PDA

View Full Version : Origins of Names in Age of Sigmar



akai
07-01-2016, 02:11
So in the News and Forum section, there were posts about AoS names. Specifically, a post about GW use of the word fyre...which led to me saying it was used in Septimus Heap book series...then talk about Harry Potter use of the word...and finally reading how fyr and fyre are old spellings in different languages for fire. So i decided to see if other names in Age of Sigmar have similar origins. Take it with a grain of salt, but I thought it might be of interest to some.

Fyreslayers - Fyre - fire in Danish and Scots (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyre#Old_English) / Fyr in Old English (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyr#Old_English)

Aelf - Elf in Old English was spelled as "Ælf" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%86lf) / another link - http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2012/08/alf_or_%C3%A6lf.html

Duardin - this was a bit harder to find if there was some inspiration for the name. Duardin itself did not seem to have an old language for its use. I decided to try searching for "Duard" and this is what i got - http://www.ourbabynamer.com/meaning-of-Duard.html - based on that site "Duard" is of English origin and means "wealthy guardian." With Dwarf stereotypes of loving gold and Games Workshop Ur-Gold, there might actually be some basis of past languages for GW calling the new age Dwarfs as Duardin...or I am just really stretching my imagination to find some basis for some of the names :D

Darth Alec
07-01-2016, 06:43
You've pretty much nailed it. The names, as silly as people think they sound, aren't pulled out of thin air. Seraphon comes from Seraph/Seraphim. Which is used to describe both angels and serpents in the Bible. Quite obvious use there.

malisteen
07-01-2016, 06:50
Also, I don't remember complaints about silly names for elves when it was "Druchi" or "Asrai", or whatnot.

zoggin-eck
07-01-2016, 09:14
"Steamhead" comes from the writers having rocks in their heads.

I don't even mind the Aelf and Fyre stuff but it still sounds like they're trying too hard to squeeze in different names. It's also that for so long the different spelling is all we've had to go on, knowing little to nothing about the races. Of course Aelf will remind people of a certain Alien Life Form.


Also, I don't remember complaints about silly names for elves when it was "Druchi" or "Asrai", or whatnot.

That's what annoys me though. They already had less generic names for some of the races which people had mostly accepted and they ditched them. I never referred to my own Dark Elves as Druchii, but it didn't grate when reading it in a novel or background text box, for instance.

Spiney Norman
07-01-2016, 09:25
Also, I don't remember complaints about silly names for elves when it was "Druchi" or "Asrai", or whatnot.

Indeed, and GW have been spelling daemon with an 'a' since the year dot, but add one to the word 'elf' and it's an act of the most heinous sacrilege.

Darnok
07-01-2016, 09:44
Indeed, and GW have been spelling daemon with an 'a' since the year dot, but add one to the word 'elf' and it's an act of the most heinous sacrilege.

As you say yourself: one thing has been done from the beginning, the other is a recent change (for no reason).

Plus: the "ae" in GWs "daemon" is most likely coming from the fact that the German spelling of demon is "Dämon", and "ae" is the description of "ä". Since GW tends to use words of German origin whenever they try to make something sound archaic or "old-worldy", this is the most plausible reason. There is no analogy in this for the "Aelfs".

Urgat
07-01-2016, 09:58
People will get over it. People got over the "shoehorned" (damn I hate that word, it's the automatic response to an addition someone doesn't like) ogres just fine, and hell if we didn't have a tsunami of whinning over them back then. It's a less drastic change than what lizardmen went through back in 5th ed, at the very least.

Allen
07-01-2016, 10:13
People will get over it. People got over the "shoehorned" (damn I hate that word, it's the automatic response to an addition someone doesn't like) ogres just fine, and hell if we didn't have a tsunami of whinning over them back then. It's a less drastic change than what lizardmen went through back in 5th ed, at the very least.

Yup, people will get over it. We managed to swallow the Tau, after akk: chances are all this "uarghhhh AoS have silly names, druchii and altdorf were meaningful!" overreaction will fade out in a few months.

75hastings69
07-01-2016, 10:31
So.........

If Elf in old English was spelt Ælf, thus being an existing word for an existing fantasy race stereotype, this makes it uniquely GW because?.............

*EDIT, also just to point out I don't mind Ælf or Fyre even Seraphon (cartoon tickle porn aside), what bothers me is:-

why call them Seraphon when they are the exact same models we have had for 10 years called lizardmen, if they were a new aesthetic I quite like seraphon as a race name.
If the names are meant to be GW unique then why use things like Ælf which basically is another way of writing Elf, and thus is still a generic fantasy name not being unique to GW in any way.
No one is using the new names, people are still referring to the Fyreslyayerys as Dwarfs, GW don't make Dwarfs any more.
The use of the REAL silly names, the noun noun blood nouns etc. this isn't unique to AoS by the way, 40k started this with all the wolf-fist, wolfclaw, bloodmissile etc. yes GW we know it's a blood angel army but we really don't need every option and every unit to have blood in the name, likewise space wolves etc. etc.

Silly names aren't a new thing by any shot with GW, you only need to look in the old seraph----erm I mean Lizardmen army books for that crap!!!!

But you've got to admit that even by GWs standards Duardin Steamheads is a stupid name :)

ScruffMan
07-01-2016, 10:36
If it is indeed all about unique names and IP/copyright/legal stuff then you have to assume they had someone decent advise them. If not, well yeah that'd be pretty funny but I am not sure they are as comically incompetent as you hope!

75hastings69
07-01-2016, 10:43
GW wanted names unique to them so people searching wouldn't come across competitors products according to a poster on another thread. So how is Ælf unique to GW being an already existing world for Elf, or are GW going to try and claim they own the word Ælf like they tried with the term Space Marine?

Rogue Star
07-01-2016, 10:44
So.........

If Elf in old English was spelt Ælf, thus being an existing word for an existing fantasy race stereotype, this makes it uniquely GW because?.............

Gotta second Hasting... thought the idea for changing the names was to make it so GW could copyright/trademark them... if it's just older spelling, this in no way makes it either of those things, or to use the "Spots the Space Marine" incident as an example... just because you call them Space Mariners, doesn't make them any more 'yours'.

ScruffMan
07-01-2016, 10:52
I've no idea, the world of copyright law is a mystery to me. If they have done it for these reasons and they are told that they can't prevent others from using the names it would be a spectacular own goal, yes.

akai
07-01-2016, 13:28
Gotta second Hasting... thought the idea for changing the names was to make it so GW could copyright/trademark them... if it's just older spelling, this in no way makes it either of those things, or to use the "Spots the Space Marine" incident as an example... just because you call them Space Mariners, doesn't make them any more 'yours'.

Either Games Workshop is not too bright or the posters (including me) just assumed too much on what exactly is GW thinking. No big deal for me, its their business they can run it however they want. Fluffwise, I see it as rather believable that the spelling of names and sound of names change with time. So in the old world, we know them as Elf. In the new age they are now spelled as Aelf. Just like in our world, Aelf changed to Elf in English. I will still call them Elf and Dwarfs :D.

75hastings69
07-01-2016, 13:35
Either Games Workshop is not too bright or the posters (including me) just assumed too much on what exactly is GW thinking. No big deal for me, its their business they can run it however they want. Fluffwise, I see it as rather believable that the spelling of names and sound of names change with time. So in the old world, we know them as Elf. In the new age they are now spelled as Aelf. Just like in our world, Aelf changed to Elf in English. I will still call them Elf and Dwarfs :D.

Yes but why would the word evolve over the course of time when the entire world and populace were destroyed? Where has the root of the name come from?

*EDIT, of course the spirit of Sigmar inside KFs body, clutching onto the glowing Sigmarite core of the old world whilst being swooped away on a magic space dragon could have remembered their names! silly me....... although surely the surviving ELF would have known their race was called Elves? Likewise the Surviving DWARF? I can just see it now.....

Sigmar, sat on his spledyd sigmarthrone in sunny sigmarsville with his dwarf fryend as his sigmarservant pours them both a nice ryfreshing glass or Ur-wine.....

Sigmar "You know Duardin my fryend, I remember when all the sigmarites thought I'd gone sigmarsenseless when I built Sigmarsville on top of thys sigmarswamp"
Dwarf "I know Sigmar, and it's dwarf by the way"
Sigmar "That's right Duardin, they sigmurked at me behind my back, but now look we're as sayfe as sigmarhouses here in the reaylm of azyr"
Dwarf "Yes sigmar, and appreciate we do too, I was just saying earlier to the new guy at the sigmar palyce...."
Sigmar "what new guy Duardin? What did he look lyke?"
Dwarf "Big tall golden fella, with a hammer, lightnyng, you know the guy"
Sigmar "oh hym, than man has no personality at all, not lyke the rest of my loyal sigmarines!"
Dwarf "yes hym, and he's exactly like the rest of them, oh and it's dwarf"
Sigmar "He's a curyous sort that one Duardin"
Dwarf "Listen Sigmar, you've been a good pal, we've been through a lot together, and I know you've been under a lot of pressure, but it's DWARF"
Sigmar "Indeed young Duardin, I remember the time we wrestled that bloodblood murder blood to the ground, I punched the sludge so hard that day I thought............"
Dwarf "FOR ****'S SAKE SIGMAR MY NAME IS DWARF!!!!! WHY THE FLYING **** DO YOU KEEP CALLING ME DUARDIN???!!! I'M HERE SIPPING UR-WINE SURROUNDED BY SIGMARSHIT, UR-WINE SIGMAR! YOU HAVEN'T EVEN GOT ANY VYNYARDS JUST THAT BLASTED FORGE OF YOURS, I DAREN'T EVEN ASK WHERE THIS STUFF CAME FROM BUT IT CERTAINLY WASN'T UR-GRAPES, EVERYTHING IN THIS STUPID PLACE IS NAMED AFTER YOU, IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE NO IMAGINATION! I COULD HARDLY FORGET YOUR NAME WHAT WITH SIGMAR THIS AND SIGMAR THAT! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ONCE REMEMBER MY *********** NAME YOU SIGMARTWAT!!!!!!".......

Sigmarsilence is broken by the re-appearynce of the sigmarservant.....

Sigmarservant "There's a young lady here to see you syr"
Sigmar "who is it?"
Sigmarservant "Some lady calling herself an Elf"
Sigmar "Hmmmm, Ælf you say?"

To be sigmarcontynued........

Col. Tartleton
07-01-2016, 13:48
I don't even mind the names, I just hate bad writing like the description of the Fyreslayers having perfectly balanced axes... Yeah that's going to be useful.

akai
07-01-2016, 13:55
Yes but why would the word evolve over the course of time when the entire world and populace were destroyed? Where has the root of the name come from?

*EDIT, of course the spirit of Sigmar inside KFs body, clutching onto the glowing Sigmarite core of the old world whilst being swooped away on a magic space dragon could have remembered their names! silly me

Of course there are also others from the old world that survived too. But I agree with you, silly you indeed! :D

malisteen
07-01-2016, 14:42
People - whether authors, creators, or marketers - have been giving fantasy stuff funny names - whether old words, made up ones, or just the regular words with arbitrary spelling changes - since the inception of the genre. And yeah, some of that might have marketing reasons (god forbid! the horror! how shameful!), but it's most often simply to make things sound more 'fantasy-y' because that's the genre trope. GW has the added reasons of wanting to provide a unique identity for the new game despite using models from the old ones, a motivation which is neither laughable nor sinister.

There are plenty of reasons to hate on AoS if that's what people want to do other than trite jabs at naming conventions which aren't even half bad by genre standards. People need to get over it, they're making themselves look foolish and petty, and undermining whatever meaningful criticisms of the new game they may have.

Chikout
07-01-2016, 14:48
I don't even mind the names, I just hate bad writing like the description of the Fyreslayers having perfectly balanced axes... Yeah that's going to be useful.
I am confused as to why this is bad. Axes that are designed to be thrown need to be balanced, just like knives. The balanced axes are carried on their belts in addition to their main axes.

Zywus
07-01-2016, 15:24
Of all the legitimate criticisms that can be leveled against AoS and it's background. I really don't think the names is among them.

New made up names always always sound silly before you get used to them.

75hastings69
07-01-2016, 15:45
Of all the legitimate criticisms that can be leveled against AoS and it's background. I really don't think the names is among them.

New made up names always always sound silly before you get used to them.

The bloodsecrators of the floating islands of the shimmertarn would like a word with you :D

Teurastaja
07-01-2016, 17:38
New dorf unit is using Molten Rockbolts as a weapon...

Ender Shadowkin
07-01-2016, 17:45
People - whether authors, creators, or marketers - have been giving fantasy stuff funny names - whether old words, made up ones, or just the regular words with arbitrary spelling changes - since the inception of the genre. And yeah, some of that might have marketing reasons (god forbid! the horror! how shameful!), but it's most often simply to make things sound more 'fantasy-y' because that's the genre trope. GW has the added reasons of wanting to provide a unique identity for the new game despite using models from the old ones, a motivation which is neither laughable nor sinister.

There are plenty of reasons to hate on AoS if that's what people want to do other than trite jabs at naming conventions which aren't even half bad by genre standards. People need to get over it, they're making themselves look foolish and petty, and undermining whatever meaningful criticisms of the new game they may have.

Hmm,I respectfully disagree. I feel like I'm pretty reasonable dude , and this whole scale renaming of existing fantasy tropes is pretty unique and just plain annoying. Instead of getting used to it, it has gotten worse and worse for me. It disconnects this world from every other thing I relate to in the genre and pushes me farther away from AoS. The rules, and lack of people to play, have pushed me pretty far away already and the background continues to be alienating.

I want to like this world and get pulled back in, but every time I see those ridiculous lawyer driven names, my soul dies a little more.

Kyriakin
07-01-2016, 18:39
I have to say that, speaking as a card-carrying "anti-AoS" netizen, I don't mind/care about the name changes.

Although, I can see how the legal-based raison d'etre might take the soul out of a fantasy setting somewhat.

Darth Alec
07-01-2016, 19:09
We don't really know the reason for the name changes. Might be something as simple as "this is a new system, a new game, let's give everything a new name to signify that". It's not like GW publications haven't used the old names since AoS launched. They would crack down on that if it was so important, I'm guessing.


Lots of names in AoS I like. Mordant and Nighthaunt are solid names for spirit-things. Malignant isn't a new word, but it's pretty cool use. And all of them have origins fitting their use.

Even the various Blood-names are actually kind of good, if there hadn't been so many of them. Bloodstoker is a damn solid name for a guy who whips the followers of the blood god into a frenzy.

dalezzz
07-01-2016, 23:28
There's still orgors aleguzzlers and I'm sure plenty of other terrible names to look forward too :)

ewar
07-01-2016, 23:47
Yes but why would the word evolve over the course of time when the entire world and populace were destroyed? Where has the root of the name come from?

*EDIT, of course the spirit of Sigmar inside KFs body, clutching onto the glowing Sigmarite core of the old world whilst being swooped away on a magic space dragon could have remembered their names! silly me....... although surely the surviving ELF would have known their race was called Elves? Likewise the Surviving DWARF? I can just see it now.....

Sigmar, sat on his spledyd sigmarthrone in sunny sigmarsville with his dwarf fryend as his sigmarservant pours them both a nice ryfreshing glass or Ur-wine.....

Sigmar "You know Duardin my fryend, I remember when all the sigmarites thought I'd gone sigmarsenseless when I built Sigmarsville on top of thys sigmarswamp"
Dwarf "I know Sigmar, and it's dwarf by the way"
Sigmar "That's right Duardin, they sigmurked at me behind my back, but now look we're as sayfe as sigmarhouses here in the reaylm of azyr"
Dwarf "Yes sigmar, and appreciate we do too, I was just saying earlier to the new guy at the sigmar palyce...."
Sigmar "what new guy Duardin? What did he look lyke?"
Dwarf "Big tall golden fella, with a hammer, lightnyng, you know the guy"
Sigmar "oh hym, than man has no personality at all, not lyke the rest of my loyal sigmarines!"
Dwarf "yes hym, and he's exactly like the rest of them, oh and it's dwarf"
Sigmar "He's a curyous sort that one Duardin"
Dwarf "Listen Sigmar, you've been a good pal, we've been through a lot together, and I know you've been under a lot of pressure, but it's DWARF"
Sigmar "Indeed young Duardin, I remember the time we wrestled that bloodblood murder blood to the ground, I punched the sludge so hard that day I thought............"
Dwarf "FOR ****'S SAKE SIGMAR MY NAME IS DWARF!!!!! WHY THE FLYING **** DO YOU KEEP CALLING ME DUARDIN???!!! I'M HERE SIPPING UR-WINE SURROUNDED BY SIGMARSHIT, UR-WINE SIGMAR! YOU HAVEN'T EVEN GOT ANY VYNYARDS JUST THAT BLASTED FORGE OF YOURS, I DAREN'T EVEN ASK WHERE THIS STUFF CAME FROM BUT IT CERTAINLY WASN'T UR-GRAPES, EVERYTHING IN THIS STUPID PLACE IS NAMED AFTER YOU, IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE NO IMAGINATION! I COULD HARDLY FORGET YOUR NAME WHAT WITH SIGMAR THIS AND SIGMAR THAT! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ONCE REMEMBER MY *********** NAME YOU SIGMARTWAT!!!!!!".......

Sigmarsilence is broken by the re-appearynce of the sigmarservant.....

Sigmarservant "There's a young lady here to see you syr"
Sigmar "who is it?"
Sigmarservant "Some lady calling herself an Elf"
Sigmar "Hmmmm, Ælf you say?"

To be sigmarcontynued........

Probably the best thing I've read on warseer, ever :D

Of all the things which grate on me in AOS, the names are right at the top. Steamhead Duardin is probably the worst culprit - I hope whichever twerp approved that goes straight to the ninth level of nerd purgatory to dwell on his sins.

Voss
07-01-2016, 23:59
Yup, people will get over it. We managed to swallow the Tau, after akk: chances are all this "uarghhhh AoS have silly names, druchii and altdorf were meaningful!" overreaction will fade out in a few months.

So, question for you guys then. You using 'Astra Militarium' a lot yet? Temputzes Scions?
Or are they still Guard and stormtroopers?

malisteen
08-01-2016, 03:44
I use 'guard' and 'space marines' in common parlance, but appreciate the terms 'astra militarum' and 'adeptus astartes' for their in-universe character, much as I use 'dwarves' and 'elves' and 'lizardmen' in common discussion, but appreciate 'duardin' or 'aelfs' or 'seraphon' as in-universe terms. Some of the names I actually find pretty cool. Like 'Varanguard'? IMO that sounds badass.

Bloodsecrator, admittedly, is more than a bit silly, even by the standards of fantasy genre nomenclature (though at least it refrains from the dreaded apostrophe), but I appreciate it on a comedic level. It doesn't bother me. Were I a khorne chaos player, I'd be into it.

EDIT: that Sigmar conversation is pretty great. I like to imagine that since it's the "Age of Sigmar", he decided he'd just name everything himself, and since he was an old-timey guy from the warhammer world's distant past, he just talks funny, and everybody puts up while laughing behind his back.

Allen
08-01-2016, 07:52
I use 'guard' and 'space marines' in common parlance, but appreciate the terms 'astra militarum' and 'adeptus astartes' for their in-universe character, much as I use 'dwarves' and 'elves' and 'lizardmen' in common discussion, but appreciate 'duardin' or 'aelfs' or 'seraphon' as in-universe terms. Some of the names I actually find pretty cool. Like 'Varanguard'? IMO that sounds badass.

Quoted for truth. I understand AoS is really (REALLY) controversial, but any criticism about naming conventions sounds really hollow coming from us - guys that never raised an eyebrow with names like Tilea, Estalia, Naggaroth, Norsca, Nippon, Cathay and so on. WHFB had its fair share of bland, silly, plainly stupid or unimaginative names. We were simply more accustomed to them. There's a boatload of problems with AoS, but honestly names are pretty low on the priority list. If they qualify for the problem list at all, of course.

Dosiere
08-01-2016, 10:40
We don't really know the reason for the name changes. Might be something as simple as "this is a new system, a new game, let's give everything a new name to signify that". It's not like GW publications haven't used the old names since AoS launched. They would crack down on that if it was so important, I'm guessing.


Lots of names in AoS I like. Mordant and Nighthaunt are solid names for spirit-things. Malignant isn't a new word, but it's pretty cool use. And all of them have origins fitting their use.

Even the various Blood-names are actually kind of good, if there hadn't been so many of them. Bloodstoker is a damn solid name for a guy who whips the followers of the blood god into a frenzy.

I think that's really the heart of the issue. Taken by themselves there are only a handful of names that I don't like. It's when everything is blood this and blood that or sigmar this it becomes silly. I really can't tell if it's meant to be humorous or what, but it sure is distracting. An example of similar writing are the old Space Wolf and Blood Angels books for 40K, similarly derided for their overuse of their respective namesakes.

Col. Tartleton
08-01-2016, 14:09
I just don't think GW takes themselves very seriously and that's a good thing generally.

Pojko
08-01-2016, 15:27
Quoted for truth. I understand AoS is really (REALLY) controversial, but any criticism about naming conventions sounds really hollow coming from us - guys that never raised an eyebrow with names like Tilea, Estalia, Naggaroth, Norsca, Nippon, Cathay and so on. WHFB had its fair share of bland, silly, plainly stupid or unimaginative names. We were simply more accustomed to them. There's a boatload of problems with AoS, but honestly names are pretty low on the priority list. If they qualify for the problem list at all, of course.

I don't know about other people, but it's the fact that every little thing has its own ridiculous, trademarkable name that annoys me. There's something to be said about simplicity that went straight over AoS's head.

It's not a Dwarf warrior with an axe or hammer anymore. It's some contrived combination of cool, edgy sounding words. Now it's Hearthguard Berzerkers armed with a fyresteel throwing axe, or a flamestrike pole axe. But there are also Auric Heathguard with "molten rockbolts" (whatever the feth those are) and magmapikes. But wait, why have one type of Berzerker when you can also have Vulkite Berzerkers armed with not just fyresteel throwing axes, but also fyresteel hand axes or fyresteel war picks?

Something that's supposed to be special and unique, like a Dwarf Slayer for example, is fine. Armies should have elite, special troops. In limited numbers. But now everything is special. And that's part of AoS's plan to have all of your armies in fact not be fluffy and narrative full of your basic rank and file soldiers who would form the bulk of an army, but rather be comprised of the most elite, and most expen$ive troops and monsters GW sells. Because why would I take skeletons and zombies when I can take Grave Guard?

ScruffMan
08-01-2016, 15:48
I don't know about other people, but it's the fact that every little thing has its own ridiculous, trademarkable name that annoys me. There's something to be said about simplicity that went straight over AoS's head.

It's not a Dwarf warrior with an axe or hammer anymore. It's some contrived combination of cool, edgy sounding words. Now it's Hearthguard Berzerkers armed with a fyresteel throwing axe, or a flamestrike pole axe. But there are also Auric Heathguard with "molten rockbolts" (whatever the feth those are) and magmapikes. But wait, why have one type of Berzerker when you can also have Vulkite Berzerkers armed with not just fyresteel throwing axes, but also fyresteel hand axes or fyresteel war picks?

Something that's supposed to be special and unique, like a Dwarf Slayer for example, is fine. Armies should have elite, special troops. In limited numbers. But now everything is special. And that's part of AoS's plan to have all of your armies in fact not be fluffy and narrative full of your basic rank and file soldiers who would form the bulk of an army, but rather be comprised of the most elite, and most expen$ive troops and monsters GW sells. Because why would I take skeletons and zombies when I can take Grave Guard?


This hasn't been a problem at all with the folks I play with, we all prefer to have a "real army" look and that generally includes two units of basic troops at the least. It's not even a house rule, just how each of us likes it.

Allen
08-01-2016, 15:55
I don't know about other people, but it's the fact that every little thing has its own ridiculous, trademarkable name that annoys me. There's something to be said about simplicity that went straight over AoS's head

I suppose we shouldn't discuss WHFB gromril armours or grudge bearers then. Or the over-the-top description of the colleges of magic in Altdorf. Or the ogres charachter names, unit definitions and so on. IMHO those sounded exactly as absurd and ridiculous as AoS stuff - we were simply more accustomed to them.

Lars Porsenna
08-01-2016, 15:59
I don't know about other people, but it's the fact that every little thing has its own ridiculous, trademarkable name that annoys me. There's something to be said about simplicity that went straight over AoS's head.

It's not a Dwarf warrior with an axe or hammer anymore. It's some contrived combination of cool, edgy sounding words. Now it's Hearthguard Berzerkers armed with a fyresteel throwing axe, or a flamestrike pole axe. But there are also Auric Heathguard with "molten rockbolts" (whatever the feth those are) and magmapikes. But wait, why have one type of Berzerker when you can also have Vulkite Berzerkers armed with not just fyresteel throwing axes, but also fyresteel hand axes or fyresteel war picks?

Something that's supposed to be special and unique, like a Dwarf Slayer for example, is fine. Armies should have elite, special troops. In limited numbers. But now everything is special. And that's part of AoS's plan to have all of your armies in fact not be fluffy and narrative full of your basic rank and file soldiers who would form the bulk of an army, but rather be comprised of the most elite, and most expen$ive troops and monsters GW sells. Because why would I take skeletons and zombies when I can take Grave Guard?

Reading the above, I'm struck how much the new naming conventions remind me of something you would read on the back of a kid's action figure or toy. "Magmabolts" indeed...

Damon.

Dosiere
08-01-2016, 16:17
I suppose we shouldn't discuss WHFB gromril armours or grudge bearers then. Or the over-the-top description of the colleges of magic in Altdorf. Or the ogres charachter names, unit definitions and so on. IMHO those sounded exactly as absurd and ridiculous as AoS stuff - we were simply more accustomed to them.

We could go back and forth all day, sure. What has been mentioned repeatedly though isn't that these things exist at all being a problem, it's that dang near everything in AoS is this way. Taken individually, I don't really have a problem with most of the AoS names. When EVERYTHING is Sigmarxxxx, or Bloodxxxx, or Fyrexxx it turns me off to the fluff. We get it GW, Khorne really likes blood. Doesn't mean my bloodwarrios wielding bloodaxes lead by a bloodsergeant who is activating his bloodmagic bloodpower next bloody turn isn't annoying. That's what it feels like. It's just too much, and there is nothing "normal" to make it even seem cool or different.

In my Empire army, I had some crazy stupid things like Demigryph Knights, or a Luminark, yes it's true. I also had much more normal Empire Knights, State Troops, Free Company, etc.... It made the weird special units with odd names feel weird and special, whereas in AoS everything is just this overload of OTT names everywhere with no relief from the onslaught. Sometimes it's ok to just call a sharp stick a spear.

Pojko
08-01-2016, 16:29
I suppose we shouldn't discuss WHFB gromril armours or grudge bearers then. Or the over-the-top description of the colleges of magic in Altdorf. Or the ogres charachter names, unit definitions and so on. IMHO those sounded exactly as absurd and ridiculous as AoS stuff - we were simply more accustomed to them.

As others have said, things like gromril armor were the exception to the rule. Most Dwarves wore heavy armor. And had shields. This made things like gromril feel special, because it was.

Now I expect an average "Duardin Steamhead" to be clad in Chamon Runeplate carrying Silvergild Rune Axes and Hearthstone Rune Bane Shields. Because that's the norm. Not the exception.

Ayin
08-01-2016, 18:19
I just don't think GW takes themselves very seriously and that's a good thing generally.

I think that argument doesn't work as well in AoS. Have you seen any of the dark levity or any actual puns in it's printed material? To me, more than any other product they have put out in the last several years, AoS really seems to be "Serious Business".

tmod
08-01-2016, 20:50
Quoted for truth. I understand AoS is really (REALLY) controversial, but any criticism about naming conventions sounds really hollow coming from us - guys that never raised an eyebrow with names like Tilea, Estalia, Naggaroth, Norsca, Nippon, Cathay and so on. WHFB had its fair share of bland, silly, plainly stupid or unimaginative names. We were simply more accustomed to them. There's a boatload of problems with AoS, but honestly names are pretty low on the priority list. If they qualify for the problem list at all, of course.

Names in the Old World were never good, but they were parodies/old versions of names in the real world. That's why Tilea for Italy, or Norsca for Norway/Scandinavia didn't create as much badwill as Sigmarheim and whatnot. They were silly, but they were obviously meant to be joke names. When I started getting into Warhammer twenty off years ago the names did put me off initially. Then I accepted they were all lighthearted parodies, and they weren't a problem.

Seraphon and duardin sounds at least as silly as the old names, but they sound like they try to take themselves seriously. That, and the overproliferation of terms like 'blood', is what makes the new names stand out as ridiculous.

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Smooth Boy
08-01-2016, 22:04
Maybe I'm a purist but call a shovel a shovel and a Dwarf a Dwarf, Tolkien gave them a perfectly good name. If something doesn't have a name then GW can call it ur-whatever.

Zywus
08-01-2016, 22:11
I just don't think GW takes themselves very seriously and that's a good thing generally.


I think that argument doesn't work as well in AoS. Have you seen any of the dark levity or any actual puns in it's printed material? To me, more than any other product they have put out in the last several years, AoS really seems to be "Serious Business".


Names in the Old World were never good, but they were parodies/old versions of names in the real world. That's why Tilea for Italy, or Norsca for Norway/Scandinavia didn't create as much badwill as Sigmarheim and whatnot. They were silly, but they were obviously meant to be joke names. When I started getting into Warhammer twenty off years ago the names did put me off initially. Then I accepted they were all lighthearted parodies, and they weren't a problem.

Seraphon and duardin sounds at least as silly as the old names, but they sound like they try to take themselves seriously.
That's a interesting point actually and might be one reason for why the AoS names rub people the wrong way (apart from AoS being the symbol of GW's wrongdoings in general). AoS isn't really perceived to have the humour or the 'tongue in cheek' of the old Warhammer world.

The sillier names of WHFB is mainly from the older days when Warhammer took it self far less serious. While personally I didn't really mind as such, the more serious take on the WHFB world of the later years, but names like Bloodsecrator would have belonged far better back in the 80's than in the rather humour-bereft world of AoS.

Admittedly I haven't much 1st hand experience with the AoS lore. Is there any humour there so far? And I mean humour that's perceived to be intentional. 'The floating islands of the shimmertarn' do have a certain comedic value, but when I think of them, I must admit I feel that I'm laughing at GW rather than with them:p.

Darth Alec
08-01-2016, 22:16
I think that's really the heart of the issue. Taken by themselves there are only a handful of names that I don't like. It's when everything is blood this and blood that or sigmar this it becomes silly. I really can't tell if it's meant to be humorous or what, but it sure is distracting. An example of similar writing are the old Space Wolf and Blood Angels books for 40K, similarly derided for their overuse of their respective namesakes.

It is an issue. I think that it will lessen in time though. We'll get used to most of the names, normalising them. Shield and stuff will always just be shields, some with the various special weapon names.


Maybe I'm a purist but call a shovel a shovel and a Dwarf a Dwarf, Tolkien gave them a perfectly good name. If something doesn't have a name then GW can call it ur-whatever.

Tolkien didn't invent the names you know. He fought a lot with publishers over "Elfen" and "Elven", or "Dwarf" versus "Dwarv". He very much popularised the current spelling.




There really isn't any reason to turn this into a huge issue. Names will always be strange at first, yet the major names are largely solid. There are a few major stinkers (steamhead). And there are too many unique names that nobody will ever care about, so it doesn't matter. Mountains out of molehills come to mind.

malisteen
08-01-2016, 22:53
Maybe I'm a purist but call a shovel a shovel and a Dwarf a Dwarf, Tolkien gave them a perfectly good name.

Ah, yes, Tolkein's perfectly good name for dwarves. By which you of course mean "Dwerrows". Or perhaps you mean "Khazad", the word for 'dwarves' in the khuzdul language which Tolkein invented whole cloth for his fictional mythology?

Seriously, you may call yourself a purist, but the fact that you seem to think Tolkein didn't make up his own weird names for things is ludicrous, the man invented multiple entire fantasy languages for his setting. He was practically the king of doing so, and is pretty much the entire reason why silly fantasy names are a staple of the genre, not just in AoS but in basically every dang fantasy setting ever, including the old warhammer world.

So... yeah. Also, Tolkein's Silmarillian, the stories he actually cared about (you know, not the throw-away kids book or the sequel to it he had to be pressured into writing, the stuff he actually sunk so much time into that he died before it was done) is exactly the sort of over-the-top mythic stuff that AoS haters have been bashing the new game's setting for, full of space alien angels singing the world into existence, dwarves that didn't evolve but rather were a race of golem-like artificial beings created from earth and stone, cosmic trees that for a time were the sole source of light in the world, before they were consumed by Ungoliant, mother of all spiders, the great darkness that exists to swallow all light, and the sun and moon were literally created from the last fruit of those two trees.

Again, epic, over-the-top, mythic stuff. Tolkein was all about this stuff, and AoS is in this sense very Tolkeinesque, and for all its failings as a game and as a product, those who decry the fluff for straying too hard from Tolkein I would argue never really understood the spirit of his work, only the cheapened formula its legacy has become.

Dosiere
08-01-2016, 23:53
I'm sorry, are you comparing the fluff for AoS to Tolkien and claiming they are on the same level somehow? You claim it's not reasonable to dislike AoS without also disliking Middle earth since it's basically the same thing?! I challenge you to read the first novel or two created for AoS, and the first sourcebook that introduces the world. Then let's have this conversation.

malisteen
09-01-2016, 00:35
On the same level? As in, of quality? No, god no, not at all, I never said anything like that, or at least I didn't mean so, and I apologize for my miscommunication if I did. But neither wasn't on that level either. Licensed genre fiction as stage scenery for a tabletop game isn't going to be, nobody I think ever expected it to be, and again, that for the old world never was.

I'm not talking about quality, which has certainly been spotty, or presentation, which has been terrible. A brand new setting for a brand new game needs to front load information about the world and the people who live there, while AoS has left huge gaps and even what fluff does exist is sequestered to Black Library in what I'd argue are just some of the terrible decisions that have characterized AoS's roll out.

No, I'm talking about tone, about scale. The whole "gods & demigods walking shoulder to shoulder mortals, battling for the fates of worlds that are less 'planets' and more 'dimensions/levels of reality', no removal between literal and mythological/symbolic levels," etc. All the things that have people complaining that the new fluff is insufficiently tolkien and too much superheroes/Asgard/etc. Because, again, Tolkein wrote many stories, arguably the ones closest to his heart, in that sort of vein. Infinitely better stories, yes, in the same sense that LotR was infinitely better than almost everything that came out of the Old World, but again, I'm talking about style here, not substance.

I'm claiming it's not reasonable to dislike AoS for being insufficiently tolkeinesque in tone because it was too "over the top", because tolkein's work had plenty of stuff that was similarly over they top & mythic in scope and tone.


But more than that, and more on topic, I'm saying it's dumb to say "call a shovel a shovel and a Dwarf a Dwarf, Tolkien gave them a perfectly good name," as though Tolkein never made up arbitrary names for things, including dwarves, when Tolkein spent years making up entire languages worth of arbitrary fantasy names for things. ie, why limit yourself to calling 'a dwarf a dwarf' when Tolkein called them dwerrow and khazad and more.

Tolkein's naming conventions were of course better, much better, but the post I was responding to wasn't suggesting Age of Sigmar should be coming up with better unique in-setting terms, it was suggesting that it shouldn't be doing so at all, as though even trying to was some sort of affront to Tolkein's memory, which betrays both a complete unfamiliarity with Tolkein's work AND a painfully boring & dogmatic approach to the fantasy genre in general that typifies a rather sad and frankly ironic lack of creativity endemic within a literary genre that was supposedly founded on imagination, as though ticking off the mundane checklist of the "Generic Fantasy Setting" are more important than the appreciation for the fantastic that I would argue is the genre's very soul. I dare say Tolkein would have preferred those who followed in his footsteps to imitate the spirit of his work by creating their own worlds, worlds full of Serephon and Sigmarites and even (dare I say it) Bloodsecutors, rather than imitating the substance of his work by ripping off his versions of Dwarves and Elves and Orcs... sorry, I mean Dwerrow and Eldar and Uruks.

Not that AoS isn't still fairly derivative and formulaic anyway (if less so than the Old World), but while you can argue that the particular deviations from formula they've taken aren't very good, I strongly object to the idea that any deviation from formula is inherently bad, and especially that it's inherently bad simply because it makes things more different from Lord of the Rings, as though the quality of a fantasy setting is directly proportional to how closely it's surface trappings resemble those books.

Adam_Barrow
09-01-2016, 00:39
Elbereth save us! Shots have been fired. O Starkindler, Everwhite! Guide the coming comments.

malisteen
09-01-2016, 01:16
In retrospect that, admittedly, reads perhaps a bit more... aggressively than I had intended. I apologize.

ewar
09-01-2016, 11:59
No, I'm talking about tone, about scale. The whole "gods & demigods walking shoulder to shoulder mortals, battling for the fates of worlds that are less 'planets' and more 'dimensions/levels of reality', no removal between literal and mythological/symbolic levels," etc. All the things that have people complaining that the new fluff is insufficiently tolkien and too much superheroes/Asgard/etc. Because, again, Tolkein wrote many stories, arguably the ones closest to his heart, in that sort of vein. Infinitely better stories, yes, in the same sense that LotR was infinitely better than almost everything that came out of the Old World, but again, I'm talking about style here, not substance.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you can't help but notice that the more 'low fantasy' elements of Tolkiens work are significantly more popular. I haven't met many people who've read all the Silmarillion - I know I've failed on two occasions! The much more relateable struggle of two home loving hobbits faced with an impossible quest has slightly wider appeal. Perhaps if they had been flying through the cosmos on the wings of magic turnips LOTR would have been less of a cultural milestone.

malisteen
09-01-2016, 15:39
Perhaps. I'm not suggesting that the mythic stuff is 'better'. That's a purely subjective call and I can certainly understand if people simply don't like it, and could even agree with those who find it less relateable. I'm just arguing against the notion that such stories are somehow anti-Tolkeinian.

Voodoo1
09-01-2016, 23:49
My problem with the new names, is that for the last twenty years I have been calling GW'S Dwarfs, just that. Now they are called Duaradins.... if it was a new company I could see them using a different name for the world they create.

Same with lizard men now being called Seraphon. The name itself is not bad, but changing an already named army for the sake of it, doesn't sit well with me. Especially if nothing is new or different about them.

I know some people say that it's a new game and new setting so new names. But it is still tied to the old setting with some of the same characters and even the core of the world that was.

malisteen
10-01-2016, 05:29
They are still dwarves. You still call them dwarves. They just have an additional in-universe name. Just like you called WHFB dark elves "dark elves", even though they had "Druchii" as an in-universe name for themselves. Just like you call Space Marines "Space Marines" when you're talking about them with chums, but they get called "Astartes" when they're being formally addressed in in-universe fluff text.

ewar
10-01-2016, 16:21
That's not strictly true. In the Warhammer universe Dark Elves were Dark Elves, the book was called 'Warhammer: Dark Elves'. Druchii was the elvish word in their language for dark elves, you could have equally used the dwarfish word.

Dark Elves is no longer a term in AoS at all - yes, you can use it because that is what we all know them to be but it has absolutely no basis in that universe.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 19:25
The sillier names of WHFB is mainly from the older days when Warhammer took it self far less serious. While personally I didn't really mind as such, the more serious take on the WHFB world of the later years, but names like Bloodsecrator would have belonged far better back in the 80's than in the rather humour-bereft world of AoS.

This is pretty much where I am. The 80's Brittish Humour never really did anything for me, and I far preferred the general change to a more serious presentation of the setting in later editions (in Fantasy specifically 6th onwards) that was itself still somewhat ludicrous in concept and had a fair amount of small jokes and zaniness, but which wasn't a joke itself.

The AoS (and AoS-styled ET releases) seemed like they fit MUCH better with the older concept. Bloodsecrators leading the Blood Warriors or Goreworld ect., ect. and the naming scheme (which began making it's return in 8th leading into AoS) seem like the ARE a joke...but one that's not funny, because it's not trying to be, and that just never ends well.

Gonefishing
14-01-2016, 20:52
thought the idea for changing the names was to make it so GW could copyright/trademark them... if it's just older spelling, this in no way makes it either of those things, or to use the "Spots the Space Marine" incident as an example... just because you call them Space Mariners, doesn't make them any more 'yours'.

Aelf is definitely not Trademarkable (or even original), quite a few fantasy books over the years have use that term to describe Elf like beings, even Gene Wolf in 2004 was using the name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_Knight

Darth Alec
15-01-2016, 22:21
Maybe the point wasn't necessarily to be copy-rightable in itself, but rather new? I'm sure copyright plays into it, but "Aelf" and "Deadlord" don't strike me as easy copyrights to defend.