me that how I feel is illogical and how I feel is not correct based on your own subjective opinion.

We go round and round trying to prove that how the other feels is not correct.

That goes on for about 8 or 10 posts. Someone interjects with how we've derailed the conversation, maybe someone gets burned out and accuses the other of trolling, then the conversation ends, maybe with a moderator removing posts.

Its really not worth getting into. We aren't going to convince each other that the other feels incorrectly. Much like I would not try to convince someone that eating indian food is bad, because I hate it and think its gross.

Ben
23-11-2015, 21:09
Its really not worth getting into. We aren't going to convince each other that the other feels incorrectly. Much like I would not try to convince someone that eating indian food is bad, because I hate it and think its gross.

Let's not get rash here.

Or are you talking about South Indian food, which I can take or leave.

Deadhorse
23-11-2015, 21:16
Woot, AoS krusaders are out to prove that Infinity/Warmahordes/9th are bland compared to the sigmarite-clad sigmarines from sigmaron in all their endless 3+/4+/5+ glory? The fluffless Aelfs and the aztec-lizardmen-angel-ghost conglomerate?

And I see they've already forged the narrative about how terrible 9th edition is, as Orcs and Goblins don't have animosity. Of course, it is ok for Orruks and Sgrotums from Aos to not have animosity (or any other sensible rules apart from the 3+/4+/5+ everyone has), because they are not really orcs and goblins, are they now?

TheLionReturns
23-11-2015, 22:23
hey if it works for you then go for it, they basically removed animosity from greenskins because they didn't like it and the casket of souls lost its fluffy light of death spell and gained some random heavens spells instead. In most of the armies I play all I see in the 9th age documents are missed opportunities and removal of characterful special rules which made warhammer was it is to me.

Didn't know about the changes to animosity. I agree that is a terrible decision. In reality 9th age is likely to see what some view as retrograde steps and other changes many see as improvements. On balance what I am seeing for my army is positive. If I were an O&G player though I would certainly be grumpy about the changes to animosity.


What is and is not bland is in the eye of the beholder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more.

HelloKitty
23-11-2015, 22:34
Woot, AoS krusaders are out to prove that Infinity/Warmahordes/9th are bland compared to the sigmarite-clad sigmarines from sigmaron in all their endless 3+/4+/5+ glory? The fluffless Aelfs and the aztec-lizardmen-angel-ghost conglomerate?

And I see they've already forged the narrative about how terrible 9th edition is, as Orcs and Goblins don't have animosity. Of course, it is ok for Orruks and Sgrotums from Aos to not have animosity (or any other sensible rules apart from the 3+/4+/5+ everyone has), because they are not really orcs and goblins, are they now?

How does one prove a subjective opinion is either "right" or "wrong"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SuperHappyTime
23-11-2015, 22:55
How does one prove a subjective opinion is either "right" or "wrong"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you know how ironic his name is when you keep beating him :D

Kahadras
23-11-2015, 23:04
So what makes the lack on animosity a bad thing for one system and irrelevant for another is basically gut feeling.

Well otherwise it would be rather silly. Basically getting rid of animosity and changing other rules for 9th ed makes it bland because it aims for balance. Getting rid of animosity and changing other rules for AoS make it OK because it aims for no balance at all.


How? I don't see any indication for that. What makes AOS a game that puts narrative and story in the foreground?

Basicaly because you have to otherwise the game doesn't really work.

AngryAngel
23-11-2015, 23:43
Which it does almost as poorly as balance. Blood mad blood murders are rampaging across nameless endless plane X in the ripped off realm of Z, for a mighty clash with the seraphon (who are the old lizardmen models) for no purpose at all, as no one will ever be any closer to achieving any end goal as the realms are infinite. How is that good fluff or story?

Can I answer ? If so I would say it isn't. Which, even beyond rules is why AoS lost me, the background is just the worst. Opinion of course, but it just comes off like a very poorly written fantasy movie. Each time a new bit of fluff drops, I have to ask twice if I heard it right, as it sounds too daft to be true.

AngryAngel
23-11-2015, 23:59
I've never once said AoS is exactly what I want and fine as is. In fact I have in about 50 places said that without the comp we use I wouldn't be playing it at all. I've said of any of the supported game systems out there for fantasy that AoS is the closest to what I want and thats why i play it.

I just had this conversation over the weekend over some beers. In the company of three infinity players who all said they vastly prefer bland balanced games (their words) because game balance is their #1 concern when playing games and narrative and story should be reserved for RPGs and not tabletop wargames, so I don't see how that is an insult when those words come from the very players' mouths themselves and as such color what terms I use in my own vocabulary and conversations.

I'm pretty sure when they said that they weren't insulting anyone and nor was I.

Just quoting for this topic, the feel for any game, really doesn't lay in the rules, it is in the player. If the player cares about the story, it will be a story driven game, if they don't, it won't. While the infinity players you had the drink with my be all about the rules and only that, I've played plenty of story driven lists and games with that self same system. Boring and dull is the person, not the game if it has an actual story and drive for the game. ( I bet you we could play the most exciting story driven game of candy land ever if you were up for it ).

Narrative is where you find it, AoS just has pretty much only story to rely on, for some it just comes off stupid or lame, like for me. I won't say someone is wrong for loving it, but saying it can't be balanced without sacrificing story was and is always false. They can have both, the designers simply were too lazy to give both.

Lars Porsenna
24-11-2015, 01:15
Can I answer ? If so I would say it isn't. Which, even beyond rules is why AoS lost me, the background is just the worst. Opinion of course, but it just comes off like a very poorly written fantasy movie. Each time a new bit of fluff drops, I have to ask twice if I heard it right, as it sounds too daft to be true.

Indeed, it's like background written by Uwe Boll...

Damon.

Ben
24-11-2015, 01:23
Basically because you have to otherwise the game doesn't really work.

Which is another thing that you the player have to create, and which you get little in terms of tools to do, with no balancing system and with some of the rules being vague and open to interpretation.

scruffyryan
24-11-2015, 03:00
Indeed, it's like background written by Uwe Boll...

Damon.

Its actually very Michael Moorcock, which would be great for something being played in the 70's or 80's but its an outdated setting style.

AngryAngel
24-11-2015, 06:10
Indeed, it's like background written by Uwe Boll...

Damon.

Exactly, and we all know how good that is.

-DE-
24-11-2015, 06:22
Its actually very Michael Moorcock, which would be great for something being played in the 70's or 80's but its an outdated setting style.

It's like the Elricverse written, and directed!, by Uwe Boll.

Denny
24-11-2015, 06:30
Its actually very Michael Moorcock, which would be great for something being played in the 70's or 80's but its an outdated setting style.

OK, let's not say things we can't take back. :mad:;)

Allen
24-11-2015, 14:31
Indeed, it's like background written by Uwe Boll...

Damon.

I'm not particularly fond of AoS background (at least, the very little we know about), but are we seriously saying with a straight face that WHFB background (or any other fluff/background/setting/whatever produced by GW) was something good? Not riddled with clichè, bad writing and plot holes? Completely devoid of extremely silly and childish names or telegraphed plots? Absolutely without poorly developed stories and monodimensional characters? What's next, an earnest praise of GW well-maintained continuity in their fictional settings? Or the acknowledgment of their cross-referencing/fact checking skills when multiple author work on the same topic?

I agree, AoS raised the bar of bad writing and childish plot development...but that bar was already very, very high a few WHFB/WH40K editions ago. Don't get me wrong, even I admit AoS is a product in dire need of a major overhaul both rule and fluff-wise. But praising something that was only slightly less silly and badly developed just to criticise AoS is not the right answer - at least IMHO.

Zywus
24-11-2015, 14:49
While the Old world beckground probably do benefit from a bit of rose-tinted glasses since many of us got into the setting in a much younger and impressionate age.

Also many of the GW fantasy clichés weren't really as cliché before GW started using them. Or rather, the chichés certanly existed but usually GW took one or two of them, mashed them together and put their own spin on it. The GW orcs for exemple are very different from the tolkien ones and although I suspect that the additional components were already out there somewhere already the combination arose in the GW universe.

Plot holes and telegraphed plots isn't really something I recall much of. Could you name some exemples?
As for mondimensional characters, bad writing etc. I hope no one claims that didn't exist at all in the old background. But at least some of the stuff were good and people have fond memories of certain background characters and stories decades later.

It just seems hard to find anything interesting in the AoS lore at all.

Allen
24-11-2015, 15:49
People having "fond memories" is the key problem, I fear. That fondness keep interfering with reality and we have thread upon thread that discuss of old WHFB like some sort of epic cornerstone of narrative quality and wargaming experience...while in reality was something entirely different. Something far, far worse if we consider that GW officially told us that Fantasy sales were declining both for new and fidelity customers.

That same fondness, by the way, is making a fortune for Mantic: no-one see the bland setting or the average (at best) rule system. Everyone keep praising KoW like the new big thing, but it's simply a Linus' blanket that a lot of people are holding to avoid WHFB withdrawal. All this IMHO of course.

Zywus
24-11-2015, 15:54
But what are you comparing with?

If WHFB had such a terrible background. What game would you say is has a good one?
If KoW is (as best) a bland background and a average ruleset. What's a good mass battle ruleset/setting in your opinion. I gather it's not AoS.

HelloKitty
24-11-2015, 15:56
KoW is basically whfb 7th edition (my impression) with some added tweaks (not removing models when killed, all magic rolled up into the five basic effects and magic being toned down to the point of being like archers or bolt throwers).

The thing is - a lot of people loved whfb 7th edition. That was the glory tournament years of the game, the tail end of 6th and most of 7th.

jtrowell
24-11-2015, 16:20
For me KoW has a few of the good things from 7th edition, but without all the very large number of flaws that it had :
- no magic phase where you are crushed by a player with 4x more power dice than you because he spammer wizards
- no 0.5 inch shuffling and other problems due to no premesuring
- no game *completly* lost during deploiement or even worse during list-building, or even more extreme during army *selection*

Fluff wise about the original Fantasy background, I remember that at the time it was exotic and news :
"A fantasy universe with gunpowder ?!"
"Dwarves with canons and rifles ?!"
"Pseudo scifi with the Slanns" (back when the Slanns were descendants from the Old Ones having lost most of their knowledge, and not their creations/servants)
"The Ennemi Within" that introduced a subtle threath of an internal corruption rather that the usual horde of barbarians at the gates. I have always prefered the theme of secret cults and mutants
"The New World", introducing an age of exploration theme in a Fantasy Universe with a whole new continent still lightly explored and largely unknow

And lots of other things, the Warhammer Universe did indeed take from several cliché (both Fantasy, Sci-Fi and historical) and merged them in something that was new at the time.

When we talk about tropes and clichés, we have to remember that some of them are rather recents and that they were not always over used.

I remember reading a joke about the Lord of the Ring movies saying things like that :
"Pfu, we have already seen this kind of epic quest launched by an old wizards several times, it's just the same thing again"
"Gandalf is clearly based on Obi-Wan Kenobi"
"... And Bilbo and the hobbits are copied on Willow" (for those that remember this old movie)

While it was a parody, it put the lampshade on the fact that most of those tropes/clichés only exists because Tolkien invented or at least made them popular with LotR, so we can hardly reproach him from having copied from the future.

In the same way, the Fantasy Universe was the first that I know that mixed the genres in such a way, resulting in something that was new and refreshing at the time.

Allen
24-11-2015, 16:21
But what are you comparing with?

I'm not saying that WHFB was worse than some other wargame. I'm saying that it was bad, period. I played it, I liked it, I bought novels, miniatures and army books and so on because I wanted to. But I was conscious during all my time as GW customer/WHFB player of all the limits and inconsistencies of the rule system and of the background. Lately I'm playing Frostgrave and I like it - but I'm quite aware that even a "good" ruleset like that (not better than, simply good) have limitations, sometimes pretty glaring ones.

You don't always need "better" or "worse" games to benchmark a product. Some issues, especially in GW products, are pretty obvious: you don't need to play (or even know) another wargame to understand that all GW balancing issues are pretty serious, for example, or that the classic "I-go-you-go" turn phase is pretty limiting.

Samsonov
24-11-2015, 17:01
WFB background was pretty good in places, I liked how they merged the historical with fantasy. But undeniably, it is loved way beyond what is deserved because of nostalgia. Which makes you wonder why it was abandoned. Not only did the new background have to equal the old in quality, it had to be even better to make up for the lost nostalgia. Of course, if AoS background was worse, well, you could imagine the consequences...

HelloKitty
24-11-2015, 17:24
It doesn't matter what quality Age of Sigmar background is. You could have had the world's best authors pen a masterpiece of a background story, and it would still be slammed because its not old whfb.

Zywus
24-11-2015, 17:34
Of course it would matter.:rolleyes:

Some of the criticism of the AoS background might be just cause it's not whfb but a fair bit is because people genuinely find it to be uninspired, uninteresting, bland and ridiculous,

Sparowl
24-11-2015, 17:46
It doesn't matter what quality Age of Sigmar background is. You could have had the world's best authors pen a masterpiece of a background story, and it would still be slammed because its not old whfb.

That's true. Everything will have people who like it because it is, and people who hate it, because it isn't.

However, given a masterpiece of backstory, there would be fewer people slamming it.

HelloKitty
24-11-2015, 17:46
If only we could test that hypothesis...

akai
24-11-2015, 18:19
But what are you comparing with?

If WHFB had such a terrible background. What game would you say is has a good one?
If KoW is (as best) a bland background and a average ruleset. What's a good mass battle ruleset/setting in your opinion. I gather it's not AoS.

If I want to watch a good epic fantasy show or read a good epic novel I definitely would like a very detailed background with "boundaries" to get immersed into. Maybe that novel or show was so good and immersive I would buy a game specifically for that setting. I did not entered into the Warhammer fantasy hobby from reading a good Warhammer novel or show, etc. I entered the hobby, because it was an avenue to play battles with generic fantasy themes of humans, dwarfs, elves, demons, monsters, etc. Besides the far east, it is a very detailed setting of an alternate version of the real world. It was very helpful to me as a child to have such a detailed setting with "boundaries."

Now that I am an adult, the Warhammer Fantasy setting of the old world is still very detailed but not something I looked fond of as a pinnacle of fantasy setting. There are good parts and bad aspects in it for me. Because of how detailed the setting is, if I wanted to create my own narrative/background there are "boundaries" given that I would try to fit it in.

Now currently Age of Sigmar story is focus on the Realmgate Wars. That is Games Workshop ongoing narrative that they are telling at the moment. You could go along with that story line. For me, it is not of interest to me. That story does not draw me into playing AoS and does nott spark my interest into creating background for my models to participate in the Realmgate wars. What does draw me into creating background for my models into 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.

Hishbishy
24-11-2015, 18:57
It doesn't matter what quality Age of Sigmar background is. You could have had the world's best authors pen a masterpiece of a background story, and it would still be slammed because its not old whfb.

But it wouldn't have been slammed for having terrible lore.

HelloKitty
24-11-2015, 19:18
I disagree. Some people would bash it for everything under the sun. The current writing of the novels is about the same as the writing for the old world novels (I've read warhammer fiction for many years), but we treat the old novels like they were great epic pieces of literature and AOS novels are horrible... because its AOS.

40k novels are the same. Equally horrible but entertaining.

Zywus
24-11-2015, 19:30
I disagree. Some people would bash it for everything under the sun. The current writing of the novels is about the same as the writing for the old world novels (I've read warhammer fiction for many years), but we treat the old novels like they were great epic pieces of literature and AOS novels are horrible... because its AOS.

40k novels are the same. Equally horrible but entertaining.
So you say that peoples subjective opinion that the AoS background is not of the same quality as the old WHFB background is wrong?

scruffyryan
24-11-2015, 19:51
But what are you comparing with?

If WHFB had such a terrible background. What game would you say is has a good one?
If KoW is (as best) a bland background and a average ruleset. What's a good mass battle ruleset/setting in your opinion. I gather it's not AoS.

Iron kingdoms.
Warmahordes.

Buddy Bear
24-11-2015, 20:08
Of course it would matter.:rolleyes:

Some of the criticism of the AoS background might be just cause it's not whfb but a fair bit is because people genuinely find it to be uninspired, uninteresting, bland and ridiculous,

Exactly. It's a garbage setting, and that has nothing at all to do with Warhammer Fantasy. If I see a good idea in Age of Sigmar, I point it out. However, there isn't a single good idea anywhere in the malformed abomination which is the Age of Sigmar setting. You can't even say that it's a fully formed setting, because it's not. There're entire major races in the setting which we still know next to nothing about. How well received would the Iron Kingdoms, Forgotten Realms, or Mantica have been when they first came out if you literally knew nothing at all about the major races in the setting, save that they exist and what their names are?

Buddy Bear
24-11-2015, 20:50
The idea that Age of Sigmar's setting is anywhere equal to the Warhammer Fantasy setting is objectively false. When I get the big book for Warhammer Fantasy, it gives me maps, it tells me the history of the High Elves, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Empire, Bretonnia, Lizardmen, Chaos, Undead, etc, and shows me pictures and art of those people. I get a real sense of who these different factions are, what they're about, what their aesthetics are, and what their armies are like.

Age of Sigmar gave us almost none of that. What's a Steamhead Duardin? What's an Orruk? What's a Fire Slayer? What's an Aelf? Come to think of it, what's a human? What do we know about AOS humans beyond they look like us? Who knows. A setting that bereft of actual information can never be legitimately said to be anywhere near the equal of a setting like the Warhammer world.

scruffyryan
24-11-2015, 20:52
The idea that Age of Sigmar's setting is anywhere equal to the Warhammer Fantasy setting is objectively false. When I get the big book for Warhammer Fantasy, it gives me maps, it tells me the history of the High Elves, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Empire, Bretonnia, Lizardmen, Chaos, Undead, etc, and shows me pictures and art of those people. I get a real sense of who these different factions are, what they're about, what their aesthetics are, and what their armies are like.

Age of Sigmar gave us almost none of that. What's a Steamhead Duardin? What's an Orruk? What's a Fire Slayer? What's an Aelf? Come to think of it, what's a human? What do we know about AOS humans beyond they look like us? Who knows.

The old world had a pretty decent RPG associated with it too, that included social and intrigue elements. Maybe AoS will develop those, maybe they wont but they don't have them now.

HelloKitty
24-11-2015, 21:08
But wouldn't that mean that you claim that people realize that the settings are actually of comparable quality but due to a need to spread hate towards AoS, they go to message boards and disingenuously claim that they find AoS background to be worse than the old? That's quite the accusation isn't it?

Either peoples subjective opinion is that AoS background is worse than WHFB's and you would then claim that they're wrong.
Or deep inside people realize that actually, the settings are of equal quality, but they lie(!) and claim that they find AoS to be worse.

I don't think they are doing anything disengenious.

Its the same thing with sports.

Ex: everyone hates the New England Patriots. They call them cheater, hate on tom brady etc... even though he is a hall of fame quarterback. They still go out of their way to hate.

I don[t think anyone is lying. I think that hate colors one's opinion (and of course vice versa the rose colored glasses color one's opinion) and prevents one from seeing anything subjectively.

Buddy Bear
24-11-2015, 21:09
It certainly doesn't. And that's the thing, we can only base our judgment off of what's there now (or rather, what's not there), not off a hypothetical future where these races and lands are actually fleshed out and what they put out for them is something actually worthwhile, rather than more of the same dreck we've been getting with Age of Sigmar so far. And Age of Sigmar, as a newly released setting in the modern miniature gaming market, is flat out embarassing in its lack of information and detail about the setting and its major races.

akai
24-11-2015, 21:15
Age of Sigmar gave us almost none of that. What's a Steamhead Duardin? What's an Orruk? What's a Fire Slayer? What's an Aelf? Come to think of it, what's a human? What do we know about AOS humans beyond they look like us? Who knows. A setting that bereft of actual information can never be legitimately said to be anywhere near the equal of a setting like the Warhammer world.

You have your answers from the compendiums and starter book.

Spiney Norman
24-11-2015, 22:54
The idea that Age of Sigmar's setting is anywhere equal to the Warhammer Fantasy setting is objectively false.

Not better or worse, just different, there's so much we don't know about the AoS setting right now it's not really possible to honestly compare the two. On the one hand you have the warhammer world where everything is nailed down, it has history and culture etc etc. One the other hand we know very little about the mortal realms or the people that live there because the narrative is being developed from the perspective of the stormcast eternals. They've been locked up in the realm of Azyr for the last x amount of years being forged by Sigmar and we're basically seeing the story through their eyes as they go back to the mortal realms in force to see who's left after chaos has had their way with the place for all that time.

I can see why folks who are used to a fate-accompli setting that was basically time-locked until the End times came along would struggle to come to terms with a continuously developing setting, but speaking personally I actually find it quite exciting that the setting will continue to grow and develop as the game does.

Burnthem
24-11-2015, 23:32
Forget to check the thread for two days, and come back to 8 pages of this, wow. :D

Voss
24-11-2015, 23:39
Not better or worse, just different, there's so much we don't know about the AoS setting right now it's not really possible to honestly compare the two. On the one hand you have the warhammer world where everything is nailed down, it has history and culture etc etc. One the other hand we know very little about the mortal realms or the people that live there because the narrative is being developed from the perspective of the stormcast eternals. They've been locked up in the realm of Azyr for the last x amount of years being forged by Sigmar and we're basically seeing the story through their eyes as they go back to the mortal realms in force to see who's left after chaos has had their way with the place for all that time.

I can see why folks who are used to a fate-accompli setting that was basically time-locked until the End times came along would struggle to come to terms with a continuously developing setting, but speaking personally I actually find it quite exciting that the setting will continue to grow and develop as the game does.
Why are you assuming it will? I'm not being funny, I just don't know where the idea that it will develop with the game comes from. Siggy will continue to Sigmine and forge Sigmarines and Blood Blood Blooders will continue to Bloodinate across the infinite and they'll fight fight fight. Everything else seems... non-present. Development vs static doesn't seem the issue at hoof.

As for comparing them? Of course you can.
The sad thing is, AoS seems to be a poor comparison to Mantica, which is clearly fill in the generic fantasy blanks so a setting can be said to exist. Mantica has much more potential as well, as factions are introduced and everyone fits into the background somewhere, rather than just hanging in limbo, waiting for a $70 book to introduce them.

Spiney Norman
24-11-2015, 23:43
Why are you assuming it will? I'm not being funny, I just don't know where the idea that it will develop with the game comes from. Siggy will continue to Sigmine and forge Sigmarines and Blood Blood Blooders will continue to Bloodinate across the infinite and they'll fight fight fight. Everything else seems... non-present.

Are you suggesting they still won't show us any pictures or write any background for Aelfs/Duardin etc even after they have made models for them? We know a lot more about Seraphon now they've got their battle tome, I imagine that will be the case with all of the other races and factions, we'll find out about them as they get released.

MagicAngle
24-11-2015, 23:51
Forget to check the thread for two days, and come back to 8 pages of this, wow. :D

Yup - I imagine you've got the full picture by now. Passive-aggressive running battles about every conceivable aspect of AoS. :rolleyes:

What hath god wrought!

AngryAngel
25-11-2015, 07:18
It doesn't matter what quality Age of Sigmar background is. You could have had the world's best authors pen a masterpiece of a background story, and it would still be slammed because its not old whfb.

That is a very negative way to view your fellow players. I would like to believe if the back story wasn't so, goofy, it would get a much better spin then it is right now. You can't tell me much of the back story doesn't come off as written by a hyped up pre teen. Sig this, Sig that, good guys don't really die, whole realms where people have to eat each other but none could ever survive in that case, etc etc. I can say, from my side at least if it felt better, sounded better, I may not be a fan but I'd at least be able to say it sounds nice. Some can judge things on the merits and be subjective and not just blindly hate because it isn't what they grew up with.

75hastings69
25-11-2015, 08:02
It doesn't matter what quality Age of Sigmar background is. You could have had the world's best authors pen a masterpiece of a background story, and it would still be slammed because its not old whfb.

Not strictly true. When people are still referencing AoS as a more narrative based experience then surely the background is MORE important than ever to help forge that narrative? The fact is currently the background is quite frankly IMO ****. Whether or not it improves is anyone's guess, after all the WFB world have around 25 - 30 years to make it what it was, AoS has only been around less than a year, although to be fair the base level it has set for background is utter drivel and possibly the worst thing about AoS (IMO) and that's saying a lot.

LotusCorgi
25-11-2015, 08:03
It doesn't matter what quality Age of Sigmar background is. You could have had the world's best authors pen a masterpiece of a background story, and it would still be slammed because its not old whfb.

I'm sorry but no. Veterans of this game would have not been as predisposed to hate AOS if the story arc/fluff had some kind of redeeming factors. But it's just horrible fluff that's unworthy to carry the name brand "War Hammer". No disrespect HK.

GrandmasterWang
25-11-2015, 11:09
I personally consider the background for the entire Warhammer universe absolutely flicking awesome!

Cliches, monodimensional characters and all I loved it and still consider it my favourite fantasy setting bar none! I loved the 'real world elements' and various nods to the real world. I loved the interracial politics and every single Warhammer fantasy army has something about it which i adore!

Are all the writings for Warhammer Fantasy masterpieces? No. However the way all the varying stories and layers of the world interacted and piled on top of each other made it to me irresistible!

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

skeptico
25-11-2015, 13:45
You have your answers from the compendiums and starter book.

Well exactly. It's one thing having a heated debate about the merits of the AoS fluff. But can't they at least take place between people who've all read it?

HelloKitty
25-11-2015, 14:15
The majority of hate that i hear centers first and foremost on the game rules. Then the story. Often followed up by finding out they never really read any of the story other than a quick summary and that they now play kings of war for the game and have no idea what the story there is.

So while im sure there are some people that read the new material and legitimately didnt like it - i am finding most people are just using it as another way to back up their dislike without having bothered to read it coupled with their showing narrative background doesnt matter to them as much as rules and organized play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drakkar du Chaos
25-11-2015, 14:53
Not strictly true. When people are still referencing AoS as a more narrative based experience then surely the background is MORE important than ever to help forge that narrative? The fact is currently the background is quite frankly IMO ****. Whether or not it improves is anyone's guess, after all the WFB world have around 25 - 30 years to make it what it was, AoS has only been around less than a year, although to be fair the base level it has set for background is utter drivel and possibly the worst thing about AoS (IMO) and that's saying a lot.

147th time i see that... this is absolutely not true.
I "started" WHFB between 5th-6th edition and stopped any purchase or involvment into the hobby for almost 15 years so i can tell you this : the 8th edition fluff is the same as 5th/6th. 80% of the fluff is a copy paste since 15 years.

Voss
25-11-2015, 16:01
Are you suggesting they still won't show us any pictures or write any background for Aelfs/Duardin etc even after they have made models for them? We know a lot more about Seraphon now they've got their battle tome, I imagine that will be the case with all of the other races and factions, we'll find out about them as they get released.

I have no idea what stupidity they'll indulge in next. Launching the game without background for the armies that exist is the height of crazy. The setting should be fleshed out already, if you want interest in the setting. The races should be at least established, if they want to cultivate interest in people buying in to those races.

Given the lizard example and how horrifyingly horrible it is, the main reason I see that they didn't do a full background in the main rules is they are justifiably embarrassed by it, and are terrified if people know things in advance, it will tank sales even more.

That and they don't want to bother doing a full setting. Just slapdash something to tack on, since they heard somewhere that background might affect sales, but don't really believe it. After all, the 'GW hobby' is just about pushing minis out the door, right?

scruffyryan
25-11-2015, 19:43
The majority of hate that i hear centers first and foremost on the game rules. Then the story. Often followed up by finding out they never really read any of the story other than a quick summary and that they now play kings of war for the game and have no idea what the story there is.

So while im sure there are some people that read the new material and legitimately didnt like it - i am finding most people are just using it as another way to back up their dislike without having bothered to read it coupled with their showing narrative background doesnt matter to them as much as rules and organized play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would I spend money to get the fluff of a game whose mechanics are so bad HK?

ewar
25-11-2015, 19:59
The majority of hate that i hear centers first and foremost on the game rules. Then the story. Often followed up by finding out they never really read any of the story other than a quick summary and that they now play kings of war for the game and have no idea what the story there is.

So while im sure there are some people that read the new material and legitimately didnt like it - i am finding most people are just using it as another way to back up their dislike without having bothered to read it coupled with their showing narrative background doesnt matter to them as much as rules and organized play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have not played the game (nothing about it appeals to me) but I don't criticise it.

I have read two of the books and the fluff is an absolute abomination. Truly, truly awful.

You obviously have a good time playing then game (fair enough) what I don't understand is how anyone with modicum of intellect (which I would credit most warseer members with) can bear to read it.

I honestly find it hilarious. Why defend the indefensible?

MusingWarboss
25-11-2015, 20:00
Not strictly true. When people are still referencing AoS as a more narrative based experience then surely the background is MORE important than ever to help forge that narrative? The fact is currently the background is quite frankly IMO ****. Whether or not it improves is anyone's guess, after all the WFB world have around 25 - 30 years to make it what it was, AoS has only been around less than a year, although to be fair the base level it has set for background is utter drivel and possibly the worst thing about AoS (IMO) and that's saying a lot.


147th time i see that... this is absolutely not true.
I "started" WHFB between 5th-6th edition and stopped any purchase or involvment into the hobby for almost 15 years so i can tell you this : the 8th edition fluff is the same as 5th/6th. 80% of the fluff is a copy paste since 15 years.

Well I have a copy of 3rd Edition WFB here and that was popped out in 1987, two years after WFB 1st. There is truth in what you both say, but I'll leave it to Priestly, Halliwell and Ansell to give their explanation on the process:

223011

It's also worth noting that by 3rd Edition a complete history of the World had been created and took 15 pages to explain and included a map in the main rulebook. No doubt further expansions boosted and changed things.

223012

ewar
25-11-2015, 20:03
I would love to hear Rick Priestley's thoughts on AoS background :)

MagicAngle
25-11-2015, 20:07
"Games are always more satisfying when set firmly in the context of a credible society, especially when that society is situated within a carefully detailed world".

Pretty much sums it up.

Philhelm
25-11-2015, 23:02
The majority of hate that i hear centers first and foremost on the game rules. Then the story. Often followed up by finding out they never really read any of the story other than a quick summary and that they now play kings of war for the game and have no idea what the story there is.

So while im sure there are some people that read the new material and legitimately didnt like it - i am finding most people are just using it as another way to back up their dislike without having bothered to read it coupled with their showing narrative background doesnt matter to them as much as rules and organized play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I paid around $70 for the first supplemental book that came out, wanting to give AOS a chance. Being an Empire player, I was curious about the regular humans, and all I know is that some of them live in Sky City, others are eaten, and that there are apparently some warrior priests and flagellants somewhere, since those were the only regular humans shown in the book. The fluff was awful and did not provide a good overview of the current state of things, which should have been a priority.

Buddy Bear
25-11-2015, 23:16
Why would I spend money to get the fluff of a game whose mechanics are so bad HK?

Exactly. HelloKitty seems to be under the impression that just because you're not familiar with all of the fluff at first that you'll never become familiar with it. I got into Warhammer Fantasy at first, as I did with Warhammer 40,000, because the game looked fun, and when I played it it was fun. I learned the lore afterwards. Why would I learn the lore of a lousy game? I was fortunate, though, in that the lore of the game was really great and I liked it a lot, and it's what kept me going, even when the game wasn't so great. Likewise, I've started playing Kings of War and I'm having fun with it, so now I'll learn the lore. Doing it the other way around doesn't make a lick of sense.

As for the lore of Age of Sigmar, are people still defending respawning Sigmarines? If the lore is so great, then by all means, someone take a picture of the page(s) detailing Aelfs, Orruks, Steamhead Duardin, or regular humans, and post them here. Post a picture of artwork relating to them. I'd really like to see them.

Spiney Norman
25-11-2015, 23:22
Likewise, I've started playing Kings of War and I'm having fun with it, so now I'll learn the lore. Doing it the other way around doesn't make a lick of sense.


That's pretty much how I'm approaching AoS too, I really don't get why so many people on Warseer seem to think I should abandon the game because the background is weak. The way the game plays and the models they've made for it is what I like about the game, if I'm after a strong narrative theme for a particular game I can fill out my own corner of the mortal realms with my own imagination if I wish, or I can go the lazy route and set my force in the warhammer world/end times or wherever.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-11-2015, 23:39
Likewise, I've started playing Kings of War and I'm having fun with it, so now I'll learn the lore. Doing it the other way around doesn't make a lick of sense.

It's the other way around for me : going to purchase some comics, found & read White Dwarf, saw the mighty Chaos Warriors and fell in nerd-love. I purchased a lot of fluff 15 years ago and played my first battle 6 months ago.
If it wasn't for the background i will still playing video-games or card-games, it's cost less.

75hastings69
26-11-2015, 03:50
147th time i see that... this is absolutely not true.
I "started" WHFB between 5th-6th edition and stopped any purchase or involvment into the hobby for almost 15 years so i can tell you this : the 8th edition fluff is the same as 5th/6th. 80% of the fluff is a copy paste since 15 years.

So the fluff "is the same" yet only 80% is copy pasted? Leaving the other 20%??????

The point is even outside of the main rulebook the world has evolved throughout every year of WFBs existence, even if it was just the addition of further background material in the Army Books, every little was adding to a rich game setting. There were still places in the old world that we knew next to nothing about even after 30 years.

zakro
26-11-2015, 04:27
28mm was always the wrong scale for armies.

28mm is skirmish scale.

Herzlos
26-11-2015, 07:59
Are you suggesting they still won't show us any pictures or write any background for Aelfs/Duardin etc even after they have made models for them? We know a lot more about Seraphon now they've got their battle tome, I imagine that will be the case with all of the other races and factions, we'll find out about them as they get released.

We supposedly still don't know a great deal about the Seraphon after their battle tome dropped. All the reviews I've read regard it as pretty light on details.

Drakkar du Chaos
26-11-2015, 10:15
So the fluff "is the same" yet only 80% is copy pasted? Leaving the other 20%??????

The point is even outside of the main rulebook the world has evolved throughout every year of WFBs existence, even if it was just the addition of further background material in the Army Books, every little was adding to a rich game setting. There were still places in the old world that we knew next to nothing about even after 30 years.

My point is : you cannot say it took 30 years for WHFB to become the world we all knows, 7th and 8th changed nothing to the fluff and even used the same exact stories i read 15 years ago.
The last addition to the core world was Albion but afaik it wasn't used after Storm of Chaos. And also the Ogres Kingdom faction was added to the game under 6th.

MalusCalibur
26-11-2015, 18:35
The following, from a post I made on Dakka a little while ago, I believe sums up AoS quite well:

There is no convincing evidence that AoS is anything but a low effort product, lacking in any depth, creativity or originality.

The basic rules have no emergent complexity, instead piling on heaps of individual special rules for almost every unit, barely reward any player interaction or decision making in favour of random dice rolls and homogenising the core statlines, have laughably vague deployment and victory conditions, and are full of holes and exploits that were discovered within hours of them being seen. It's possible to autowin the game, or make it thoroughly unenjoyable for both sides entirely by accident, since there's nothing to help players choose comparable forces, and different players will have a different idea of what a fun game is, since fun is subjective. Pick-up games, the kind that some wargames communities rely on (particularly in the US, as I understand) are all but impossible, since there is no guideline for what is a fair matchup. Because of this, it's also nigh impossible to determine the reason for a win or a loss, making learning and improving one's play equally difficult. The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported, sounding instead like vague excuses, as well as being outright wrong given that a balanced, clear and concise ruleset serves narrative play far better than a vague mess.

AoS is also not a co-operative game, and claiming it as one is a weak excuse for the game being practically non-functional without substantial modification and pre-game comprimise - the kind that even its staunchest defenders admit to doing. A wargame, where two opposing armies fight to achieve a predetermined victory condition, is not co-operative. A co-operative game has all players working toward the same goal against the game itself (such as Pandemic, for example). An RPG can be considered a co-operative experience, since the player goals are far more loose and centred around in-depth, character-focused storytelling. AoS is clearly not an RPG, either, since it does not share these traits.

The suggestion that Warhammer had to change in this way because it wasn't profitable enough in it's existing form is flawed, considering the reasons for that lack of spending - high price/low value boxes, detrimentally complex and random rules, and a high model count requirement are the prevailing criticisms. Instead of addressing those issues with WHFB, or publishing a smaller scale game alongside it (or both) GW decided to deliberately exclude customers in favour of trying to create a theoretical 'new niche' , and threw away the few strong factors the game still had - i.e. it's well developed lore and characters, and its relative ubiquity. The new background is vapid and childish in comparison to the Warhammer World, and at best reads like fan fiction. Terrible naming schema and whiter-than-white good guys who can't die are a tedium, porting Space Marines practically wholesale into a Fantasy setting (pretending that the new Sigmarite faction is anything else is disingenuous) is beyond lazy, and the 'legacy' army rules read like an insult, an expression of the contempt GW has for veterans by making the old armies one big joke, a series of jibes at the 'manchildren' they believe those customers to be, and a thinly veiled effort to try and exclude those forces in favour of the new, AoS-specific ones.

Implying that those who criticise "aren't the target market' doesn't make any sense, given that GW don't advertise outside their tiny niche-within-a-niche, that veteran players - the ones they greatly annoyed with the change - are the biggest source of word of mouth, and that any prospective wargamer will very quickly be put off by a game so lacking in substance, or even an attempt (much less a successful one) at balance to prevent the rules being abused. Having to finish a product to make it useable is not a feature, and I'd be compelled to ask why anyone would spend the time to do so (particularly the new players that this reboot is intended to recruit) What is there about AoS over other wargames that is going to appeal to them? Having to work out what's balanced against what is not going to appeal in the face of so many other games that are ready to play (without limiting players to 'starter scenarios' or 'quick-start' rules only) out of the box.

Let us also not forget the most damning evidence: that GW representatives at conventions over the course of the last six months have not been offering demo games, which makes one wonder if even they know how poorly it will stand up if shown directly alongside so many other miniature and board games.

Buddy Bear
26-11-2015, 18:44
Let us also not forget the most damning evidence: that GW representatives at conventions over the course of the last six months have not been offering demo games, which makes one wonder if even they know how poorly it will stand up if shown directly alongside so many other miniature and board games.

That's my theory. Despite the protestations that people don't get AOS, they don't demo it in an attempt to prove those people wrong. That to me suggests that they know they have a turkey of a game on their hands. So into the glass case the miniatures go while everyone else is proudly demoing their own game.

skeptico
26-11-2015, 19:22
My point is : you cannot say it took 30 years for WHFB to become the world we all knows, 7th and 8th changed nothing to the fluff and even used the same exact stories i read 15 years ago.
The last addition to the core world was Albion but afaik it wasn't used after Storm of Chaos. And also the Ogres Kingdom faction was added to the game under 6th.

What happened more frequently than the background to WH being developed was that the same events would be retconned. See, for instance, the prevarication between editions over the relationship between the Dark Elves and Slaanesh.

Pojko
26-11-2015, 19:40
What happened more frequently than the background to WH being developed was that the same events would be retconned. See, for instance, the prevarication between editions over the relationship between the Dark Elves and Slaanesh.

Or Eltharion going from grim to blind Jedi back to grim. The character progression was cool! Why retcon it? Advances like that are the kind of changes that Warhammer needed to progress.

skeptico
26-11-2015, 20:03
The new background is vapid and childish in comparison to the Warhammer World, and at best reads like fan fiction. Terrible naming schema and whiter-than-white good guys who can't die are a tedium, porting Space Marines practically wholesale into a Fantasy setting (pretending that the new Sigmarite faction is anything else is disingenuous) is beyond lazy, and the 'legacy' army rules read like an insult, an expression of the contempt GW has for veterans by making the old armies one big joke, a series of jibes at the 'manchildren' they believe those customers to be, and a thinly veiled effort to try and exclude those forces in favour of the new, AoS-specific ones.


If only we could go back to that golden age of sophisticated, adult-oriented, original and non-derivative Warhammer fluff, like

* 'Ball and chain fanatics'
* 'Lord Kroak'
* 'Itzi Bitzi' and 'Tenehuini'
* 'The Lady of the Lake'
* 'Squigs'
* 'Bertrand le Brigand' and his merry men
* 'The Black Coach'
* Pretty much all of Dogs of War

If only we could go back to varied naming conventions like...

* bloodletters, bloodthirsters, and bloodcrushers.
* plague priests, plague monks, plague catapults, and plague censor bearers.

If only we could go back to complex, not all whiter-than-white protagonists like...

* Louen Leoncouer
* Tyrion
* The Green Knight.

I mean, I could go on. But this sort of rose-tinted view of the 'world that was' just doesn't stand up. The history of Warhammer is littered with examples of transparent pilfering of every worn-out fantasy cliche going. And it has often been much more child-centric than it is now (particularly, in my view, under the stewardships of Nigel Stillman, Tuomas Pirinin and Alessio Cavatore).

Look back, for instance, at what Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings first looked when the Undead were split up. It looked seemed like a conscious choice was being made to get rid of the distinctive Warhammer undead theme (centred on Nagash, who was put in a box for several editions) and replace it entirely with laughable Hammer Horror tropes like Giant Bats and Black Coaches. Or look at how thinly the games workshop IP was spread when daemons, chaos warriors and beastmen were first split into separate armies, and how kids-cartoony chaos (and Warhammer generally) became over that period.

And that's before we even get to the racial insensitivity...

Oh, and if you think that Stormcast are just space marines, you're not looking hard enough for the other, much more clear and significant influences. And even if they are just space marines, at least GW is now cannibalising its own IP. Again, I mean... 'The Black Coach'. I loved the WH world too, but was this sort of thing really in such a creative league of its own?

Twido
26-11-2015, 21:18
If only we could go back to that golden age of sophisticated, adult-oriented, original and non-derivative Warhammer fluff, like

* 'Ball and chain fanatics'
* 'Lord Kroak'
* 'Itzi Bitzi' and 'Tenehuini'
* 'The Lady of the Lake'
* 'Squigs'
* 'Bertrand le Brigand' and his merry men
* 'The Black Coach'
* Pretty much all of Dogs of War

If only we could go back to varied naming conventions like...

* bloodletters, bloodthirsters, and bloodcrushers.
* plague priests, plague monks, plague catapults, and plague censor bearers.

If only we could go back to complex, not all whiter-than-white protagonists like...

* Louen Leoncouer
* Tyrion
* The Green Knight.

I mean, I could go on. But this sort of rose-tinted view of the 'world that was' just doesn't stand up. The history of Warhammer is littered with examples of transparent pilfering of every worn-out fantasy cliche going. And it has often been much more child-centric than it is now (particularly, in my view, under the stewardships of Nigel Stillman, Tuomas Pirinin and Alessio Cavatore).

Look back, for instance, at what Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings first looked when the Undead were split up. It looked seemed like a conscious choice was being made to get rid of the distinctive Warhammer undead theme (centred on Nagash, who was put in a box for several editions) and replace it entirely with laughable Hammer Horror tropes like Giant Bats and Black Coaches. Or look at how thinly the games workshop IP was spread when daemons, chaos warriors and beastmen were first split into separate armies, and how kids-cartoony chaos (and Warhammer generally) became over that period.

And that's before we even get to the racial insensitivity...

Oh, and if you think that Stormcast are just space marines, you're not looking hard enough for the other, much more clear and significant influences. And even if they are just space marines, at least GW is now cannibalising its own IP. Again, I mean... 'The Black Coach'. I loved the WH world too, but was this sort of thing really in such a creative league of its own?


In my opinion the Warhammer fluff has been in decline for a number of years now. The main characters tend to be Mary Sues of one form or another in an effort to make the next thing bigger, cooler or more powerful than the last. However, while the quality of the writing might not always be top notch, it is (with the possible exception of WH40K) the broadest of any fantasy universe. The sheer quantity of accumulated background unparalleled. While the quality in recent years has been poor, some the older, underlying themes are really quite good such as the nature of the chaos gods.

In contrast, what they have done so far with AoS is so far the worst I have heard. Just when you think they have hit the bottom, the whole Lizardmen debacle hits. The only thing I can say about it is that it clearly wasn't designed for me so perhaps my opinion isn't so important.

Khaines Wrath
26-11-2015, 21:36
If only we could go back to that golden age of sophisticated, adult-oriented, original and non-derivative Warhammer fluff, like

* 'Ball and chain fanatics'
* 'Lord Kroak'
* 'Itzi Bitzi' and 'Tenehuini'
* 'The Lady of the Lake'
* 'Squigs'
* 'Bertrand le Brigand' and his merry men
* 'The Black Coach'
* Pretty much all of Dogs of War

If only we could go back to varied naming conventions like...

* bloodletters, bloodthirsters, and bloodcrushers.
* plague priests, plague monks, plague catapults, and plague censor bearers.

If only we could go back to complex, not all whiter-than-white protagonists like...

* Louen Leoncouer
* Tyrion
* The Green Knight.

I mean, I could go on. But this sort of rose-tinted view of the 'world that was' just doesn't stand up. The history of Warhammer is littered with examples of transparent pilfering of every worn-out fantasy cliche going. And it has often been much more child-centric than it is now (particularly, in my view, under the stewardships of Nigel Stillman, Tuomas Pirinin and Alessio Cavatore).

Look back, for instance, at what Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings first looked when the Undead were split up. It looked seemed like a conscious choice was being made to get rid of the distinctive Warhammer undead theme (centred on Nagash, who was put in a box for several editions) and replace it entirely with laughable Hammer Horror tropes like Giant Bats and Black Coaches. Or look at how thinly the games workshop IP was spread when daemons, chaos warriors and beastmen were first split into separate armies, and how kids-cartoony chaos (and Warhammer generally) became over that period.

And that's before we even get to the racial insensitivity...

Oh, and if you think that Stormcast are just space marines, you're not looking hard enough for the other, much more clear and significant influences. And even if they are just space marines, at least GW is now cannibalising its own IP. Again, I mean... 'The Black Coach'. I loved the WH world too, but was this sort of thing really in such a creative league of its own?


Nothing that you've written here is particularly damning. Also, considering the size of the warhammer lore, it's a pitiful list including some of the worlds most beloved tropes. Warhammer armies appealed to different people and the black humour and tongue in cheek stuff was one of the big selling points. I don't see your problem with The Black Coach. It's a simple name for a rather nuanced unit, the simple trundling vampire sarcophagus that grows steadily with ghostly menace. At least it doesn't read like GW trying to slap on their IP.

AoS is only childish in comparison because it has about as much depth as an episode of Thundercats.

Buddy Bear
26-11-2015, 21:44
The Warhammer World was a literary classic in comparison to Age of Sigmar. Louen Leoncoeur and Tyrion were white knights? Sure. But in a world as wide and expansive as the Warhammer world, somebody had to be. And despite their nobility, they were still real people with real concerns who lived in a real and vibrant world, not the personality black holes which are the Sigmarines. And if they died they were dead. They didn't respawn to do it all over again. I'd gladly take Louen Leoncoeur, Tyrion, Karl Franz, Lord Kroak, Volkmar, Mannfred Von Carstein, Heinrich Kemmler, Thanquol, etc. over the likes of Vandus Hammerhand and the Celestant-Prime any day of the week. And given how unsuccessful Age of Sigmar is turning out to be in comparison to Warhammer Fantasy, I'm far and away from being the only one.

Whirlwind
26-11-2015, 22:55
I agree; the warhammer names were deliberately designed to be derivative of the known myths and legends with a fantasy grim with dark humour twist. In some ways that is what made it interesting. You could both relate to the myth but appreciate the humour. In some ways it's quite clever how it was initially all set up (though I agree that once we got past 6th edition a lot was just rehashed from previously.vthis setting had character.

The new AoS just doesn't seem to have the same soul to it. Despite GW wanting to have their own IP it just comes across as a Warcraft knockoff. There's nothing really.to capture the imagination. That army you created no longer matters as the battles are infinite and in AoS there is only war. It's not like they aren't even copying their own already released products. We've had the space marines and now we're getting abaddons (archaons) black legion. I would be highly surprised now if the Elves aren't just derivative of 40K eldar.

Tokamak
26-11-2015, 23:25
I agree about 9th's sterility.

9th age focuses on balance over fluff and character. (When asked to justify the nerfs to the Cauldron of Blood they went on about how it's great with Spears for killing blow, and Tower Guard. Basically troops that have never carried a CoB to battle in their lives.) It's gamey tournament meta-design.
AoS focuses on fluff and story over balance. Both are extreme ends of wargaming design.

8th was the middle ground and it was a great game IF you could overcome the entry costs. It struck that delicate balance. Where it didn't make you feel like it was pointless and a waste of time to play aka moving models around just for the sake of it (AoS), without taking itself too serious and making you feel like you have to study the damn game like a 2nd degree like 9th age aka learn "finesse". When there's barely any opponents left to play against. Dialing down the powerlevels of armies and magic across the board makes dramatic turnarounds much less likely, the game more predictable and thus dull. IMO.

Yes. I'm really glad that 8th edition was the final one. It's a really robust and well rounded ruleset. The army balance was inconsistent but End Times solved that for me.

GrandmasterWang
27-11-2015, 00:46
Yes. I'm really glad that 8th edition was the final one. It's a really robust and well rounded ruleset. The army balance was inconsistent but End Times solved that for me.
Yeah that's why I'm not as devastated as some people. 8th is the definitive Warhammer Fantasy Battle system for me so if this is THE edition then so be it..

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Khaines Wrath
27-11-2015, 01:24
I found my old copy of the 7th edition book so I'm pleased as punch.

DarkChaplain
27-11-2015, 02:37
Louen Leoncoeur and Tyrion were white knights? Sure. But in a world as wide and expansive as the Warhammer world, somebody had to be. And despite their nobility, they were still real people with real concerns who lived in a real and vibrant world, not the personality black holes which are the Sigmarines. And if they died they were dead. They didn't respawn to do it all over again. I'd gladly take Louen Leoncoeur, Tyrion, Karl Franz, Lord Kroak, Volkmar, Mannfred Von Carstein, Heinrich Kemmler, Thanquol, etc. over the likes of Vandus Hammerhand and the Celestant-Prime any day of the week. And given how unsuccessful Age of Sigmar is turning out to be in comparison to Warhammer Fantasy, I'm far and away from being the only one.

To be fair, Louen was also hinted for generations of WHFB to have an illegitimate son, who in the End Times killed him. He didn't even acknowledge the kid, and did plenty of stuff wrong. I wouldn't call that a white knight.
Tyrion likewise wasn't all glory. Bill King's Tyrion & Teclis trilogy put a good amount of spotlight on his relation to the curse of Aenarion, and being both adored and hated for being "perfect", while he himself was always struggling below the surface. He also had anger issues at times in general. A wonderful general and inspiration, sure, but not as clean-cut as the armybook alone would make it out.
Malekith was never a cut-and-dry bad guy, and even Nagash, for all his evil machinations, was written in such a way that he was an engaging villain with his own motivations and background. We had tragic villains like Van Horstmann who were driven into the arms of Chaos by a hunger for vengeance, and greedy Emperors who ruined their people. Even Karl Franz was shown on multiple occassions as being weary of all the politics and court intrigue.

What I'm saying is basically that the armybooks will present the characters in the best/most fitting light in the context of their own faction, and their limited page number will boil it down to the bare minimum info. Black Library did a wonderful job for WHFB, until they didn't give a damn anymore and just stopped supporting the line there too, while not even doing marketing for the stuff that was still running, fleshing out characters and factions. The Warhammer Heroes series especially is damn good, and basically defined a bunch of characters like Queek Headtaker, Skarsnik, Van Horstmann, the Red Duke or Ludwig Scharzhelm.

The big difference, as Buddy Bear already pointed out, is that every single one of the characters listed lived in a breathing world, and acted in the context of their civilizations and roles within them. Age of Sigmar has *none* of that. All characters to date act solely as soldiers, not as people. All of them are defined by the need for battle. There are no politicians like Karl Franz, kings like Louen, spiritual figures like Volkmar. Even Mannfred von Carstein, who appears in the Realmgate Wars audio drama series by Josh Reynolds, while still brilliantly written, is diminished by the lack of context within the world.

Dosiere
27-11-2015, 03:37
That's my theory. Despite the protestations that people don't get AOS, they don't demo it in an attempt to prove those people wrong. That to me suggests that they know they have a turkey of a game on their hands. So into the glass case the miniatures go while everyone else is proudly demoing their own game.

I would think it has more to do with them simply not caring about the game. They want to sell you on the miniatures, paints and brushes, and the picture books, not the game. Those people behind the glass cases probably don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the rules, since it's such an unimportant part of the hobby experience. For them it's all about those Sigmarines and Blood crusher dudes looking cool doing something, and it doesn't really matter what that something is. I bet they rather look down on other games that have what they consider inferior miniatures, artwork, etc... in the same way we look down on their lack of care for the rules of their own game. I get it, and obviously they are not alone in thinking that way, but I rather do not like it nor understand why you can't care about both things.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 08:49
Nothing that you've written here is particularly damning. Also, considering the size of the warhammer lore, it's a pitiful list including some of the worlds most beloved tropes. Warhammer armies appealed to different people and the black humour and tongue in cheek stuff was one of the big selling points. I don't see your problem with The Black Coach. It's a simple name for a rather nuanced unit, the simple trundling vampire sarcophagus that grows steadily with ghostly menace. At least it doesn't read like GW trying to slap on their IP.

AoS is only childish in comparison because it has about as much depth as an episode of Thundercats.

This was just a selection off the top of my head. Like I say, I could have kept going. Anyone for the exotic land of Araby, with its genies? Or 'Nippon' ifs? A lot of those racial tropes needed to get with the 21st century.

Again, I've got a lot of affection for the old Warhammer - I grew up with it, having been introduced to it just before the advent of 4th edition. But people in that situation are often far too prepared to give free passes to the old stuff, which they're used to, or that gives them nostalgic happies, when they either would or do slate AoS for the same sort of things. It's a perspective issue. I hate to think what the reaction would be if AoS had piloted the idea of goblins bouncing around on 'squigs'. And inserting into the world an army of knights and peasants devoted to the Lady of the Lake, and whose key figures include Robin Hood and Friar Tuck, hardly even qualifies as storytelling. It's telling someone else's story. As for naming conventions, if people are complaining about blood warriors, bloodhound, etc, but ignoring plague bearers, plague priests, plague monks, etc, they're being hypocrites. There are many valid criticisms of the AoS fluff. But there are a lot, coming from WH fans, that ought to be tempered by a more balanced assessment of the old fluff.

The Black Coach was anything but a nuanced unit. It was a coach, with a hammy Nosferatu-style vampire in a coffin in the back. It looked like a Halloween decoration. As did most of the Vampire Counts range until remarkably recently.

Arrahed
27-11-2015, 09:07
The Black Coach was anything but a nuanced unit. It was a coach, with a hammy Nosferatu-style vampire in a coffin in the back. It looked like a Halloween decoration. As did most of the Vampire Counts range until remarkably recently.
You mean when it started looking like a Saturday morning cartoon with Nagash and his horsemen of the apocalypse? I know there are many fans of the new Nagash but I enjoyed the Bram Stoker style vampire counts much more.

I liked the messed up rip-off that was the old world. Whatever classic fiction novel you read and liked, you could find its equivalent in the old world.
You just read Dracula and are really into Vampires right now? No problem.
You watched Jurassic Park and love dinosaurs? LM for you.
You are into '1001 Nights'? Araby it is.

It surely wasn't the most original setting but is was a setting that had everything you could want in a fantasy setting blended into one world.

Khaines Wrath
27-11-2015, 11:56
This was just a selection off the top of my head. Like I say, I could have kept going. Anyone for the exotic land of Araby, with its genies? Or 'Nippon' ifs? A lot of those racial tropes needed to get with the 21st century.

Just for a moment let's ignore the fact that those places were, for the most part, blobs of land on a map with so little information about them as to make accusations of racial insensitivity pretty unsubstantiated. The old world as a whole is an allegory of our own, like physically. Aside from Ulthuan being inspired by the mythical city of Atlantis.
Names like Nippon, Cathay and Araby were just names once used by Europeans for these largely mysterious, foreign lands. I like it as a nod to history, many people don't instantly recognise those terms today and relate them to their modern equivalents.

Whats wrong with Djinn, sure it's a fantasy trope used often with Arabic/Islamic inspired fantasy but then aren't dragons, harpies, goblins etc equally over used in European inspired fantasy. Doesn't make us love them any less.

Don't get me wrong though, I think some amazing things could come from delving into lesser known fantasy creatures like tarasques, lamia's, catoblepas, crocotta's, peryton's or stymphalid birds. But classics are fine too.

As for the rest of your post, who knows. It might have been received badly, or...and this is just a guess, maybe they would have the same reaction they had when it was new to them. I didn't get into warhammer until around 6th edition. I didn't look at the factions and think "hmmmm overused tropes and too much tongue in cheek humour, pass" I thought "hey cool, vampires, I might find out more about these blood lines". I loved the old Vampire Counts, they lost a little something when they became bald, spike encrusted armour clad goons. I mean, Blood Knights I understand but why all vampires had to adopt that look I'll never understand.

DarkChaplain
27-11-2015, 12:01
Anyone for the exotic land of Araby, with its genies? Or 'Nippon' ifs? A lot of those racial tropes needed to get with the 21st century.

I don't get what is objectionable or "outdated" with any of these. The influences are clear, and still quite relevant considering the type of setting. No, we don't have to throw out "racial tropes" just because we're in the enlightened and politically correct year of 2015, either.

Thing is, those things were loosely based on real world regions and cultures, as well as their mythologies. The same can't be said for Age of Sigmar. Whereas WHFB used those spins to root itself, Age of Sigmar's lack of those is leaving a gaping hole in its worldbuilding.

Zywus
27-11-2015, 12:21
Some of the really old stuff (such as the pygmy artwork) would probably be problematic in today's culture.

Not sure how genies would evoke racial insensitivity though and I'm pretty surprised to see the Black Coach of all things (!) being pointed to as an example of bad stuff in WHFB. I though almost everyone found it very characterful and evocative, you could even put a lid on the coffin if you didn't like the Nosferatu impersonator inside;) (The model is a complete pain in the ass to put together though).

Any discussion on racial depiction/representation etc invariably tend to lead to closed threads though so I suppose that's a topic best discussed in GW general.

I do agree that of the critisism towards AoS, the complaints about names is probably the weakest. Old warhammer had its share of blood- and plague- stuff, and in and of itself I really don't see any problem with naming a faction as Duardin, Aelfs etc.

The problem is that AoS seem to have all those factors you criticize in WHFB skeptico, but it has none of the good stuff to balance it out.

Zywus
27-11-2015, 12:40
Thread derailment in
3...
2...
1...

Dosiere
27-11-2015, 12:46
Thank you Skeptico, not only do I feel better about the cringe worthy "fluff" in AoS but you have convinved me that GW is a global force for racial oppression.

Malagor
27-11-2015, 12:51
Wait... A forest goblin is now racist?
Wow.... Thought I had seen everything.

Khaines Wrath
27-11-2015, 13:02
Thread derailment in
3...
2...
1...

I..I can't help it...must...take...bait.


Oh look, a rich, greedy Arab!

223154

And look, an evil savage native!

223155

Your counter argument is two images. Lets look at them each individually.

Image 1. He probably is rich and greedy, possibly a merchant. Where's the racial stereotyping connotations? Greases Goldtooth also has a lot of gold on his model because he is rich and greedy, it's an easy way to portray such a character. But to the best of my knowledge I've never known people to stereotype Arabs as greedy and gold hungry, that tends to be another unfortunately persecuted ethnic group.

Image 2. Headdress is about the only thing that could be considered offensive, to native North American tribes who aren't too fond of the appropriation of their tribal gear and customs. But literally aside from feather hats Forest goblins have zilch in common with native Americans. They are evil and they are savage but they are goblins, who live in a forest worshipping spiders. If you get savage and evil from the concept of forest goblins and then translate that to a negative depiction of North Americans than you are either not terribly bright or you harbour those prejudices to begin with.

Tyranno1
27-11-2015, 13:08
Oh look, a rich, greedy Arab!

223154

And look, an evil savage native!

223155

Oh look a non-greedy arab!
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://whfb.lexicanum.de/mediawiki/images/c/cb/W%2525C3%2525BCstenhunde.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/topic/44822-w-al-muktars-desert-dogs-h-cash/&h=315&w=465&tbnid=ZCFXnEBEA-FxGM:&docid=lhxjyKadCIZazM&ei=k1RYVumqIcHpUof5rqAB&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwipwKGE1bDJAhXBtBQKHYe8CxQQMwgdKAAwAA

And are you actually using a goblin as basis for a racism argument?


Also, picking on genies in araby and nippon in general is flat out stupid.
Genies appear in Arabian Mythology and Feudal Japan existed, pointing these out is NOT racist. You are clutching at straws to try and win an internet argument, take a step back son.

samael
27-11-2015, 13:13
Oh look, a rich, greedy Arab!

223154

And look, an evil savage native!

223155

Can....not...not...reply.....

This is political correctness gone mad. There! Happy now! You've turned me into my dad....

skeptico
27-11-2015, 13:40
I..I can't help it...must...take...bait.



Your counter argument is two images. Lets look at them each individually.

Image 1. He probably is rich and greedy, possibly a merchant. Where's the racial stereotyping connotations? Greases Goldtooth also has a lot of gold on his model because he is rich and greedy, it's an easy way to portray such a character. But to the best of my knowledge I've never known people to stereotype Arabs as greedy and gold hungry, that tends to be another unfortunately persecuted ethnic group.

You may not have personally come across it, but it's a thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/31/us/the-arab-american-counts-his-stereotypes.html

EDIT: It's not just these two pictures, by the way. The fluff about Araby includes its wicked, cruel rulers being defeated in a righteous crusade by Bretonnia. That's a bit eek, no?

I don't want to get into the whys and wherefores of what some people call 'cultural appropriation', or the reasons why, for instance, many people consider it offensive to go to a party dressed as a Native American. I think there are reasonable views on all that, and a debate to be had (though not here!). My only very limited point is that there were aspects of the old Warhammer World that were - let's say - hardly ideal, and difficult to just paper over. The world had many of the defects that people find so hard to accept in the case of AoS, and other vices that AoS doesn't (so far!). I can see the need to remake the WH World for those reasons (and plenty of others which I haven't mentioned here), and I'm prepared to wait to see that unfold, because I think it could be worth it.

I should add that I do think many of the objections about the one-dimensionalness of the setting so far are valid, so I hope GW pull their finger out pretty quick. I'm not some aiming to be some kind of AoS 'white knight', I just think that some of the criticisms are comically over the top, and selectively ignore the problems with the old universe. I've got hopes that when we start to see other factions added, the background will acquire the sort of richness we all want. Stormcast aren't personally for me, but then nor are space marines, and I think those have an important, legitimate place in 40K. They were an important fantasy themes so far missing from the universe, that I can see some people being attracted to, and who am I (or we) to tell them that they're idiots, have awful, childish taste, etc.

So that's it really. Between perpetually heaping scorn on AoS, and taking an utterly rose-tinted view of the old setting, it would just be nice to have a bit of balance. Incidentally, I think this is the most insightful thing I've read about AoS: http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2015/07/07/age-of-40000-sigmars/

I share its worries about the new setting, but also its view about why the old one was unsustainable.

Denny
27-11-2015, 13:48
On the Black Coach, I agree it's a bit silly.

Sure, it's a part of vampire lore, but it's basically Dracula's taxi. Ham fisted fluff-waving aside, I'm not sure who thought it would be a good idea to bring it to a battlefield.

It would be like adding a unit of hunchback grave robbers to the undead army. Just because something is thematic doesn't mean it needs to be brought into battle.

Zywus
27-11-2015, 13:51
I've got hopes that when we start to see other factions added, the background will acquire the sort of richness we all want.
I know hope is the last thing to leave a man but what gives you any reason to be hopeful about this?

There has been three 'proper' factions released already hasn't it? And do their background show sufficient richness?
In fact, even in the years before AoS, GW seemed to do little more than rehash old fluff in their armybooks (although perhaps the background were developed in BlackLibrary novels that I didn't read). AoS certanly don't seem to give any indication of any new creative juices flowing.

GrandmasterWang
27-11-2015, 13:53
To be fair, Louen was also hinted for generations of WHFB to have an illegitimate son, who in the End Times killed him. He didn't even acknowledge the kid, and did plenty of stuff wrong. I wouldn't call that a white knight.
Tyrion likewise wasn't all glory. Bill King's Tyrion & Teclis trilogy put a good amount of spotlight on his relation to the curse of Aenarion, and being both adored and hated for being "perfect", while he himself was always struggling below the surface. He also had anger issues at times in general. A wonderful general and inspiration, sure, but not as clean-cut as the armybook alone would make it out.
Malekith was never a cut-and-dry bad guy, and even Nagash, for all his evil machinations, was written in such a way that he was an engaging villain with his own motivations and background. We had tragic villains like Van Horstmann who were driven into the arms of Chaos by a hunger for vengeance, and greedy Emperors who ruined their people. Even Karl Franz was shown on multiple occassions as being weary of all the politics and court intrigue.

What I'm saying is basically that the armybooks will present the characters in the best/most fitting light in the context of their own faction, and their limited page number will boil it down to the bare minimum info. Black Library did a wonderful job for WHFB, until they didn't give a damn anymore and just stopped supporting the line there too, while not even doing marketing for the stuff that was still running, fleshing out characters and factions. The Warhammer Heroes series especially is damn good, and basically defined a bunch of characters like Queek Headtaker, Skarsnik, Van Horstmann, the Red Duke or Ludwig Scharzhelm.

The big difference, as Buddy Bear already pointed out, is that every single one of the characters listed lived in a breathing world, and acted in the context of their civilizations and roles within them. Age of Sigmar has *none* of that. All characters to date act solely as soldiers, not as people. All of them are defined by the need for battle. There are no politicians like Karl Franz, kings like Louen, spiritual figures like Volkmar. Even Mannfred von Carstein, who appears in the Realmgate Wars audio drama series by Josh Reynolds, while still brilliantly written, is diminished by the lack of context within the world.
Brilliant post!

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Zywus
27-11-2015, 13:55
On the Black Coach, I agree it's a bit silly.

Sure, it's a part of vampire lore, but it's basically Dracula's taxi. Ham fisted fluff-waving aside, I'm not sure who thought it would be a good idea to bring it to a battlefield.

It would be like adding a unit of hunchback grave robbers to the undead army. Just because something is thematic doesn't mean it needs to be brought into battle.
Surely, they would never do something like that...
http://cabanaminis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ud_dregs2708.jpg:p

samael
27-11-2015, 14:01
It would be like adding a unit of hunchback grave robbers to the undead army. Just because something is thematic doesn't mean it needs to be brought into battle.

Hey! Don't go griefing on the Igors . I happen to think that it makes great sense to bring a couple of them along to ANY type of fight and in ANY kind of army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_(Discworld)

Coraxis
27-11-2015, 14:03
Oh look, a rich, greedy Arab!

223154



Actually it was Mydas (the guy on the left, actually Tilean=Italian) the rich and greedy, the arab is just the guardian of his treasure IIRC...but I guess you would find that role racist too so... who cares?

Dr.Zahnfleisch
27-11-2015, 14:10
EDIT: It's not just these two pictures, by the way. The fluff about Araby includes its wicked, cruel rulers being defeated in a righteous crusade by Bretonnia. That's a bit eek, no?



Honestly, there is nothing "eek" or wrong about it. Political correctness has no place in fiction, so I'd hardly consider "problematic" content a reason for discontinuing a whole game system. WHFB has been sacked for financial reasons, most likely. As far as there being a correlation between the two: I doubt there is any.

Denny
27-11-2015, 14:10
Surely, they would never do something like that...
http://cabanaminis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ud_dregs2708.jpg:p

They work in mordheim just fine. :)

Incidentally, the coach would also be awesome in mordheim for a special 'kill the vamp before nightfall' type game.

But a unit of those guys marching alongside the Black Knights?
Doesn't work for me. :)

skeptico
27-11-2015, 14:12
Actually it was Mydas (the guy on the left, actually Tilean=Italian) the rich and greedy, the arab is just the guardian of his treasure IIRC...but I guess you would find that role racist too so... who cares?

You're right that the guy on the left is Mydas. My recollection is that the guy on the right is 'Sheik Yadosh', and Araby moneylender who got an armour save from all the gold purses he had hidden about his person.

MalusCalibur
27-11-2015, 14:23
A lot of what I was going to say has been echoed by others, but nevertheless:


If only we could go back to that golden age of sophisticated, adult-oriented, original and non-derivative Warhammer fluff

I never stated that Warhammer was perfect or non-derivative. The difference is in the execution - the original Warhammer world struck the right balance between the serious and the more comedic elements, which were in turn often quite blackly comic in nature, as well as having a largely believable world whose 'hooks' to our own made it more easily relatable, as well as putting an interesting spin on some common fantasy themes - Warhammer Orcs, for example, are certainly a unique approach to the oft-used race.
AoS, on the other hand, takes itself completely seriously without any of the same self-awareness, and a total lack of any sense that the world in which it is set is actually 'alive', that it exists outside of just the battles that the game represents. Whether that is expanded at a later date is irrelevant, because we're comparing to AoS now, not in the theoretical future.



If only we could go back to varied naming conventions like...

* bloodletters, bloodthirsters, and bloodcrushers.
* plague priests, plague monks, plague catapults, and plague censor bearers.

Again, the difference is in the execution. The examples you give feel at least that they make sense for what they are describing (Bloodthirster - one who thirsts for blood. Bloodletter - one who spills ['lets'] blood), whereas in AoS the common root words seem to be added into every name without thought. What on earth is a 'bloodsecrator' supposed to be? Why does the name 'Sigmar' need to be so direct a part of both a material and a city? Why can't Lizardmen just be using spears, clubs and shields?


If only we could go back to complex, not all whiter-than-white protagonists like...

* Louen Leoncouer
* Tyrion
* The Green Knight

Louen, as mentioned, had an illegitimate son, and happily ruled a kingdom where the peasants were barely even people in a mirror of real-life medieval times. Tyrion struggled with temptation for the Sword of Khaine that destroyed his father, was almost killed by N'Kari twice, and his own capability created murmurs that he should be the king, not Finubar. The Green Knight was widely believed to be Gilles le Breton (until End Times removed the mystery), in which case he has been cursed to an eternal, anonymous and silent existence in order to defend his kingdom, prevented the peace of death and robbed of his individuality. Two of these can (and did, as far as I recall) die, whereas the Green Knight is one example of an immortal, who one could argue is already dead.
In AoS, we have the Sigmarines, who have no personality to begin with (so the suggestion that they lose some when they 'die' is pointless), and who just respawn when killed - an entire faction of immortal supermen without flaws or traits.



Or look at how thinly the games workshop IP was spread when daemons, chaos warriors and beastmen were first split into separate armies, and how kids-cartoony chaos (and Warhammer generally) became over that period.

I actually agree with you there - that split should never have happened and it pained me to see Chaos (and Warhammer in general) diluted in the way it was. But AoS makes no effort to improve that trend - instead it doubles down on it.



And that's before we even get to the racial insensitivity...

I'm not even touching this, because it's both factually incorrect and entirely irrelevant.



Oh, and if you think that Stormcast are just space marines, you're not looking hard enough for the other, much more clear and significant influences.

Perhaps you could enlighten me, then? Because I see an army of heavily armoured, 6/7-foot superhumans, armed with lightning hammers and 'bolt stormers', created by an immortal god-emperor figure with the sole purpose of battling to conquer the known 'realms', deploying to battle by dropping into it (on lightning bolts, no less), and having next to no individuality or personality making it impossible to relate to them.
Sounds a lot like Space Marines, to me.

Coraxis
27-11-2015, 14:27
You're right that the guy on the left is Mydas. My recollection is that the guy on the right is 'Sheik Yadosh', and Araby moneylender who got an armour save from all the gold purses he had hidden about his person.

Good for him then, he's rich, as Mydas who is Tilean, as Greasus Goldtooth who is and ogre, as many dwarves who are greedy too, as almost every single mercenary in WHF (being Tilean, Estalian, Imperial, etc...). Seriously man, I can't find the problem there, or anywhere TBH.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 15:18
Honestly, there is nothing "eek" or wrong about it. Political correctness has no place in fiction

Well, if you genuinely can't see any reason why it might be regrettable to lift wholesale the idea of the crusades as a righteous war by the just against evil and benighted barbarians, when that way of presenting what happened in our history causes serious offence and resentment in the real world, then I guess I haven't got anything to say that will persuade you. Still, though, it doesn't look too smart to alienate potential customers like that...


What on earth is a 'bloodsecrator' supposed to be?

Someone who consecrates things with blood, no? It makes at least as much sense as 'blood crusher'. How do you crush blood?

To be clear, I do think bloodsecrator is lame. I also think blood crusher is just as bad, if not worse. I don't see the objection about formulaic naming conventions applying to AoS uniquely. It was a thing before, and it's still a thing. I do think your objection to Sigmar giving his name to the city he founded a bit odd, though.


In AoS, we have the Sigmarines, who have no personality to begin with (so the suggestion that they lose some when they 'die' is pointless), and who just respawn when killed - an entire faction of immortal supermen without flaws or traits.

The thing with that is that it just looks like you're not prepared to offer the same levels of interpretive charity to AoS as you do to Warhammer. They're the Order equivalent of Chaos Daemons, who are also immortal and respawn when killed. I don't want to tell daemon players their fluff is garbage, and their characters have no depth or intrinsic interest though. You're ignoring the things that do give Stormcast a level of depth, like their emotions when remembering the lives they left behind, and the tragic idea of their personalities or memories being slowly wiped away (which invokes, in me at least, the same sort of horror and sadness that I get if I imagine myself getting dementia later in life). I wouldn't tell you to like this fluff, and I certainly don't say it's as yet very sophisticated. But it has redeeming features, and I do think people could come to it with more of a spirit of fairness.


Perhaps you could enlighten me, then? Because I see an army of heavily armoured, 6/7-foot superhumans, armed with lightning hammers and 'bolt stormers', created by an immortal god-emperor figure with the sole purpose of battling to conquer the known 'realms', deploying to battle by dropping into it (on lightning bolts, no less), and having next to no individuality or personality making it impossible to relate to them.
Sounds a lot like Space Marines, to me.

Superhuman Angels of Order, who live under a totalitarian God, are quite a familiar fantasy theme. Most of the characteristics you mention can be found here, for instance, as well as the Stormcast aesthetic: http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Angel


Good for him then, he's rich, as Mydas who is Tilean, as Greasus Goldtooth who is and ogre, as many dwarves who are greedy too, as almost every single mercenary in WHF (being Tilean, Estalian, Imperial, etc...). Seriously man, I can't find the problem there, or anywhere TBH.

The problem is that it's an established racial stereotype, but it happens to be one of the few characterisations of Araby that GW ever developed. I don't say it was deliberate or malicious, but I do think it was careless, and that that's true of a fair bit of the way culture and history were used to build up the old Warhammer world.

Zywus
27-11-2015, 15:34
The problem is that it's an established racial stereotype, but it happens to be one of the few characterisations of Araby that GW ever developed. I don't say it was deliberate or malicious, but I do think it was careless, and that that's true of a fair bit of the way culture and history were used to build up the old Warhammer world.
And wouldn't that have been a great opportunity to expand the old world? That's one of he reason I find it frankly ridiculous how some people (not necessarily you in particular) claim that the WHFB setting had to be scrapped in favor of the limitless realms of AoS. There were tons of inspiration to draw upon from the real-world cultures that were the inspiration for Araby, Nippon, Cathay etc. Was some of the depictions of non-european inspired cultures careless (at least by today's standard)? Probably, yes.
Could it have been done thoughtfully and interesting now. Absolutely says I!
It would also mitigate the problem with representation of races and cultures in GW games.

Wouldn't it have been awesome to have a proper Araby faction with Djinns, Rocs, all sorts of '1000 and one night' inspired beasties.
Fleshed out background detailing the Araby kingdoms and their struggles against the undead.
A retelling of the Bretonnian crusades from the Araby viewpoint. Similar to how the Dwarf and Elf armybooks had very different takes on the War of the Beard and none of them could really be said to have been totally i the right. Just as is usually the case in real world history.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 15:49
And wouldn't that have been a great opportunity to expand the old world? That's one of he reason I find it frankly ridiculous how some people (not necessarily you in particular) claim that the WHFB setting had to be scrapped in favor of the limitless realms of AoS. There were tons of inspiration to draw upon from the real-world cultures that were the inspiration for Araby, Nippon, Cathay etc. Was some of the depictions of non-european inspired cultures careless (at least by today's standard)? Probably, yes.
Could it have been done thoughtfully and interesting now. Absolutely says I!


The question's not whether it would have been possible (I agree that it would), but whether it would have been possible for GW. I'm not sure I have confidence that they could have succeeded with that pretty tough assignment. Certainly, if I had been in charge of the fluff direction, and this had been proposed to me by the designers, I'm not sure I'd have taken a risk on it, rather than migrating to a world that doesn't rely for depth of background on the fact that people can recognise it as a parallel version of our own.

It's an interesting question, though, and I do agree that it can be made to work, as other fantasy writers have done. Anyway, that's it for me on this topic. I def didn't intend to get into this debate today, and I should stop! Cheers to those who replied.

Dosiere
27-11-2015, 15:51
Skeptico,

Just like in real life it's hard to see a point behind all this extreme political correctness and rather unsubtle undertones of racism in your posts. Is there a point to be made here? If there is you have neatly obfuscated it behind all the vomiting of irrelevant information about some random and practically unknown figure from the 80s. You must live your entire life in a constant state of shocked and offended if this gets you going. There are enough actual and real problems in the world without the race baiting you are engaging in.

At best I can make that you are arguing that it's not fair for someone to say something is dumb because there are other dumb things not mentioned in the same breath?

Kahadras
27-11-2015, 16:31
To be clear, I do think bloodsecrator is lame. I also think blood crusher is just as bad, if not worse. I don't see the objection about formulaic naming conventions applying to AoS uniquely. It was a thing before, and it's still a thing. I do think your objection to Sigmar giving his name to the city he founded a bit odd, though

I think the thing with the naming convention is that it's been getting worse. I first became aware of it creeping into 40K but with AoS it seems to have got a lot more noticable. The Khorne stuff is either blood something or skull something while the background for the Stormcast Eternal uses Sigmar like it's going out of fashion.

Baragash
27-11-2015, 16:33
To be clear, I do think bloodsecrator is lame. I also think blood crusher is just as bad, if not worse.

Bloodcrusher is, of course, not an "original" name, but a fairly modern one in the context of Daemonic unit names.

Dr.Zahnfleisch
27-11-2015, 16:52
Well, if you genuinely can't see any reason why it might be regrettable to lift wholesale the idea of the crusades as a righteous war by the just against evil and benighted barbarians, when that way of presenting what happened in our history causes serious offence and resentment in the real world, then I guess I haven't got anything to say that will persuade you. Still, though, it doesn't look too smart to alienate potential customers like that...

See, that is exactly the problem. It does not, in any way, present what happened in our history as righteous. Sure, it draws inspiration from it, but it does not make any statement in the other direction (fiction->reality/history).
Bretonnians invading Araby is not the same as Christians invading Jerusalem and it's most certainly not a political/ideological comment on our history. It is a fictional event that is inspired by and otherwise entirely detached from the actual crusades.

I trust people to be intelligent enough to seperate fiction from reality and, as a result, I highly doubt that any significant number of potential customers would be alienated by what you call cultural appropriation and alleged endorsement of genocides.


@ Zywus: I did not write that. Something must have gone wrong with the quote :)

Zywus
27-11-2015, 17:15
Yea sorry. It should be attributed to sceptico. Fixed it now.

Zywus
27-11-2015, 17:19
The question's not whether it would have been possible (I agree that it would), but whether it would have been possible for GW. I'm not sure I have confidence that they could have succeeded with that pretty tough assignment. Certainly, if I had been in charge of the fluff direction, and this had been proposed to me by the designers, I'm not sure I'd have taken a risk on it, rather than migrating to a world that doesn't rely for depth of background on the fact that people can recognise it as a parallel version of our own.

It's an interesting question, though, and I do agree that it can be made to work, as other fantasy writers have done. Anyway, that's it for me on this topic. I def didn't intend to get into this debate today, and I should stop! Cheers to those who replied.Well if anything is risky and a hard assignment I'd say it's what GW is trying to do now.
Scrapping a fully developed world and trying to get the fans of that world to switch over to something entirely new, yet still retaining much of the same models as before.

I wouldn't be confident that current GW could have pulled of a good (re)imagining of Araby, but they sure as hell is not capable of pulling off AoS.

Buddy Bear
27-11-2015, 18:24
On the subject of Bloodletters and Bloodthirsters, sure they had blood in their name, but aside from having more sensible names than "Bloodsecrator" and "Bloodsecutor" or whatever other nonsense words GW has come up with in the Bloodbound, they were also paired alongside Flesh Hounds and Juggernauts. If the latter two had been invented for Age of Sigmar they probably would've been called Bloodhounds and Bloodernaughts, or something equally silly. Oh, and remember when the guys currently called Bloodreavers and Blood Warriors were just called Chaos Marauders and Chaos Warriors?

It's pretty easy to cherry pick, but all you're doing, skeptico, is cherry picking. Any setting can be cherry picked. Middle Earth could be cherry picked ("Middle Earth is STOOPID! Just look at Tom Bombadil!"). But you know what? Even if we accepted that everything you point out is stupid (Which I don't. From top to bottom, I don't see a single thing wrong with anything on your list, with the possible exception of two Lizardmen character names), that's a small drop in a great wide ocean of awesomeness found in the Warhammer Fantasy world. That's a fantastic ratio in comparison to Age of Sigmar, where nearly the entirety of the setting is rotten to its core.

Which kind of goes back to a point raised by another poster a while back. If Age of Sigmar is so great, then why aren't we seeing its fans posting thread upon thread about how great it is? Well, if the background is so great, why aren't we seeing fans posting about how great it is? Maybe because even its biggest fans don't think the setting is particularly noteworthy or memorable?

Incidentally, if you want to talk about "problematic", explain how the Sigmarines aren't problematic. Sigmar took the greatest heroes of the mortal realms, including Aelfs, Duardin, Orruks, and turned them into Sigmarines. You don't find the clear implication of human racial superiority disconcerting in the slightest? Sigmar also took the greatest human heroes, male and female, and turned them into Sigmarines. So all those female heroes were transformed into men. Isn't that problematic, the idea that to be a truly great hero, you have to be a man? You harp on one arabic character depicted as being greedy, but you don't seem bothered at all by the idea that even the greatest female hero isn't good enough for Sigmar until she's turned into a man first.

scruffyryan
27-11-2015, 18:55
People always throw out that "alienating of potential customers" thing when regarding a need to change something for sensitivity reasons. Yet never provide any proof that it does, nor that sales increase when they do. Indeed there are far more instances of sales increasing when people give the tiny but loud group of people who complain about things like that the finger and tell them their custom will not be missed.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 19:12
Incidentally, if you want to talk about "problematic", explain how the Sigmarines aren't problematic. Sigmar took the greatest heroes of the mortal realms, including Aelfs, Duardin, Orruks, and turned them into Sigmarines. You don't find the clear implication of human racial superiority disconcerting in the slightest? Sigmar also took the greatest human heroes, male and female, and turned them into Sigmarines. So all those female heroes were transformed into men. Isn't that problematic, the idea that to be a truly great hero, you have to be a man? You harp on one arabic character depicted as being greedy, but you don't seem bothered at all by the idea that even the greatest female hero isn't good enough for Sigmar until she's turned into a man first.

Lol

Well, relations between humankind and alien species isn't currently an important cultural or political problem for us, so no, I'm not especially worried about what the AoS fluff may imply about that.

In any case, my understanding is that the Stormcast can be of any race or gender. They don't look especially human, and they don't seem to have a gender either. They're like golums, or perhaps the cybermen (two other apparent influences, by the way, that aren't space marines). I would like to see female Stormcast characters brought in, which they haven't been yet. But if your view is that the Stormcast are sexist because none of the armour has big boobs, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Buddy Bear
27-11-2015, 19:15
There are no Goblins, either, and yet you used a picture of one as proof of racial insensitivity. So when you claim these non-human races are used as stand-ins for human cultures, that makes sense, but when I point out that those same stand-ins are being transformed into white Germanic men, you brush that off? Interesting.

And no, they're not golems. That's armor, and there're actual people underneath that armor, all male. Sigmar took a female hero, transformed her so she had a male body, and then stuck her into a suit of gold armor. You want to talk alienating potential customers? How about telling potential female customers that the greatest female heroes of the setting get turned into men, because that's the only way they can be truly awesome?

Spiney Norman
27-11-2015, 19:39
I do think your objection to Sigmar giving his name to the city he founded a bit odd, though.

While its true that in the ancient world naming a city, or even a country after either yourself, your wife or your god was fairly common practice (a city called 'Sigmaron' isn't really any more ridiculous than a city called 'Alexandria', 'Leningrad', 'Athens' or 'Constantinople' for example), the problem comes when everything else is 'sigma-something' as well. It's also fairly common practice in the field of chemistry to name chemical elements after the person who discovers them or in honour of a great scientist (e.g. Einsteinium, Mendelevium etc), but there can't be that many people that have both a city and a metal named after them ;)

Ben
27-11-2015, 19:49
People aren't going to mention the use of Nazi imagery on the Stormcast?

That was a bit off when I saw it.

skeptico
27-11-2015, 20:13
There are no Goblins, either, and yet you used a picture of one as proof of racial insensitivity. So when you claim these non-human races are used as stand-ins for human cultures, that makes sense, but when I point out that those same stand-ins are being transformed into white Germanic men, you brush that off? Interesting.

Erm, sorry? The logic's pretty tortured here, I'm having trouble following it.

The problem with the forest goblin is that it's wearing Native American costume. You know, like Native American people often have a problem with.

I'm not sure how you think this connects to the Stormcast, but they're encased in metal armour. I can't tell if they're white. The only one I've seen without a helmet is a skeleton.


And no, they're not golems. That's armor, and there're actual people underneath that armor, all male. Sigmar took a female hero, transformed her so she had a male body, and then stuck her into a suit of gold armor. You want to talk alienating potential customers? How about telling potential female customers that the greatest female heroes of the setting get turned into men, because that's the only way they can be truly awesome?

Yeah, again, they don't have an obvious gender. The background does allow that they could be female, or from any race. And if they don't take advantage of that, it'll be disappointing, and I'll criticise GW for it. It's unfortunate that they haven't done so already.

The fact that the statue or robot-like armour doesn't bear any resemblance to what the individual used to be (male or female) is part of what makes the process of reforging creepy and intriguing IMO. But once again, let me know how you think they should distinguish the females, except by making them smaller, and giving them cinched waists, long hair, and boobs. Because I don't think any of that would strike a blow for gender equality.

Zywus
27-11-2015, 20:14
In any case, my understanding is that the Stormcast can be of any race or gender. They don't look especially human, and they don't seem to have a gender either. They're like golums, or perhaps the cybermen (two other apparent influences, by the way, that aren't space marines). I would like to see female Stormcast characters brought in, which they haven't been yet. But if your view is that the Stormcast are sexist because none of the armour has big boobs, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.


And no, they're not golems. That's armor, and there're actual people underneath that armor, all male. Sigmar took a female hero, transformed her so she had a male body, and then stuck her into a suit of gold armor. You want to talk alienating potential customers? How about telling potential female customers that the greatest female heroes of the setting get turned into men, because that's the only way they can be truly awesome?
Not to mention telling potential female customers that there are in-game bonuses that can only be claimed if you, the actual physical player, is sporting a beard.
Great job there, making women feel welcome into an already extremely male dominated hobby.

Dr.Zahnfleisch
27-11-2015, 20:43
Not to mention telling potential female customers that there are in-game bonuses that can only be claimed if you, the actual physical player, is sporting a beard.
Great job there, making women feel welcome into an already extremely male dominated hobby.

Are you saying women can't grow a beard? You should see my aunt. In fact this is very much encouraging women to celebrate their bodies in spite of the beauty ideals that society keeps imposing on them.

Khaines Wrath
27-11-2015, 22:04
A retelling of the Bretonnian crusades from the Araby viewpoint. Similar to how the Dwarf and Elf armybooks had very different takes on the War of the Beard and none of them could really be said to have been totally i the right. Just as is usually the case in real world history.

A 100 times this^

When I was a kid my knowledge of the crusades was purely Eurocentric and my knowledge of their Arabic opponents was ignorant to the point where I saw them as more akin to cartoon villains. Until I played the Saladin campaign in Age of Empires 2 which was probably my first realisation that conflicts had more than one perspective to them.

Araby would have been better served as being fleshed out and expanded as either a campaign or a whole faction because there was an interesting tale to tell. It didn't deserve to be cast aside and neither did the rest if the old world.

Grimtuff
28-11-2015, 00:39
*checks what website he's on*
Yup, Warseer.
Well guys, you fooled me. I thought I'd stumbled onto Tumblr...

DarkChaplain
28-11-2015, 00:47
Yeah, again, they don't have an obvious gender. The background does allow that they could be female, or from any race. And if they don't take advantage of that, it'll be disappointing, and I'll criticise GW for it. It's unfortunate that they haven't done so already.

The fact that the statue or robot-like armour doesn't bear any resemblance to what the individual used to be (male or female) is part of what makes the process of reforging creepy and intriguing IMO. But once again, let me know how you think they should distinguish the females, except by making them smaller, and giving them cinched waists, long hair, and boobs. Because I don't think any of that would strike a blow for gender equality.

Every single Stormcast in the lore and fiction by Black Library has been undoubtedly MALE. Every single one of them. Every single one was a male dude even before they were picked by Sigmar. Read the novels and short stories, your golem/statue stuff is a total misconception

Khaines Wrath
28-11-2015, 00:51
*checks what website he's on*
Yup, Warseer.
Well guys, you fooled me. I thought I'd stumbled onto Tumblr...

You poor sap, didn't you hear? They canned warhammer so this is all we have to talk about...that or the "shudder" alternative.

Zywus
28-11-2015, 01:00
If the intention was that Sigmarines should look gender-agnostic, such automatons could have been designed. The armored forms clearly look male, even though we can't really see bodies inside (such as they may be).

The whole, "stormcasts can be heroes of any race or gender" is basically a throwaway line from a designer's chat somewhere anyhow isn't it? So I think we are blowing that out of proportion. I don't think GW ever had any intention of introducing a sigmarine that was a female or an orc in their previous lives. If you want to imagine that they exist it doesn't contradict the official background but that's that basically.

DarkChaplain
28-11-2015, 02:42
The whole, "stormcasts can be heroes of any race or gender" is basically a throwaway line from a designer's chat somewhere anyhow isn't it? So I think we are blowing that out of proportion. I don't think GW ever had any intention of introducing a sigmarine that was a female or an orc in their previous lives. If you want to imagine that they exist it doesn't contradict the official background but that's that basically.

Exactly this. Every single Stormcast to date has been firmly male and human. There has not been a single piece of evidence to indicate that there are actually female Stormcasts, or dwarfish, elven or whatever else ones. They simply "allow" for it to be in the players' hands, but the lore has no intention at this point to actually make it happen, whether at GW's main book or the tie-in fiction.

GrandmasterWang
28-11-2015, 03:58
Hehe. Enjoying this read. Better than most threads on here.

Sorry to de-serious it a bit but i never minded the name 'Bloodcrusher' (which as some have said is a new name for a newish unit).

The question posed was how does one crush blood in relation to them? I do not believe they crush blood per-say more that they crush other things to extract blood.

I personally think Khorne has a whole slew of 'Bloodcrushers' constantly crushing humans, elves etc by stomping just like how people used to (and still do) make wine by crushing grapes.

Khorne loves a lovely thick red and this is how 'Bloodcrushers' were born. What better name for his favoured wine makers?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Kyriakin
28-11-2015, 06:53
A 100 times this^

When I was a kid my knowledge of the crusades was purely Eurocentric and my knowledge of their Arabic opponents was ignorant to the point where I saw them as more akin to cartoon villains. Until I played the Saladin campaign in Age of Empires 2 which was probably my first realisation that conflicts had more than one perspective to them.

Araby would have been better served as being fleshed out and expanded as either a campaign or a whole faction because there was an interesting tale to tell. It didn't deserve to be cast aside and neither did the rest if the old world.
Would have been interesting to flesh out their occupation of Estalia too. No doubt they would have had a pop at Bretonnia too, only to be pushed back to Estalia, and subsequently out of the mainland completely.

Estalia in Lustria could have got the lizzies far more involved in the OW as well.

scruffyryan
28-11-2015, 06:59
Should have just started with storms of chaos style book releases, 2-3 new units, a grip of new army lists that take a base book and turn the available/costs of units on their head. Shoot rereleasing teutogen guard would have been a solid hit given how much they go for on ebay.

Handmaiden
01-12-2015, 21:27
"I think a lot of players also forget that the witches dropped the whole craziness where they attacked characters if they weren't priestesses. So now we can add a real BSB (if we were brave enough) with a heavier banner, or a caster, etc. Not amazing but slightly more options. I have been thinking on this but haven't thought of a good combo yet."

From the 9th age forum.

Lets get rid of animosity, madness of khaine, and any other fluffy rule that may get in the way of tournament placings. :shifty: Cos balance111!!!

ewar
01-12-2015, 21:56
From the 9th age forum.

Lets get rid of animosity, madness of khaine, and any other fluffy rule that may get in the way of tournament placings. :shifty: Cos balance111!!!

Its got nothing to do with tournament placings and everything to do with making armies interesting and fun to use. If you think 9th age is so unfluffy can you please explain to me why I have wood elf kindreds back, LM spawnings to choose from and an 'orders' system for Empire?

There are so many other examples as well. Seriously, critique it all you like, but at least acknowledge your incredible bias.

Handmaiden
01-12-2015, 22:55
Seriously, critique it all you like, but at least acknowledge your incredible bias.

I'm not biased anymore than you. We're both calling it as we see it. Without seeing how orders and kindreds were implemented, I can't comment. However I can tell you that the dark elf designers are making gamey nonsense.

Tournament players like dependability,and their "good play" not being upset or turned around by anythin but even better play. So if you're winning in 9th age, and you respect each other as players not to make dumb mistakes, you may as well pack up and go home.

ewar
02-12-2015, 08:55
Why is it gamey nonsense for the dark Elves? You can now create a cult of slaanesh list which wasn't possible before. How is that anything but fluffy?

You were obviously ok with every single character in naggaroth wearing a sea dragon cloak, because it was too good in game, despite the cloaks only being available to the corsairs in the fluff.

I'd like you to provide even one example of why winning in 9th is pre determined - I mean I've read some proper ******** on warseer in the past but this really takes the biscuit. So, a balanced rule set is somehow bad, because you make the assumption the 'better' player will always win and it's not worth playing? Just have a think about that for 1 minute, really cogitate on it, and then you can feel a little silly.

Handmaiden
02-12-2015, 10:38
"Why is it gamey nonsense for the dark Elves? You can now create a cult of slaanesh list which wasn't possible before. How is that anything but fluffy? "

Because cult of slannesh, wood elf kindreds, and Empire orders are entirely optional and don't affect tournament progression. These things are easy to include.

I'm talking about characterful rules that add unpredicability that make tournament players start bawwing. Animosity, calls to end the already much reduced random daemonic gifts http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/334-random-gifts/, Madness of Khaine - the get rid of it because it allows them to include magic users and nobles as bsb's because it gives an advantage in tournaments. Whether or not it's fluffy isn't a concern. The whole idea that he cauldron of blood is still good cos it synergises well with spearmen and tower guard (actual quote). Essentially every infantry regiment but the khainite ones. Then I get told on their forum drivel like "Chaos warriors should be better than dark elf infantry for their points" Oh and nerfing dark elves to weaker than 6th edition levels while claiming they're still good because of this niche finesse tactic. That's the kind of nonsense that goes on there.

I didn't say "predetermined". The win goes to whoever gets the early lead. From there all the winning player has to do is lean on the opponent until they fall over.
In that sense 9th age is alot closer to chess, where if two good players go at it the one who loses a single pawn without any trade off for position or opposing material essentially has lost the game.
9th isn't as bad as that, but it's much closer to that than 8th.

I don't feel silly at all. Stop projecting.

Grimtuff
02-12-2015, 11:01
"Can't do a Cult of Slaanesh list"

Funny, I seem to remember having one of those in 7th. Must've imagined it.

Malagor
02-12-2015, 13:55
Think he means in 8e.

ewar
02-12-2015, 14:29
"Why is it gamey nonsense for the dark Elves? You can now create a cult of slaanesh list which wasn't possible before. How is that anything but fluffy? "

Because cult of slannesh, wood elf kindreds, and Empire orders are entirely optional and don't affect tournament progression. These things are easy to include.

So hang on, your complaint was that it was unfluffy, being easy or not is nothing to do with it (although I disagree that they are easy to include, they are quite difficult to include and to still make for a useable in game feature).


I'm talking about characterful rules that add unpredicability that make tournament players start bawwing. Animosity, calls to end the already much reduced random daemonic gifts http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/334-random-gifts/, Madness of Khaine - the get rid of it because it allows them to include magic users and nobles as bsb's because it gives an advantage in tournaments. Whether or not it's fluffy isn't a concern. The whole idea that he cauldron of blood is still good cos it synergises well with spearmen and tower guard (actual quote). Essentially every infantry regiment but the khainite ones. Then I get told on their forum drivel like "Chaos warriors should be better than dark elf infantry for their points" Oh and nerfing dark elves to weaker than 6th edition levels while claiming they're still good because of this niche finesse tactic. That's the kind of nonsense that goes on there.

So we're now not just judging the ruleset that was produced, but the quality of requests from random, anonymous people on the internet? Wow, that must make it difficult for you to like pretty much, anything, ever.


I didn't say "predetermined". The win goes to whoever gets the early lead. From there all the winning player has to do is lean on the opponent until they fall over.
In that sense 9th age is alot closer to chess, where if two good players go at it the one who loses a single pawn without any trade off for position or opposing material essentially has lost the game.
9th isn't as bad as that, but it's much closer to that than 8th.

I don't feel silly at all. Stop projecting.

Actually, you did say it was predetermined, that's the only reason someone interested in playing a game would "pack up" rather than play it out. 9th age, in respect of the core rules, is essentially identical to 8th edition. I have no idea why you think it's suddenly become chequers to 8th eds yahtzee - if you could give some examples to illustrate your point that would be useful. It's as much of a change as 7th was to 6th.

In 8th it was perfectly fine to run a cauldron in non-khainite units, the thing even had specific rules to allow for the difference between the two. I'm sorry this doesn't fit your personal view of the druchii, but it was canon then and it's not changed much.

Sid Snake
14-12-2015, 00:57
Few notes on AoS background: we can probably all agree that (as far as we can see from outside) the design team have tried to make something brighter, looser, and more elemental than the Old World setting.

There's also a clear Magic: The Gathering influence. In that game players build decks of Red or Green or Black etc cards; the spells and creatures come from many different, unconnected stories and worlds but all have a common theme. Red is always something fiery and chaotic, etc.

This in itself is not necessarily 'wrong' or 'a bad idea', just different ways of doing fantasy. The problem with the AoS background lies in the execution; it has all the hallmarks of a rushed project; and, this is the main thing, they haven't fully transitioned into a loose, elemental backstory at all.

Say, for the sake of argument, that they'd come up with a system where everything was either Earth, Air, Fire or Water. Various dwarven units from the Old World could have been put in an Earth army; they could also have come up with all sorts of new fantasy models that would not need to have any roots in the Old World at all. Giant Worms of De'yune. Giant Moles of Karf-ka. Under Air you could put High Elf Cavalry from the Old World, but they could also come up with, say, a race of butterfly people who ... make storms happen when they flap their wings. Just ad-libbing here.

Instead we seem to have ended up with Bizarro Old World, where neither players nor designers can truly let their imaginations run free, because everything's still TM Sigmar or Khorne. Just ... we're now using mini gryphons as dogs.

Sid Snake
14-12-2015, 01:01
P.S. another trend AoS falls in line with is that TV Series Lost, where they'd just throw random plots in and see what happened, and it seemed cool until you realised it was never going to tie up. The guy responsible for that is also responsible for Prometheus being the way it is. Think that's clearly played into it, as well as 'Needs to be Techy and Appy and more like Pokemon and kinder for short attention spans'

Darth Alec
14-12-2015, 01:26
P.S. another trend AoS falls in line with is that TV Series Lost, where they'd just throw random plots in and see what happened, and it seemed cool until you realised it was never going to tie up. The guy responsible for that is also responsible for Prometheus being the way it is. Think that's clearly played into it, as well as 'Needs to be Techy and Appy and more like Pokemon and kinder for short attention spans'

Except it clearly isn't like that at all. If you had paid any attention to the actual progression of the storyline, there are a number of threads that will obviously be answered. Alarielle and the Stormcast, Nagash, Slaanesh and Tyrion, Archaon's response to the return of Sigmar. The background is patchy, but the future is quite well set up so far.


A much bigger issue is the lack of human protagonists. 40k could always include a Guard captain or planetary govenor to get some humanity in the story, and we always knew that there were real, normal humans being fought for and defended. AoS will lack that until we see a living human settlement in the mortal realms.

Sid Snake
14-12-2015, 02:33
Guess that's true (about the so far unanswered plot questions). Shouldn't write off the possibility.

Although I was more thinking of the somewhat arbitrary hacks and slashes they've made to the Old World setting to make the AoS setting. I think the name for this trend is 'disruption' (as in 'Uber will disrupt taxi services').

Sid Snake
14-12-2015, 02:34
(And yes, we'll see what if anything they do with the humans. Although if there's no points or comp, would there be a compelling reason for anyone to have ordinary human warriors? Can any AoS people shed light on that?)

HelloKitty
14-12-2015, 02:45
That same question can be asked for any race. Whats the compelling reason to take normal elf troops over white lions or sword masters?

If you are playing the game from a competitive mindset - there isn't really any reason you'd do that.

Buddy Bear
14-12-2015, 02:48
That same question can be asked for any race. Whats the compelling reason to take normal elf troops over white lions or sword masters?

They're cheaper in points and so you can take more. They're also Core so they're among a number of options for required units.

scruffyryan
14-12-2015, 02:54
They're cheaper in points and so you can take more. They're also Core so they're among a number of options for required units.

Because the difference between white lions and swordmasters vs spearmen is negligible when your shadow magic gives them strength 9?

Edit: Because the format of 8th provided rewards for many ranks, and given that elves were expensive in points it benefitted them more to end a fight by breaking steadfast in the first or second round of combat rather than in a grinding battle where something steadfast for multiple rounds can inflict high point cost casualties?

Sid Snake
14-12-2015, 05:37
I meant in AoS without the points

Dosiere
14-12-2015, 07:02
The real issue comes from the sudden death rules. If you don't use those then you don't get punished for putting down inferior troops, aside from having to use huge units in the game which is really annoying. Generally I found any unit where I needed to put down more than about 10 models I stopped using in AoS for various reasons when playing RAW or close to it. So yeah, I don't think the regular human warriors are going to be super useful. They'll have their own elite options though, just maybe not as elite as the Sigmarines or Chaos stuff.

That being said, hardly anyone plays AoS 4-page ruleset RAW anyway. In reality a lot of people are using comp systems, house rules, scenarios most of the time, or agreeing on things like using or not using sudden death rules.