So after much time I was wondering why I hate AoS so much since I do not play very often.
Then I figured it out I do not care about anyone anymore, all the old guys Skarsnik,sigvald,greaseus and so on. I cared about them and their life and story. But now there is no one i care about...... the faceless name less tin men who keep being reborn, atleast til they become chaos sigmites. The ghost lizards, or the chaos nameless horde who do nothing but kill and if they are endless I guess screw alot..... so much for slaanesh for being missing.
Hell I can not even connect to a realm,world, demension or what ever they are. Also for everyone saying give it time... Well there are thousand of written stories that maybe after 10 years would be good, that well no one ever heard about. The only reason this one is being talk about is because it is GW.
At this point? Absolutely nothing. It is my biggest gripe with the reboot. Even more so than the lack of points (and I loved WHFB tourneys).
Perhaps I'd be ok with it if the first faction they redid was the new empire and we got people to care about, with personalities and mortal lives, fighting not to banish evil on a cosmic level but to simply defend their home and family.
Instead we don't know if those people even exist any more or if all humans are now living safely as refugees in Sigmaheim.
I find it especially funny that very shortly after GW removed the human element of fantasy and turned it into AoS we got this trailer for Total War that, imo, perfectly captures why the human element is important and makes for the best, most inspiring, narratives:
My personal experience with AoS has very much been about trying to add the human element back into the setting. I have even put together a mini-battletome for my Empire-now-Azyrheim army.
I can only hope GW adds in mortal men, Aelves and Duardin soon and populates the mortal realms with towns and cities for us to fight for and protect.
For me, there is a glimmer of story. I've always played Skaven in Fantasy, they were my first army.
For the longest time I wanted to recreate the sacking of middenheim, It's a long story with bits across many army books from 3rd and 4th edition. The gist is the largest chunk of Warpstone encased in an engine of destruction called the Ark that could level entire armies was taken from Thanquil in an Ambush by the Empire and brought back to middenheim. Knowing he would be killed for losing it, he made a deal with Heinrich Kemmler to attack the city, and in a rare move paid in advance. Kemmler then enlisted the aid of Lord Krell, whom he had raised from the dead in a pact with a chaos Demon.
In one of the largest sieges ever, A chaos army led by Krell attacked from the north, a massive undead army led by Henrich came in from the south, and the Skaven both came in from underground and with a massive army to the east. The Empire had no idea why they were attacking, and in the confusion Thanquil was able to get the Ark and escape.
Now theres nothing like that in AoS yet. However, the Skaven are now a force of chaos, and they will use their tenuous footing to both grow in power and make sure they aren't usurped by Slaanesh.
I'm thinking that there's a campaign where they used there machinations to aid in the capture of slaanesh by the elves, and another where they attempt to insure that the elves cannot free Slaanesh, and/or fight to claim the prize for themselves. What better way to keep Slaanesh from rising to power then by imprisoning the chaos god themselves?
This leads to a good story line to fight against both Slaanesh armies, and another against any forces of order with a focus on Elves and Sigmar. (I'm sure he doesn't want the Skaven stealing a Chaos god.) It also gives a reason to fight with Khorne, who I'm sure would be all to happy to assist in the destruction or continued capture of his rival.
This rough outline also gives plenty of reason for Sylvaneth to get involved (helping the elves,) Undead to forage into the fray (Nagash may want the power for himself, not to mention his eternal hatred of the Skaven,) and lastly most other armies could become involved simply by being in between the goals of the Skaven. (The lore seems to suggest that although the realms are infinite, the realm gates are not.) The Seraphon may prefer the devil they know, and become involved to thwart the Skaven as well.
pox wrote: For me, there is a glimmer of story. I've always played Skaven in Fantasy, they were my first army.
For the longest time I wanted to recreate the sacking of middenheim, It's a long story with bits across many army books from 3rd and 4th edition. The gist is the largest chunk of Warpstone encased in an engine of destruction called the Ark that could level entire armies was taken from Thanquil in an Ambush by the Empire and brought back to middenheim. Knowing he would be killed for losing it, he made a deal with Heinrich Kemmler to attack the city, and in a rare move paid in advance. Kemmler then enlisted the aid of Lord Krell, whom he had raised from the dead in a pact with a chaos Demon.
In one of the largest sieges ever, A chaos army led by Krell attacked from the north, a massive undead army led by Henrich came in from the south, and the Skaven both came in from underground and with a massive army to the east. The Empire had no idea why they were attacking, and in the confusion Thanquil was able to get the Ark and escape.
Now theres nothing like that in AoS yet. However, the Skaven are now a force of chaos, and they will use their tenuous footing to both grow in power and make sure they aren't usurped by Slaanesh.
I'm thinking that there's a campaign where they used there machinations to aid in the capture of slaanesh by the elves, and another where they attempt to insure that the elves cannot free Slaanesh, and/or fight to claim the prize for themselves. What better way to keep Slaanesh from rising to power then by imprisoning the chaos god themselves?
This leads to a good story line to fight against both Slaanesh armies, and another against any forces of order with a focus on Elves and Sigmar. (I'm sure he doesn't want the Skaven stealing a Chaos god.) It also gives a reason to fight with Khorne, who I'm sure would be all to happy to assist in the destruction or continued capture of his rival.
This rough outline also gives plenty of reason for Sylvaneth to get involved (helping the elves,) Undead to forage into the fray (Nagash may want the power for himself, not to mention his eternal hatred of the Skaven,) and lastly most other armies could become involved simply by being in between the goals of the Skaven. (The lore seems to suggest that although the realms are infinite, the realm gates are not.) The Seraphon may prefer the devil they know, and become involved to thwart the Skaven as well.
Why does Nagash hate them the skaven i mean? There is no real lore that I found yet ad to why there is a giant skeleton floating around town, and if it is a realm of all dead then there is no more new dead.... He won? Or is he just a giant who found a really tall hat and became a necromancer?
For me, the blank slate/start again aspect is part of the appeal - it is like getting into the Old World but at the ground floor, so to speak.
I am also enjoying the sweeping storyline of the initial assaults, and am playing through the campaigns in the hardbacks. The last battle we had (https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/battle-report-the-ritual/) was one of the best I have had in any miniatures game for a long, long time.
OgreChubbs wrote: Why does Nagash hate them the skaven i mean? There is no real lore that I found yet ad to why there is a giant skeleton floating around town, and if it is a realm of all dead then there is no more new dead.... He won? Or is he just a giant who found a really tall hat and became a necromancer?
Well, in the old lore Nagash could hold a grudge, killing his entire civilization out of spite to make a huge army. The Skaven were responsible for killed him, chopping off his hand, and making him take centuries to regenerate. When he came back out of his crypt still missing his hand, he saw that the Skaven had strip-mined his lands, ate all his Warpstone, dug tunnels underneath everything making it unstable, and turned his castle into a giant toilet. His people also had revolted, and the Vampire counts now ruled everything.
I guess that what I'm saying is there are a few reasons why Nagash may want to fight with the Skaven from time to time, enough to make some interesting stories. especially with political fights caused by allying with Undead that also don't like Nagash.
Aside from the lack of any real characters to care about (the most important part of any narrative) the world itself is vague and uninspiring. There's nothing to really fight over except some vague notion of "kill the bad guys."
How much of the fluff have you read? It's my impression that the novels feature a lot of characters, conflicts, and events that are then (briefly) summarized in the campaign books. I've only read the first book (and listened to a sample of the audio book, which I might pick up, because the narrator's voice is amazing), but I think it set up the consequences of the conflict. It's not about one person's problems, but it show what humanity has been reduced to, how they are little more than vermin fleeing from cannibalistic predators that are little more than animals themselves. You understand the desperation of the Stormcast's need to win, what they are fighting for and what they have to lose if they fail. Yes, true, one Stormcast soldier dying is not much of a threat, but their failure to achieve their goal of opening the portal is. There's even a weird rivalry between Khuul and Hammerhand, as Khuul wants to complete his gift to Khorne and become immortal, feeling alive for the first time in centuries, while Hammerhand vaguely remembers fighting Khuul when he was whisked away by Sigmar.
I mean, it's there. So far, it hasn't been amazing, but it's there. I'm going to start on the next book eventually (gonna read Horus Rising next, probably), and I hear they get better as they go. I'm honestly not very beholden to fluff. As far as I'm concerned, this army is fighting that army because they're armies. It's what they do. In fact, my even reading the associated fluff is a bit of an experiment for me. Though I didn't love the first book, in hindsight, it did sort of set up my understanding and expectations for the setting. I'll find myself saying, oh, this is because this happened, or that over there is related to this scene in the book, or this scenario is reenacting this scene, or whatever. Ultimately, I'm glad that I read the book - which is why I'm willing to read a second one.
The problem with Age of Sigmar fiction, isn't that there aren't heroes and villains -- they ARE there, with fluff that's being pumped out -- it's that nobody gets to the point where they care about them.
The beauty of 40k is that after reading two paragraphs on the setting, some people are hooked on the universe: 40,000 years in the future a crumbling Imperium of Man led by a dying Emperor chained to a golden throne, struggling against the temptations of chaos and the invading Xenos hordes. A once glorious Eldar civilization that controlled the stars, shattered and now in huge, planet-sized starships. Space knights based on warriors that we can relate to, that defend the realms, so to speak. I mean, what's not to like?
Then I get into the mostly-bad fiction that is 40k fluff. It's only worth reading because I want to find out what happens in this interesting setting.
To me, Age of Sigmar has cool models, and a cool world, but not one that I particularly want to spend my time exploring. Which, frankly, is like most other imagined worlds; I don't feel an attachment to them. It's a tough trick to pull off, and for me, AoS didn't do it, despite it being a fun game with cool models (which is the same thing WMH is to me... I also have no attachment to that fluff).
The Old World did nothing for me. It was just too hodgepodge and some engagements made little sense to me. But the new realms of Age of Sigmar give me a Thor: The Dark World kind of vibe which has sparked my imagination a lot. The games finally feel like the fun slightly OTT battles that we saw in the third Hobbit movie and in the Lord of the Rings movies. There is still some way to go before Games Workshop have fleshed it all out a bit and I think that is the problem for some. We've gone from a fully realised world setting to something barely explained. But it will get there in time,
Talys wrote: The problem with Age of Sigmar fiction, isn't that there aren't heroes and villains -- they ARE there, with fluff that's being pumped out -- it's that nobody gets to the point where they care about them.
The beauty of 40k is that after reading two paragraphs on the setting, some people are hooked on the universe: 40,000 years in the future a crumbling Imperium of Man led by a dying Emperor chained to a golden throne, struggling against the temptations of chaos and the invading Xenos hordes. A once glorious Eldar civilization that controlled the stars, shattered and now in huge, planet-sized starships. Space knights based on warriors that we can relate to, that defend the realms, so to speak. I mean, what's not to like?
Then I get into the mostly-bad fiction that is 40k fluff. It's only worth reading because I want to find out what happens in this interesting setting.
To me, Age of Sigmar has cool models, and a cool world, but not one that I particularly want to spend my time exploring. Which, frankly, is like most other imagined worlds; I don't feel an attachment to them. It's a tough trick to pull off, and for me, AoS didn't do it, despite it being a fun game with cool models (which is the same thing WMH is to me... I also have no attachment to that fluff).
I find the 40k setting to be incredibly boring. Love the models, but the lore (what little I know of it) just seems like a bunch of gung ho soldiers fighting an infinite number of battles on an infinite number of worlds with no consequence, progress, or change. I admit that my knowledge is limited, and I'm going to start reading the Horus Heresy books soon, but I'd say that 40k looks, at a glance, like a male power fantasy, gothic grimdark Starship Troopers rip off. I'd say it suffers from the same initial bad impression that AoS does. I'm assuming there's more to it - that there are heroes and villains, and that there are consequences more than losing one of a million generic planets to one of the dozens of faceless enemy armies.
I guess I'm just saying, different strokes for different folks. I barely know anything about the Warmachine fluff and couldn't care less, but I like the models and that's enough for me. I'm increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the game itself, but that's neither here nor there.
Talys wrote: The problem with Age of Sigmar fiction, isn't that there aren't heroes and villains -- they ARE there, with fluff that's being pumped out -- it's that nobody gets to the point where they care about them.
The beauty of 40k is that after reading two paragraphs on the setting, some people are hooked on the universe: 40,000 years in the future a crumbling Imperium of Man led by a dying Emperor chained to a golden throne, struggling against the temptations of chaos and the invading Xenos hordes. A once glorious Eldar civilization that controlled the stars, shattered and now in huge, planet-sized starships. Space knights based on warriors that we can relate to, that defend the realms, so to speak. I mean, what's not to like?
Then I get into the mostly-bad fiction that is 40k fluff. It's only worth reading because I want to find out what happens in this interesting setting.
To me, Age of Sigmar has cool models, and a cool world, but not one that I particularly want to spend my time exploring. Which, frankly, is like most other imagined worlds; I don't feel an attachment to them. It's a tough trick to pull off, and for me, AoS didn't do it, despite it being a fun game with cool models (which is the same thing WMH is to me... I also have no attachment to that fluff).
I find the 40k setting to be incredibly boring. Love the models, but the lore (what little I know of it) just seems like a bunch of gung ho soldiers fighting an infinite number of battles on an infinite number of worlds with no consequence, progress, or change. I admit that my knowledge is limited, and I'm going to start reading the Horus Heresy books soon, but I'd say that 40k looks, at a glance, like a male power fantasy, gothic grimdark Starship Troopers rip off. I'd say it suffers from the same initial bad impression that AoS does. I'm assuming there's more to it - that there are heroes and villains, and that there are consequences more than losing one of a million generic planets to one of the dozens of faceless enemy armies.
I guess I'm just saying, different strokes for different folks. I barely know anything about the Warmachine fluff and couldn't care less, but I like the models and that's enough for me. I'm increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the game itself, but that's neither here nor there.
For me, It's having the human element to relate too. I've ran an Armageddon based Ork army for years, but without the BL books on Armageddon and the old codex on Armageddon, it just wouldn't be the same. The BL resource book was written from a priests point of view who went on a pilgrimage after the bulk of fighting during the end of the third war. It's the relatable human element that helps to flesh out how truly monstrous the Ork horde is, and how awful the betrayal of Otto Von Saab was.
I have several Ork warbands with different themes all under the banner of the crooked arrow clan, all based off of different stories and pictures from around Armageddon. My Imp Guard force is based off of uderhive Hades PDF forces once loyal to Von Straab. They are now renegades used by an inquisitor because they can never be forgiven for serving under Von Straab and Orks from the Bloodaxe clan.
All of my armies are thematically linked, but the core is the human element, either defending the helpless or surviving under insurmountable odds. I think that AoS just needs to introduce a human or mortal army, and how they relate to the god-like creatures they are surrounding. I think the potential is there, and I understand that Armageddon lore goes all the way back to the original board game published in 1992, so obviously finding a patch of land I can relate too as fleshed out as that in AoS will take some time.
I would say that if nothing in 40K has grabbed you I'd just move onto another game. It's a silly hair metal power fantasy all the way down, most of the artwork would work fine painted on the side of a conversion van. I find the BL source books are infinitely better then any novels they have put out, but I don't know if any of those are still available.
BlackLobster wrote: The Old World did nothing for me. It was just too hodgepodge and some engagements made little sense to me. But the new realms of Age of Sigmar give me a Thor: The Dark World kind of vibe which has sparked my imagination a lot. The games finally feel like the fun slightly OTT battles that we saw in the third Hobbit movie and in the Lord of the Rings movies. There is still some way to go before Games Workshop have fleshed it all out a bit and I think that is the problem for some. We've gone from a fully realised world setting to something barely explained. But it will get there in time,
Part of me really misses the darker, grittier old world, and part of me really likes this new ultra high fantasy multiverse. I haven't read much AoS fluff yet (where's a good place to start?) but I'm finally reading the end times books and part of me really misses that vibe. I am looking forward to seeing where AoS progresses to. AoS has a similar feel to 40k for me now, a much bigger universe, meaning much more possibilities for fluff, army themes/ideas, battles etc. Fantasy did feel slightly more restrictive just because it was set on one world, armies were basically what they were, obviously there were different themes to explore but nothing majorly 'out there' without breaking out of the actual fluff, but now it feels much more open, which I like. But I feel it's lost a lot of the darkness which I enjoyed.
So far, focus has been on Storm cast Eternal. Few of them have the characterizations comparable to the Old World Heroes. Though right now, I'm definitely being piqued by the little group in Prisoner of the Black Sun and Sands of Blood.
As a Chaos player though, while I do miss the old Champions, only a few stood out for me in the Old World. Van Horstmann, Valkia, Archaon.
I do enjoy Zuvias right now in Eye of the Storm though. He's a very interesting Tzeentch Champion.
No doubt there will be more characterizations when the others get updated.
Sqorgar wrote: I find the 40k setting to be incredibly boring. Love the models, but the lore (what little I know of it) just seems like a bunch of gung ho soldiers fighting an infinite number of battles on an infinite number of worlds with no consequence, progress, or change. I admit that my knowledge is limited, and I'm going to start reading the Horus Heresy books soon, but I'd say that 40k looks, at a glance, like a male power fantasy, gothic grimdark Starship Troopers rip off. I'd say it suffers from the same initial bad impression that AoS does. I'm assuming there's more to it - that there are heroes and villains, and that there are consequences more than losing one of a million generic planets to one of the dozens of faceless enemy armies.
That seems to be a direction that GW are moving the fluff in these days. They want to be wargame fluff, so everything is just about army X beating up army Y. BL books are becoming more and more about simply a space marine captain you've never heard of fighting a fight and winning. The end.
If you care to dive into the fluff more the older BL books are great, Eisenhorn especially as it shows so much more of the day to day civilian life in the Imperium. The Night Lords omnibus is another one that really humanizes everyone.
Also, 40k has so much more Dune elements than Starship Troopers
I have gotten into AoS a bit after a few games. But one thing I cannot get into is its fluff. Its liked its aimed at children (no offense to those that like it and are not children, but its how i see it.) and over uses catch words like realm , blood and gate. Waiting for the new novel to come out to pass my final judgement. I bet itll be called BloodRealm Gatewars.
I always hear people say give it time but thats a problem. How many start up minature games ect had a cool or half arse concept that maybe after a couple years would be good?
They admit they are a minature company and if they do not sell minatures they will fall. I cant justify buying a 60$ 28 mm plastic toy that I care as much about as a ninja tutrle i can buy for 50 cents on ebay. Yes the 50$ one is nice but I still dont care about it.
Gw are not a company that can afford to throw some OK lore out there and wait years for it to catch on. The production, shipping and with not much return it will hurt on a scale that large. They kind suffer due to their size they cant afford to roll the dice for that long. It isnt like buying a book where you buy it think iit is ok, the go well it was ok i guess I will get the next one. The need you to read and go wow that is pretty cool I want that character and his,her warband and be willing to spend hundred if not thousands of dollars for it.
I think games workshop suffers from thinking their fans will follow them no matter what road they take. Kinda like pokemon they keep the same conecpt and keep changing it with new people and such. But they forget the big money needed from their fans. And not everyone will follow them just because ot has their logo on it.
Table wrote:I have gotten into AoS a bit after a few games. But one thing I cannot get into is its fluff. Its liked its aimed at children (no offense to those that like it and are not children, but its how i see it.) and over uses catch words like realm , blood and gate. Waiting for the new novel to come out to pass my final judgement. I bet itll be called BloodRealm Gatewars.
Saying it is for children is just factually not true. I know you are trying to be dismissive, but I don't think books which feature cannibals chasing down the last vestiges of humanity to feast on (or to use their skulls in a giant trophy skull pyramid to their dark gods) is quite in the same category as Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
If anything, I see it more like the old heavy metal album covers from when I was a teenager. Hell, do a google search for "heavy metal album covers" and I'll bet you find Archaon. But it's always been this way (the old White Dwarf covers were very metal).
OgreChubbs wrote:I always hear people say give it time but thats a problem. How many start up minature games ect had a cool or half arse concept that maybe after a couple years would be good?
All of them? Especially if you don't consider games where the fluff came first (like Warmachine or Dust Warfare, or licensed games).
I cant justify buying a 60$ 28 mm plastic toy that I care as much about as a ninja tutrle i can buy for 50 cents on ebay. Yes the 50$ one is nice but I still dont care about it.
As an adult, I can justify it easily. A toy is something that I would buy and sit on a shelf. I've long lost the ability to play with toys as toys. But I buy a miniature and I get to spend literally hours with it as I assemble and paint it, and then actively use the model for years in the games I play. Half the reason miniatures are so expensive is that they are like LEGOs. You can keep them around damn near forever, and you can always bestow them on your children, give them to friends, or sell them on eBay. In other words, Warhammer's biggest competition today is Warhammer from years ago.
Gw are not a company that can afford to throw some OK lore out there and wait years for it to catch on.
If anyone can afford to do it, GW can. I don't think the fluff is a major part of the hobby for many gamers, so I'm not even convinced poor fluff is all that destructive. Not when you can see the character and conflict in the models themselves (something GW does better than almost any other miniature company - compare a tabletop picture from 40k to something like Gates of Antares)
I think games workshop suffers from thinking their fans will follow them no matter what road they take. Kinda like pokemon they keep the same conecpt and keep changing it with new people and such. But they forget the big money needed from their fans. And not everyone will follow them just because ot has their logo on it.
Pokemon's probably not the hill you want to die on here, as their remakes still sell 10 million copies.
The problem there is that if the Lore isn't important, and the rule balance isn't important, and the model quality/diversity is not important...than what is? Fun is subjective, and these threads show that there are a lot of people who hate it rather then love it. I personally want to like the game, since it encourages you to start small and use whatever models you like rather then just use the best of the army. But its all just so bland and boring, where you have no idea what your army is doing or if the characters are alive anymore or if your models will fit the new aesthetic. Why would I want to start a new high elf army, if in two years it ends up being that they are reimagined as steampunk wizards riding wombats? Extreme obviously, but not impossible given how crazy stupid GW has been getting with this heavy metal universe
I don't think the fluff is a major part of the hobby for many gamers, so I'm not even convinced poor fluff is all that destructive.
You'd be wrong then.
The lore is the one thing frequently mentioned as the reason so many people stay with games like 40k. Without it, battles are just abstract geometry and nameless and pointless dice rolling.
Lore is THE most important thing after models, for me, and I think most others.
AoS has lots of potential but nothing substantial right now making it quite frustrating.
I understand why they went for the vast infinite mortal realms and the similarities it has with space, and I am quite excited by the possibilities it opens up, but as of yet there is nothing in those mortal realms I would want to defend from bad guys.
It's like 40k if the imperium was limited to earth and all the planets were nothing but primordial and barren landscapes.
Age of Sigmar needs some places, not to limit our imagination but to structure it. Just like we know about the different types of planets in the imperium we need some example towns/cities/empires to work with.
People say that the BL fiction has much more world building contained but unfortunately I can't stand BL fiction and won't be reading any more of it any time soon. I need source books that aren't focused on Stormcast Eternals.
I know they're coming... I am just getting impatient waiting.
I don't think the fluff is a major part of the hobby for many gamers, so I'm not even convinced poor fluff is all that destructive.
You'd be wrong then.
The lore is the one thing frequently mentioned as the reason so many people stay with games like 40k. Without it, battles are just abstract geometry and nameless and pointless dice rolling.
Agreed. The fluff is what draws people in, it is what inspires you to create new armies, it is what motivates you to paint cool, thematic armies.
The strongest two motivations imo to get someone to start a new army are rules and fluff. If you are a tourney player the meta will shift, new things will be released, and sometimes you will want to try a different playstyle, change your tactics to stay ahead of the curve. AoS is clearly not that kind of game, it will never be a big tourney game like warmachine, I don't think anyone here would dispute that.
Fluff, on the other hand is the major motivating factor for narrative games and 'casual' players. These people start new armies because they sat down, read a novel and got inspired.
I'd say an absolute minority start a game and build whole armies (as in buy a lot of models) just because they like the models. No, these people buy a box, paint it, and put it on the shelf without a reason to expand it to an entire army. (And honestly if GW are focusing on the purely painters they are screwed, they can't compete with actual model companies the do 54 and 75mm models in resins, and metals, or plastic tank kits twice the size of a land raider at half the price and three times the detail.)
Table wrote:I have gotten into AoS a bit after a few games. But one thing I cannot get into is its fluff. Its liked its aimed at children (no offense to those that like it and are not children, but its how i see it.) and over uses catch words like realm , blood and gate. Waiting for the new novel to come out to pass my final judgement. I bet itll be called BloodRealm Gatewars.
Saying it is for children is just factually not true. I know you are trying to be dismissive, but I don't think books which feature cannibals chasing down the last vestiges of humanity to feast on (or to use their skulls in a giant trophy skull pyramid to their dark gods) is quite in the same category as Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
If anything, I see it more like the old heavy metal album covers from when I was a teenager. Hell, do a google search for "heavy metal album covers" and I'll bet you find Archaon. But it's always been this way (the old White Dwarf covers were very metal).
OgreChubbs wrote:I always hear people say give it time but thats a problem. How many start up minature games ect had a cool or half arse concept that maybe after a couple years would be good?
All of them? Especially if you don't consider games where the fluff came first (like Warmachine or Dust Warfare, or licensed games).
I cant justify buying a 60$ 28 mm plastic toy that I care as much about as a ninja tutrle i can buy for 50 cents on ebay. Yes the 50$ one is nice but I still dont care about it.
As an adult, I can justify it easily. A toy is something that I would buy and sit on a shelf. I've long lost the ability to play with toys as toys. But I buy a miniature and I get to spend literally hours with it as I assemble and paint it, and then actively use the model for years in the games I play. Half the reason miniatures are so expensive is that they are like LEGOs. You can keep them around damn near forever, and you can always bestow them on your children, give them to friends, or sell them on eBay. In other words, Warhammer's biggest competition today is Warhammer from years ago.
Gw are not a company that can afford to throw some OK lore out there and wait years for it to catch on.
If anyone can afford to do it, GW can. I don't think the fluff is a major part of the hobby for many gamers, so I'm not even convinced poor fluff is all that destructive. Not when you can see the character and conflict in the models themselves (something GW does better than almost any other miniature company - compare a tabletop picture from 40k to something like Gates of Antares)
I think games workshop suffers from thinking their fans will follow them no matter what road they take. Kinda like pokemon they keep the same conecpt and keep changing it with new people and such. But they forget the big money needed from their fans. And not everyone will follow them just because ot has their logo on it.
Pokemon's probably not the hill you want to die on here, as their remakes still sell 10 million copies.
Ya, seriously. It isnt dark or gritty? The first part of the new novel was going into detail about eating human flesh, lol. Real child friendly. Or using goldmanes head as a weapon and getting his blood in hammerhands mouth. Rated g allright. And about time some good guys stomping these chaos clowns.
I'll just echo that fluff is a huge part of why people pick up and/or stay in the hobby. This forum is filled with people saying the fluff of 40k is what keeps them going.
The fluff of AOS is probably their biggest failure. It's undeveloped and immature. (Not childish, just not dealing in any meaningful themes or ideals and using extremes only instead of subtelty.) None of it feels like a real world with characters that actually matter.
It's just too over the top, with everything being centred around war. I think the actual setting has a lot of potential, there's just not been any (or much) world building from what I've heard, just constant fighting. That's the impression I've got so far.
ImAGeek wrote: ... with everything being centred around war...
You ever played a wargame or read their fluff before?
I think he means 'Literally' everything is centered around war.
Some war games the politics or characters are very important. AOS doesn't have important characters, politics, philosophies or much of anything except "AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHDUSUSUU!DIWEHDIFGHSIDO!!!!!!!!! BLOODGATEREAMLS!!!!!! AAAARRRRR!!!!!"
ImAGeek wrote: ... with everything being centred around war...
You ever played a wargame or read their fluff before?
Yes. Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes, hell even Fantasy and 40k go into (in great depth in some of them) the world, the cultures, the people's, the politics etc.
Bottle wrote: Lore is THE most important thing after models, for me, and I think most others.
AoS has lots of potential but nothing substantial right now making it quite frustrating.
I understand why they went for the vast infinite mortal realms and the similarities it has with space, and I am quite excited by the possibilities it opens up, but as of yet there is nothing in those mortal realms I would want to defend from bad guys.
It's like 40k if the imperium was limited to earth and all the planets were nothing but primordial and barren landscapes.
Age of Sigmar needs some places, not to limit our imagination but to structure it. Just like we know about the different types of planets in the imperium we need some example towns/cities/empires to work with.
People say that the BL fiction has much more world building contained but unfortunately I can't stand BL fiction and won't be reading any more of it any time soon. I need source books that aren't focused on Stormcast Eternals.
I know they're coming... I am just getting impatient waiting.
Want some pills for the incoming and inevitable disappointment?
I guess i need to rephrase my post. It seems AoS is aimed at TEENs and latch key children. Being both at one time in my life I am confident in that statement. The problem is my tastes have matured past Iron Maiden, DnD and such. Not that there is anything wrong with those things its just that they are more or less male teen friendly. Regardless, my views on this mean little and are not meant to insult so ill digress to something factual.
Sigmarites are meant to mirror space marines and their inclusion to the setting was sales based.
The next book will have the following words in its title.
Blood, Realm, Gate and War/s. Kinda like how GW has been shoving Hobbyist (spelling) and The Narrative down our throats with a sprinkling of Forge for flavor.
Table wrote: I guess i need to rephrase my post. It seems AoS is aimed at TEENs and latch key children. Being both at one time in my life I am confident in that statement. The problem is my tastes have matured past Iron Maiden, DnD and such. Not that there is anything wrong with those things its just that they are more or less male teen friendly. Regardless, my views on this mean little and are not meant to insult so ill digress to something factual.
I don't know. I have a lot of nostalgia for that kind of fantasy style. I feel like scifi/fantasy had a one-two punch of Tolkien and Herbert in the 50s and 60s, and it hasn't really grown out of that phase. The 80s grimdark phase didn't really move past it, but it had its own style (which also extends to stuff like Mad Max) that sort of brought back the swords and sorcery era of Howard and Burroughs with this really unique oppressive feel. I love it, man. Tolkien can suck it.
Thing is, I'm not sure how much that sort of style would resonate with children today who don't have nostalgia for it. I'm sure that they look at a Boris Vajello painting and think, this is just another example of the patriarchal oppression of women by using the male gaze to turn women into objects. And where are the minorities? Aren't ogres just another example of an oppressed minority that have been systematically marginalized to the point where they become racist caricatures? That's why I like retrofuturism, like Steampunk, where I can take the stylistic aspects I enjoy without being constrained by the sexism and racism of that era. #TrollLivesMatter #LovecraftWasARacist
I'm a Gen Xer, man. Nihilism is my life blood.
Sigmarites are meant to mirror space marines and their inclusion to the setting was sales based.
Eh... maybe... I think they stand alone pretty well. Love the vaguely art deco Grecian style.
The next book will have the following words in its title.
Blood, Realm, Gate and War/s. Kinda like how GW has been shoving Hobbyist (spelling) and The Narrative down our throats with a sprinkling of Forge for flavor.
That's a safe assumption given that the previous book was "The Realmgate Wars, Part 1". So, good job on that prophecy, Cassandra. They're just words, man. Who cares?
The next book will have the following words in its title.
Blood, Realm, Gate and War/s. Kinda like how GW has been shoving Hobbyist (spelling) and The Narrative down our throats with a sprinkling of Forge for flavor.
That's a safe assumption given that the previous book was "The Realmgate Wars, Part 1". So, good job on that prophecy, Cassandra. They're just words, man. Who cares?
People who like to see more than the same four words over and over, mostly. Oh! Don't forget Storm!
I honestly don't get a Conan vibe from the Age of Sigmar stuff I've seen. It feels more like an 80s toy-based cartoon with cannibalism, and perhaps that's intentional. You don't need to know how He-Man gets his food or what life is like for the average Eternian peasant, you just need to know that he kicks Skeletor's ass every week. Maybe that's what GW was going for.
The Stormcast visuals might be excusable on their own...maaaaaaaaybe...if the 40k crowd hadn't been telling Fantasy players that their game would draw so much more interest with space marine equivalents for years...but when you get into their background? Nah. They're very clearly fantasy space marines.
Exactly this. A good way to figure out if a setting is fleshed out enough is ask yourself: can you make a RPG game for a group set in this setting without a massive amount of rewriting or making stuff up for the areas or people without it being a game of out murder the murserhobos. In 40k there are several tabletop games with fluff explanations on what you can do. There are hive worlds to meet characters, feral worlds to explore, space hulk's to traverse, and plenty of named characters to add to a game who aren't insane monsters or souless robots. In fantasy there are whole sections of the world that had sections of peace, with many characters with established personalities. For AoS? We have some abstract maps of a few realms, and one or two characters that are beyond a name and one action for the whole new world. That's...bare bones, barely even the bones. More like a skull and a femur, with a lump of meat being the little BL books we have.
I don't think the fluff is a major part of the hobby for many gamers, so I'm not even convinced poor fluff is all that destructive.
You'd be wrong then.
The lore is the one thing frequently mentioned as the reason so many people stay with games like 40k. Without it, battles are just abstract geometry and nameless and pointless dice rolling.
Fluff is important to me for everything but straight up fantasy. For fantasy stuff, I can substitute Tolkien or half a dozen other fantasy worlds to decide what exactly my Dwarf army is all about. It'll be interesting to see what kind of changes are made to the AoS versions of Dwarfs, elves, etc and how that affects my feeling toward the game.
But outside of that fluff is definitely important. Not liking the the 40k fluff is what has kept me out of that game, despite its larger user base that would make games much easier to schedule. The fluff is what keeps me with Warmachine.
People who like to see more than the same four words over and over, mostly. Oh! Don't forget Storm!
Since you brought up the 80s toy vibe, look at the names of the He-Man figures. Skeletor. Stinkor. Mosquitor. Rattlor. Stridor. Pathor. Rokkar. Tung Lashor. Tuskor. Dragstar. Extendor. It's literally what they do/are + or. It's corny, but it's part of the style.
I honestly don't get a Conan vibe from the Age of Sigmar stuff I've seen. It feels more like an 80s toy-based cartoon with cannibalism, and perhaps that's intentional. You don't need to know how He-Man gets his food or what life is like for the average Eternian peasant, you just need to know that he kicks Skeletor's ass every week. Maybe that's what GW was going for.
Not Conan, but the aesthetic based on Frazetta and Vajello. Fire and Ice. Death Dealer. But seeing as how He-Man was a Conan rip off using a kiddified version of that style:
That's basically the AoS starter set.
I think AoS exists somewhere between He-Man and Deathdealer, in that it takes the grimdark aesthetic of Frazetta's Death Dealer, but has sort of the marketable toy aspect of He-Man. So I guess describing AoS as He-Man for a new generation isn't an absurd comparison. And as someone who loved He-Man to death, I am not put off by this at all.
The Stormcast visuals might be excusable on their own...maaaaaaaaybe...if the 40k crowd hadn't been telling Fantasy players that their game would draw so much more interest with space marine equivalents for years...but when you get into their background? Nah. They're very clearly fantasy space marines.
I was referring to the "their inclusion to the setting was sales based". I think it is equally likely that it was an aesthetic choice. I think GW just likes their heavily armored dudes.
autumnlotus wrote: Exactly this. A good way to figure out if a setting is fleshed out enough is ask yourself: can you make a RPG game for a group set in this setting without a massive amount of rewriting or making stuff up for the areas or people without it being a game of out murder the murserhobos. In 40k there are several tabletop games with fluff explanations on what you can do. There are hive worlds to meet characters, feral worlds to explore, space hulk's to traverse, and plenty of named characters to add to a game who aren't insane monsters or souless robots. In fantasy there are whole sections of the world that had sections of peace, with many characters with established personalities. For AoS? We have some abstract maps of a few realms, and one or two characters that are beyond a name and one action for the whole new world. That's...bare bones, barely even the bones. More like a skull and a femur, with a lump of meat being the little BL books we have.
I find as a great rule of thumb a setting is good for RPGs if, without creating anything yourself and using only established fluff, you can come up with a full session of material that doesn't involve a single fight.
Most groups will want a fight every session, but they don't NEED to be there, and if you can't build a session without it you're not running a good setting.
40k has this, hell Dark Heresy works best imo if combat is reserved for only very important scenes since it is so lethal. WHFB had this, it was a well thought out setting. D&D isn't great for this imo, but you can run more political sessions, or investigation, or exploration. IK is the same (though better setting imo). WoD is amazing for this too. Even the Infinity setting had a massively successful KS for their RPG book because while we don't have it yet people can see that same potential for corporate espionage and the like.
Bottle wrote: Lore is THE most important thing after models, for me, and I think most others.
AoS has lots of potential but nothing substantial right now making it quite frustrating.
I understand why they went for the vast infinite mortal realms and the similarities it has with space, and I am quite excited by the possibilities it opens up, but as of yet there is nothing in those mortal realms I would want to defend from bad guys.
It's like 40k if the imperium was limited to earth and all the planets were nothing but primordial and barren landscapes.
Age of Sigmar needs some places, not to limit our imagination but to structure it. Just like we know about the different types of planets in the imperium we need some example towns/cities/empires to work with.
People say that the BL fiction has much more world building contained but unfortunately I can't stand BL fiction and won't be reading any more of it any time soon. I need source books that aren't focused on Stormcast Eternals.
I know they're coming... I am just getting impatient waiting.
Want some pills for the incoming and inevitable disappointment?
Give me your strongest!
Actually the snippets of fluff on the Fyah Sleighyahz has been pretty cool. Gold hungry pirates basically! I'm looking forward to them. And I'm gonna wash it down with the sweet cannonade of the Duardin.
AoS has been out for less than 6 months. Most of the comparisons in fluff have been made about games that have been about for 7-8+ years... enough said really
Nerm86 wrote: AoS has been out for less than 6 months. Most of the comparisons in fluff have been made about games that have been about for 7-8+ years... enough said really
And yet I can't think of any one of those games that had such an empty world as AoS on release. Even the likes of say Dystopian Wars, there was very little fluff for that but the framework was much more solid, even if it was significantly smaller.
Lets just take a minute to stop and consider how many factions we even know survived from the Old World.
Beastmen survived, but we haven't really seen anything from them have we?
Bretonnia seemed to be gone even before the world blew up and we have not seen a hint of them since.
Daemons of chaos are of course there, except for the part with Slaanesh and no one can say for sure (s)he is returning right?
Dark Elves, my pet gripe with the setting. They seem to be folded into aelfs from what I can tell but there hasn't been any mention of them other than Maelkith (and are sold as 'order' now!)
Dwarfs we know are in the setting. I don't believe we know where they life (meaning cities, not which realm). We know the slayers now are on fire and fight for something called ur-gold. Do we know what that is or if they are now just mercenaries instead of proud warriors?
High Elves do seem to be the primary surviving elf faction, but have we seen anything of them at all?
Lizardmen got a damn army book and it didn't seem to answer everyone's questions, and I'm not sure the answers it did give were very well received.
Ogre Kingdoms obviously don't exist as kingdoms anymore, but I guess they still are around? I honestly think in all this no one has mentioned them so I have completely forgotten them.
Orcs and Goblins or course remain, but seem to be, like beastmen, a vague 'yeah they overrun the realm of beasts' rather than have any actual fleshing out so we are just assuming they are the same.
Skaven are good, here we seem to actually have a reasonable amount of fluff. We know they have been brought into chaos properly now, nothing wrong with that at all. We know they have their little realm thing that tunnels into various realities, so that's something.
The Empire, now we are back to not knowing if a faction survived at all. Do we know if there is a human empire out there, or is everyone just camped out in Sigmar's yard, hiding behind his walls with no reason to venture out? I'm guessing when it comes around the empire will get a name change and no longer be an empire but just considered 'humans' or some such.
Tomb Kings hey we know what's up with these guys, Nagash rules the realm of death with all his old skeleton buddies.
Vampire Counts I think are a little less sure, it seems like they lost a ton of what made them different from the genera 'undead' and are folded into Nagash's forces and loose a bit of their free will and independence. Also a thought just occurred, how the hell do they feed in a realm entirely populated by undead? This is another one I played so am a little bitter about, but if an Empire does turn out to exist then the Vampires should be there, not the realm of death. Hell even sneaking into Sigmarheim to live and feed there would make more sense to me.
Warriors of Chaos are lucky in that they are one of three whole factions to get the spotlight so far, but that has really only been Khorn and a little of Nurgle. Do we know what Tzeechy boy is up to?
Wood Elves are one I am genuinely unsure on, we saw the realm of life but it appeared to be primarily Sylvaneth, which to my understanding is just the trees, no elves other than the queen right?
Please feel free to correct me, I am sure I have missed some stuff, but that to me is not a case of comparing something new to something established, AoS is just plain lacking on details right now.
And yet I can't think of any one of those games that had such an empty world as AoS on release.
AoS beats WFB by miles in terms of fluff on release. On release there was naff all fluff for Warhammer. Talk about an empty world for the game that went on to become the biggest fantasy wargame. There were 3 books in 1st edition box, rules for the battle, magic and another I can't remember but I'm sure it wasn't background.
[edit] just googled it as it was bugging me, the 3rd book was characters, a sort of rpg style of rules for heros.
Nerm86 wrote: AoS has been out for less than 6 months. Most of the comparisons in fluff have been made about games that have been about for 7-8+ years... enough said really
There's enough of the M.O behind AoS's fluff installation and management already peeking to cause some serious concern. When even an AoS enthusiast like Bottle can get concerned... things are not looking good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: High Elves do seem to be the primary surviving elf faction, but have we seen anything of them at all?
If by primary faction you mean "They have three named survivors". Sure xD
Because apart from that all that we know can be condensed to "Yeah, they're around too."
Beastmen: These have cropped up in the Realm of Life and were a component of the Rotbringers - they had got hold of a big magical dirge of a horn which was really hassling the Stormcasts, and they were one of the forces present on the assault on Alarielle's secret glade (not a euphemism). They have popped up elsewhere but, as things stand, fulfil the 'minions of Chaos' role.
Bretonnia/Empire: Yeah, I think these are gone, to be replaced by... we'll have to see. That said, I would not be surprised to see Sigmar-centric models sticking around. However, no real info as yet.
Daemons of Chaos: Very much around, named Greater Daemons are in, along with some old favourites (such as Valkia the Bloody). Information on them varies from a short mention to a fair bit of background on what they are up to now. Smaller daemons are very much a thing in all Realms. As for Slaanesh - the daemons are present (and have popped up in a Battleplan already, looking for the god), but Slaanesh itself is currently AWOL. A pure guess, but I think this is a) not an oversight, b) very much plot-related and c) will reappear around the same time as the elves.
Elves (all flavours): Yeah, these guys are getting a big redesign, I would say, possibly tied into Slaanesh. I think the old elves will go entirely, but we'll have to see. Same with the Dwarfs.
Lizardmen: Still on the fence on these guys after the book, but I have got at least one leg over. Slowly warming up to them, let's see how the impact the setting/storyline now they have been introduced. As for not telling everything... that was fairly inevitable. Ity is always how GW does things.
Ogres/Orcs: Not really featuring in the storyline at the moment, so their presence is certainly muted. They have both popped up here and there in the fiction and a Battleplan (Ogors), but this is a wait and see. Though I think an Orc will always be an Orc, even if he is an Orruk.
Skaven: Split into two now (sort of), with Pestilens being very much their own thing. Fair bit of material on them. The 'regular' Skaven have popped up, albeit briefly, though there are references to them having strongholds in lots of places. Don't foresee a big change to their actual armies, and I think they will be getting a big part in the plot lines.
Undead: I think we are about to see big things here Mannfred has returned and the Stormcasts are currently tracking down Nagash (the nutters). There is also a big plot device with regards Stormcast reforging and Nagash's claim on their souls, so development is in progress. I am guessing we will see something every soon for these guys - it is already coming out in the BL fiction and Battleplans.
Warriors of Chaos: Khorne and Nurgle you know about but yes, Tzeentch gets a big look-in, as much as Nurgle does in terms of background. He has the Realm of Metal under his wing and his followers have some blinkign great fortresses. It was these guys who nicked Sigmar's Hammer. Oh, and Archaon is about to be released - he is going to be a Thing in terms of background, I would be sure...
The story line is moving forward. It is going to cover the rest soon enough.
The Aelf Nobleborn (High Elves) are mostly concentrated in Azyrheim as are the Duardin (non-slayer dwarfs). I actually think Slaneesh's absence is bringing Slaneesh MORE into the story as the demons look high and low for her. I like the idea that something will happen with the Aelf Exiles there too.
C'mon GW. Give us more of the good stuff! Humans, Elves and Dwarfs!!
The fact that you don't see this as a problem is one of the major points where we disagree
I could probably get behind a Conan or even tongue-in-cheek He-Man style game, but Age of Sigmar has way too many other problems weighing it down (replacing Warhammer Fantasy being chief among them). Honestly, if someone were to do a completely over the top and corny Conan pastiche wargame, I'd probably love it. The problem is that Age of Sigmar takes itself seriously while it talks about the Bloodsecrators and the Bloodbound and the blood geysers in the Igneus Delta of the Realm of Fire (presumably next to Obsidia Isle and the Vulcanus Mountains, but we don't really know because maps aren't important) as they fight the Stormcast Eternals who are formed up in Stormhosts and wield boltstormers (except for the ones with warhammers), who are clad in purest sigmarite and descend from Sigmaron to bring the word of Sigmar to sigmar Sigmar SIGMAR -
Ahem. Sorry. Something stuck in my throat.
AoS beats WFB by miles in terms of fluff on release. On release there was naff all fluff for Warhammer. Talk about an empty world for the game that went on to become the biggest fantasy wargame. There were 3 books in 1st edition box, rules for the battle, magic and another I can't remember but I'm sure it wasn't background.
[edit] just googled it as it was bugging me, the 3rd book was characters, a sort of rpg style of rules for heros.
I could be wrong, but wasn't it intended to be more generic than anything else? I've got the idea in my head, but I don't know for sure.
Regardless, first edition WFB didn't have the monetary resources modern-day GW has, and also wasn't attempting to replace a wargame with 30 years of background to its name. I'm absolutely going to hold Age of Sigmar to a different standard.
Spinner wrote: The problem is that Age of Sigmar takes itself seriously
I think GW as a whole has a problem right now where they don't remember if they were serious or not when they released a lot of the old fluff.
So much of it, moreso for 40k than fantasy I think, it was super gritty, over the top, and really dark. But there was always an aspect of satire to it, it was TOO over the top and treating it super seriously was the joke.
These days it seems to have the over the top, but with none of the satire to it and when you take it at face value it is just dumb.
The fact that you don't see this as a problem is one of the major points where we disagree
At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.
I could probably get behind a Conan or even tongue-in-cheek He-Man style game, but Age of Sigmar has way too many other problems weighing it down (replacing Warhammer Fantasy being chief among them). Honestly, if someone were to do a completely over the top and corny Conan pastiche wargame, I'd probably love it. The problem is that Age of Sigmar takes itself seriously while it talks about the Bloodsecrators and the Bloodbound and the blood geysers in the Igneus Delta of the Realm of Fire (presumably next to Obsidia Isle and the Vulcanus Mountains, but we don't really know because maps aren't important) as they fight the Stormcast Eternals who are formed up in Stormhosts and wield boltstormers (except for the ones with warhammers), who are clad in purest sigmarite and descend from Sigmaron to bring the word of Sigmar to sigmar Sigmar SIGMAR -
I was a writer on a comedic video games that was well regarded for the writing. Even still, there were people who just didn't think it was funny. One joke in particular, regarding a poop hammer, was singled out often as being unfunny and vulgar. Reading through the various reviews and user comments, I came to the realization that if someone thinks a joke is beneath them, they won't laugh, no matter how funny the joke is. And at the point that they think one joke is beneath them, you've lost them for every joke that comes afterwards. In short, someone who doesn't want to laugh, can't be made to laugh, and each additional attempt just makes them that much less interested in laughing next time.
My guess is that you had your poop hammer moment with Age of Sigmar - I'm guessing the death of WHFB - and you just haven't been willing to laugh since.
If you truly feel that the names in Age of Sigmar are too corny and beneath you, you must likewise criticize things like Star Wars (Darth Sideous? Darth Tyrannus? Darth Maul? I mean, come on! X-Wings,Y-Wings, A-Wings that look like Xs, Ys, As?) and Batman (The Riddler's name is E. Nigma? Poison Ivy is Pamela Isley? Mr. Freeze is Victor Fries?). Just like with Star Wars, with its sound and explosions in space, and Batman, with its bat shark repellent, I decided that I would enjoy them for what they were rather than wishing they were something else, and I've made the same decision with Age of Sigmar. Yeah, the names are corny, but so what? It's never stopped me before.
I'm absolutely going to hold Age of Sigmar to a different standard.
Sqorgar wrote: At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.
I would absolutely disagree here. I won't call it insulting, but this kind of statement I definitely think is... disingenuous.
You can play tabletop games at a competitive level and be ranked as one of the best players in the world.
The painting is a form of art, even if you don't take it seriously. If you do take it seriously you can again compete in international events or you can make a career of painting.
Building models requires a lot more patients and (for some kits) skill than most toys you're likely to find in a kids store.
Sqorgar wrote: At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.
I would absolutely disagree here. I won't call it insulting, but this kind of statement I definitely think is... disingenuous.
You can play tabletop games at a competitive level and be ranked as one of the best players in the world.
The painting is a form of art, even if you don't take it seriously. If you do take it seriously you can again compete in international events or you can make a career of painting.
Building models requires a lot more patients and (for some kits) skill than most toys you're likely to find in a kids store.
...is just playing with model trains. Just like this is:
And by that same stretch, how different, really, is this...
... from this?
Hell, there's at least three colors in that last picture, which makes it more colorful than most games of Warmachine.
This is NOT a value judgment on the character or maturity of the person who engages in such a hobby. George RR Martin loves collecting metal miniatures, and a large number of the coat of arms and divisions in Song of Ice and Fire are actually based on figures he painted himself. Linked above is one of the earliest rulesets for miniature games, written by none other than HG Wells. One of the biggest and most impressive model train tables ever made was made by Rod Stewart. Here's freaking Grand Moff Tarkin painting and playing with toy soldiers. Robin Williams collected multiple 40k armies (but didn't play). I hear Napoleon was a fan of toy soldiers himself.
I think gaming is a fundamental part of the human condition - it is how we learn and understand - and anyone who dismisses gaming as childish is doing themselves and everyone they know a disservice. But play is play, and there's no shame at all in calling a game a game and a toy a toy. One of the great things about being an adult is the fervor and intensity one can put into play, elevating it beyond mere entertainment and distraction into an art form all to itself. There's nothing I respect more.
So no, that statement was never intended to be insulting, and it certainly wasn't disingenuous. When I call something a toy, I am not calling it childish. I'm saying it is something that you play with. And play, as I've just described, is awesome.
Sqorgar wrote: At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.
I would absolutely disagree here. I won't call it insulting, but this kind of statement I definitely think is... disingenuous.
You can play tabletop games at a competitive level and be ranked as one of the best players in the world.
The painting is a form of art, even if you don't take it seriously. If you do take it seriously you can again compete in international events or you can make a career of painting.
Building models requires a lot more patients and (for some kits) skill than most toys you're likely to find in a kids store.
...is just playing with model trains. Just like this is:
And by that same stretch, how different, really, is this...
... from this?
Hell, there's at least three colors in that last picture, which makes it more colorful than most games of Warmachine.
This is NOT a value judgment on the character or maturity of the person who engages in such a hobby. George RR Martin loves collecting metal miniatures, and a large number of the coat of arms and divisions in Song of Ice and Fire are actually based on figures he painted himself. Linked above is one of the earliest rulesets for miniature games, written by none other than HG Wells. One of the biggest and most impressive model train tables ever made was made by Rod Stewart. Here's freaking Grand Moff Tarkin painting and playing with toy soldiers. Robin Williams collected multiple 40k armies (but didn't play). I hear Napoleon was a fan of toy soldiers himself.
I think gaming is a fundamental part of the human condition - it is how we learn and understand - and anyone who dismisses gaming as childish is doing themselves and everyone they know a disservice. But play is play, and there's no shame at all in calling a game a game and a toy a toy. One of the great things about being an adult is the fervor and intensity one can put into play, elevating it beyond mere entertainment and distraction into an art form all to itself. There's nothing I respect more.
So no, that statement was never intended to be insulting, and it certainly wasn't disingenuous. When I call something a toy, I am not calling it childish. I'm saying it is something that you play with. And play, as I've just described, is awesome.
Your link literally talks about how wargaming was more a simulationist experience, until HG Wells' Little Wars popularized the more abstract gaming part, and that the historical line of wargamings is best seen as two lines, the Kriegspiel "professional" wargame and the Little Wars "hobby" wargame - Warhammer is directly descended from Little Wars, a game in which you play with toy soldiers on the floor, the full text and illustrations (of toy soldiers on the floor) were linked in my previous post.
MOST sources consider Little Wars to be one of the earliest and strongest influences on the wargaming hobby as we know it today. Like, that's not even a controversial statement. You guys will not give an inch on anything, ever, will you? No statement, no matter how obvious or universally regarded, is above challenge, huh? "The sky is blue!" "Not at night, donkey-cave!" Oh my god, it's exhausting.
Wargaming and pushing around little painted plastic men around are not the same thing. The sort of painted men used in the wargames we play existed before wargames used them, generally for the purpose of childrens toys. The story as I remember was that HG Wells was playing with some children (whose relationship I don't remember) and their tin soldiers when he started to develop what became the war game that further developed into what we know and play today.
i have to agree with Sqorgar...
at the end of the day, it is toy soldiers, and i think that is awesome, too...
what is wrong with play???
people have accused me of being way too serious on here, but i don't feel that way at all...
i get paid to play with toy soldiers, and i am so thankful for that...
i have no desire to be adult, and even less desire to pretend that my Space marines are not toys...
i paint at an internationally competitive level, and make a living off of my painting...
i take my practice very seriously, painting 6 hours a day, seven days a week, like clockwork...
it is still the most fun i can have with my clothes on...
a spirit of play keeps you young and healthy...
i love the fact that AoS has a He-Man vibe, and thought Battle Cat the first time i say the mounted Lord in the starter...
just because i'm not flooding the front yard, and playing with my He-Man toys anymore, doesn't mean i don't feel the same sense of fun every night when i sit down at the painting table to try and paint up a potential Crystal Brush winning mini...
i can totally respect your perspective, jono & MW, but when Sqorgar is saying that these are toy soldiers he isn't wrong, or insulting your view, he is saying how he feels, and he isn't alone in that opinion...
he made some very insightful comments in that last post, and to just dismiss it as wrong, or insulting, is doing the idea of playfulness a disservice...
Jah you are clearly a painter, how do you not see the artistic merit of the hobby as something more than 'playing with toy soldiers'?
It is a legitimate art form, and even those who never paint beyond three colours and a wash are still producing art.
Given that Kirby has in the past spoken about how GW markets toys to kids I daresay they think like you and Sqorgar, but given the reception AoS received I'm not sure the wider community agrees with you.
jonolikespie wrote: Jah you are clearly a painter, how do you not see the artistic merit of the hobby as something more than 'playing with toy soldiers'?
It is a legitimate art form, and even those who never paint beyond three colours and a wash are still producing art.
How can you not see the merit in "playing with toy soldiers"? When someone tells me that a game is art, I think to myself, well then, the game must be slumming.
Given that Kirby has in the past spoken about how GW markets toys to kids I daresay they think like you and Sqorgar, but given the reception AoS received I'm not sure the wider community agrees with you.
I daresay you are insecure about your own hobbies, hoping to elevate its status so you don't feel so dirty doing it. They are just toys, and there is absolutely no shame in that. Sorry to whip out that old CS Lewis quote, but "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
jonolikespie wrote: Jah you are clearly a painter, how do you not see the artistic merit of the hobby as something more than 'playing with toy soldiers'?
It is a legitimate art form, and even those who never paint beyond three colours and a wash are still producing art.
Given that Kirby has in the past spoken about how GW markets toys to kids I daresay they think like you and Sqorgar, but given the reception AoS received I'm not sure the wider community agrees with you.
i can see the artistic merit of the hobby, but calling them toy soldiers doesn't take away any of that merit, as i see it...
while i am a painter, i wouldn't call myself an artist...
what i do is glorified paint-by-numbers...
i give all credit to the sculptors...
when i sit down every noght, with the goal of being the best glorified paint-by-numbers painter in the world, i am struck by how awesome it is to have a beautifully sculpted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles minis, in a cool sewer display (sculpted by one of our own forum members no less) sitting in front of me, and i get to paint them!!!
i love that i still get to live in the realm of the imagination that was such a big part of my childhood, but now i can paint better than i could back in the day, when the first TMNT graphic novels came out...
as a kid, i never felt that i was being childish by reading those graphic novels, i just thought they were awesome...
then the cartoon changed everything, and did go for the real kiddie angle, which is why i say that i understand your perspective...
as a kid, i really liked the gritty stuff (my comic was The 'Nam instead of Spider-Man), and that is what i love about the miniature hobby, there are so many gritty settings to choose from...
i happen to think AoS is one of those, too...
You're completely missing my point, I'd be the last guy to claim there is anything wrong with playing with toys or 'childish' things, but if you're calling this hobby 'playing with toys' you're doing it a disservice.
But it is playing with toys. Sure, the toys are "model kits", but are they really that different in nature from little green, plastic, mono-pose army men? And yeah, play is defined by a complex set of interlocking rules and a detailed understanding of discrete mathematics, but is it really that different from playing a game of Risk or Connect-4? It's a difference of scale, not a difference of nature.
At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't 'feel important about it'; I just don't really want to play He-Man instead of Warhammer. Especially not at GW prices.
My guess is that you had your poop hammer moment with Age of Sigmar
You're absolutely right. I took one look at Age of Sigmar and went 'Yup. That's poop hammer."
Again, you're misunderstanding me. I don't feel that the names are 'beneath me' or 'too corny' - I feel that they're too corny for the kind of atmosphere the game wants to build, and it provides a jarring, immersion-breaking contrast in tone. Darth Sideous, Darth Tyrannus, and Darth Maul are excusable, because at the end of the day, Star Wars is lighthearted and a little goofy and not going into detailed descriptions of cannibalism.
Note - Ewoks eating Stormtroopers does not count as cannibalism, and all three of those characters are from the prequels, which get plenty of flak for being a little less mature than the older works...
And you can compare Bloodsecrators with Victor Fries when Age of Sigmar has anywhere near the rich background and quality storytelling that Batman does ;p Or, if you're looking at the Adam West version only - which I suspect you are, given the fact that you mentioned the glorious BAT SHARK REPELLENT - again, it's solely presented as a goofy, lighthearted, and comedic universe, and no one's asking you to shell out hundreds of dollars to enjoy it. Plus, they didn't take away Arkham City to give us Batman: The Movie.
If someone makes a joke and a whole bunch of people aren't laughing, maybe it's not that they think the joke is beneath them. Maybe the joke is just bad.
Spinner wrote: If someone makes a joke and a whole bunch of people aren't laughing, maybe it's not that they think the joke is beneath them. Maybe the joke is just bad.
If one person refuses to laugh that is one thing, if no one is laughing then that is a whole different problem
Spinner wrote: If someone makes a joke and a whole bunch of people aren't laughing, maybe it's not that they think the joke is beneath them. Maybe the joke is just bad.
If one person refuses to laugh that is one thing, if no one is laughing then that is a whole different problem
I am still amazed you two are still taking into account what is being said, to be honest.
Spinner wrote:Honestly, if someone were to do a completely over the top and corny Conan pastiche wargame, I'd probably love it.
I don't know if it's over the top and corny, but...
I could be wrong, but wasn't it intended to be more generic than anything else? I've got the idea in my head, but I don't know for sure.
I think this guy has a good answer for you. For the hard of clicking...
...all of the fantasy rules I like best are generic: Song of Blades and Heroes, Lion/Dragon Rampant, Hordes of the Things. And, of course, the early iterations of Warhammer, in which the "Warhammer world" was only very faintly sketched, if at all; it was only there by implication (i.e. the bestiary implied a specific, if unstated, setting), I think, in the first edition.
...the joy of the tremendous scenarios for second-edition Warhammer was that they could be plonked down in any fantasy setting with minimal effort; the background pertained largely to the scenario itself rather than the wider world. So, steppe nomads attack a hobgoblin convoy; a usurper fights clansmen; a necromancer and ratmen clash at a remote monastery; orcs muster to raid the lands of men. And so on. Again, that seemed to be eroded as subsequent editions became more heavily invested in "the world".
Age of Sigmar seems, to me at least, to be the antithesis of all that. It's so specific in its troop types and (judging from the rules) has little obvious capacity for allowing, say, a troop of goblin archers mounted on giant lizards or even something as simple as orcish wolfriders. Warhammer 2nd embraced all that - as do the likes of SBH, LR/DR and HOTT. The one thing I do like about it (again, from reading the rules rather than playing) is the built-in facility for asymmetrical games, which seem to me A Very Good Thing.
jonolikespie wrote:You're completely missing my point, I'd be the last guy to claim there is anything wrong with playing with toys or 'childish' things, but if you're calling this hobby 'playing with toys' you're doing it a disservice.
I'm beginning to think it's a kind of sour-grapes defence rather than any real dismissal. People not convinced by your arguments that AoS' rules, fluff and minis aren't bettered by other games, background and models? Tar 'em all with the same brush.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't 'feel important about it'; I just don't really want to play He-Man instead of Warhammer. Especially not at GW prices.
And nobody is expecting you to. But let the people who want to play with He-Man enjoy themselves without you sitting in judgement going "pshaw. What a bunch of babies..."
Again, you're misunderstanding me. I don't feel that the names are 'beneath me' or 'too corny' - I feel that they're too corny for the kind of atmosphere the game wants to build, and it provides a jarring, immersion-breaking contrast in tone. Darth Sideous, Darth Tyrannus, and Darth Maul are excusable, because at the end of the day, Star Wars is lighthearted and a little goofy and not going into detailed descriptions of cannibalism.
But that's your hang up, not an innate crime against good taste. I keep bringing up Frazetta's Death Dealer painting. It's freaking called Death Dealer. The painting spawned books with titles like "Plague of Knives". There's one painting of Death Dealer standing above a bunch of naked zombie women while swinging a bunch of decapitated heads around by their hair. This is the aesthetic genre that AoS takes place in (Archaon on his horse is basically just the Death Dealer painting), and it fits it to a tee. This is heavy metal, man, and subtlety is somebody else's purview.
Note - Ewoks eating Stormtroopers does not count as cannibalism, and all three of those characters are from the prequels, which get plenty of flak for being a little less mature than the older works...
You think I can't find examples from the original trilogy? Stormtroopers are literally named after a rank in the Nazi military. The Death Star? A fat pilot named Porkins?
And you can compare Bloodsecrators with Victor Fries when Age of Sigmar has anywhere near the rich background and quality storytelling that Batman does ;p Or, if you're looking at the Adam West version only - which I suspect you are, given the fact that you mentioned the glorious BAT SHARK REPELLENT - again, it's solely presented as a goofy, lighthearted, and comedic universe, and no one's asking you to shell out hundreds of dollars to enjoy it. Plus, they didn't take away Arkham City to give us Batman: The Movie.
But that's my point. I'm a Batman fan because I like Batman in all his incarnations. I don't think any one version of Batman is the One True Form, and I can enjoy Frank Millar's Goddamn Batman, Dick Sprang's Giant Tuba Batman, and even Joel Schumacher's Nipple Batman for what they are. They are all Batman. And for the record, they did ask for hundreds of dollars for the blu ray set of Batman '66, which some people couldn't give them fast enough.
I am not mad that Age of Sigmar isn't something else. I am perfectly capable of enjoying it for what it is without getting hung up on what it isn't. It is Warhammer, just like the Old World is Warhammer. Neither one is better or worse than the other. They are simply different. I will say that I find the cosmic fantasy of AoS to be more refreshing than the Tolkienesque Old World, if for no other reason than it is considerably less commonplace.
If someone makes a joke and a whole bunch of people aren't laughing, maybe it's not that they think the joke is beneath them. Maybe the joke is just bad.
Or maybe it is a really funny joke, it was just made at an inappropriate time. Age of Sigmar is a good joke that was unfortunately told during a funeral.
Bottle wrote: O gawd am I really playing He-Man now?
Games Workshop wishes. Although, early He-Man, before there was a cartoon, had some pretty dark and awesome paintings done by this guy named Earl Norem (same guy who did the Mars Attacks cards for TOPPS) that could easily pass off as a Age of Sigmar illustration:
I think what AoS has in common with Masters of the Universe is that the design has an exaggerated sense of visual identity. Stuff like Conan or Frazetta paintings weren't intended to sell figures, so they didn't have this heightened thematic appearance that you really only find in stuff like comic books or toys. Like GI Joe didn't have a bunch of characters that all looked identical. There was one that looked like a sailor, one that changed color in water, one that was a ninja, one of them was a wrestler, one of them was a girl - and so on. Just like Batman fights a guy who uses ice, one who uses electricity, one who uses riddles, one who is a cat burgler, yada yada yada. I guess another example would be the themed gangs of The Warriors, or the alien races in Star Wars. It's all about marketing one's identity through outward appearance, which is why you have mummy undead factions and Aztec lizards.
I think Games Workshop is absolutely trying to capture that sort of marketing for Age of Sigmar (and 40k) that existed for GI Joe and Masters of the Universe. The cartoons which existed to sell toys, but which occasionally transcended their cynical existences to produce gold. So while GW may sell a game, it is trying to create an IP ecosystem built around the figures in the same way that, for example, Mattel turned a bunch of separate transforming robots from Japan into a singular, popular Transformers property. And I think GW is absolutely brilliant to do this.
Of the toys that did this, He-Man is probably the closest comparison to Age of Sigmar in terms of genre identity. Masters of the Universe also had a cosmic fantasy thing going on, and the Earl Norem paintings seem to fit right in with AoS's aesthetic (Castle Greyskull was probably created by a Khorne follower). But that's visually. The background material itself is way more grimdark. Not really sure where the narrative influences come from - certainly more science fiction than fantasy, with the multiple single-biome realms (planets) connected by stargates. It reminds me of something, but I'm not sure what yet.
That's why the game settings were so loved because there was something for everyone. Right now Age of Sigmar is very limited in its scope. I don't want to be playing spandex Mountain Dew he-man battles. I want my Empire dudes with beards no shoes finally standing up to the horrible doom looming over them. Before in WHFB I could focus on the parts of the setting I loved and forget about the rest (not caring about Elven melodrama for example). At the moment there is not much in the AoS setting I can enjoy. I willing to give it a chance, but as I said before it is getting frustrating waiting.
That's why the game settings were so loved because there was something for everyone. Right now Age of Sigmar is very limited in its scope. I don't want to be playing spandex Mountain Dew he-man battles. I want my Empire dudes with beards no shoes finally standing up to the horrible doom looming over them. Before in WHFB I could focus on the parts of the setting I loved and forget about the rest (not caring about Elven melodrama for example). At the moment there is not much in the AoS setting I can enjoy. I willing to give it a chance, but as I said before it is getting frustrating waiting.
I would love if the humans either revolted against Sigmar, had a settlement away from the celestial city, or at the least help a grudge against him. When Sigmar was a mortal he united the people of the Old World, but it could be interpreted that as a deity he has abandoned them twice now.
I wouldn't trust him, Karl Franz wouldn't leave his people to die while he fled! Sigmar just doesn't seem honorable in the least, he hides in his city while sending out stolen warriors to die over and over. It would be neat if someone from the forces of order didn't fully trust him or his intentions and opted to do something about it.
pox wrote: Sigmar just doesn't seem honorable in the least, he hides in his city while sending out stolen warriors to die over and over
Sigmar did fight in the age of chaos and did kick pretty much everyone's ass. He couldn't be everywhere, though pretty much every battle he has participated in has been won by the forces of the realms. With the loss of his hammer he retreated to a more strategic position, teleporting and directing his armies from his high point- logistics is a pretty important thing . De facto the stormcast aren't stolen - every one of them has reached to Sigmar before being snatched away (or so I remember).
Oh man, I agree so much! In my own AoS fluff I write for my guys I always paint Sigmar as a petty and jealous God. He seems obsessed with revenge and is all consumed by it, to the point where I imagine he neglects all his subjects bar the Stormcast.
Some contention within the forces of Order is exactly what we need. There is no way Humans, Elves and Dwarfs have lived in a single city in peace for an age.
Oh man, I agree so much! In my own AoS fluff I write for my guys I always paint Sigmar as a petty and jealous God. He seems obsessed with revenge and is all consumed by it, to the point where I imagine he neglects all his subjects bar the Stormcast.
Some contention within the forces of Order is exactly what we need. There is no way Humans, Elves and Dwarfs have lived in a single city in peace for an age.
Your degenerate, free thinking guys would get a lightning in the face the moment they get out of the city's sewers . They don't deserve living in the city where everyone is labouring 24/7 for the good of all . No talking at work
pox wrote: Sigmar just doesn't seem honorable in the least, he hides in his city while sending out stolen warriors to die over and over
Sigmar did fight in the age of chaos and did kick pretty much everyone's ass. He couldn't be everywhere, though pretty much every battle he has participated in has been won by the forces of the realms. With the loss of his hammer he retreated to a more strategic position, teleporting and directing his armies from his high point- logistics is a pretty important thing . De facto the stormcast aren't stolen - every one of them has reached to Sigmar before being snatched away (or so I remember).
Well, he abandoned the world for it to die. I know I'm painting with a large brush here, but the world ended and he didn't. Then, when he found the nine realms, everything was fine till chaos started invading there. He saw he couldn't win AGAIN, so he left them to their fate and locked himself in the celestial city. (I think that's a part of Azryheim? I need to re-read the AoS books.)
While there, the dragon showed him how to forge sigmarite armor and make the Stormcast Eternals. (I might have that out of order.) Once ready they opened the gates and started to try and re-take the realms.
I meant they are stolen from Nagash and the realm of death, not that they are stolen "souls" from themselves. As far as any of them remember they have chosen the transformation, and continue to loyally serve Sigmar. (I like the one dudes who can only be made by calling out to Sigmar for revenge when dying in battle.)
Spinner wrote: If someone makes a joke and a whole bunch of people aren't laughing, maybe it's not that they think the joke is beneath them. Maybe the joke is just bad.
If one person refuses to laugh that is one thing, if no one is laughing then that is a whole different problem
I am still amazed you two are still taking into account what is being said, to be honest.
In fairness, I'm appreciating the chance to examine why I can let Star Wars get away with Darth Maul but Age of Sigmar loses me when it brings up Bloodbound Bloodsecrators (maybe the repetition has an effect?)
Clearly, neither side here is going to convince the other, but I think we're doing a decent job giving points and counterpoints. It just so happens that we're right.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't 'feel important about it'; I just don't really want to play He-Man instead of Warhammer. Especially not at GW prices.
And nobody is expecting you to. But let the people who want to play with He-Man enjoy themselves without you sitting in judgement going "pshaw. What a bunch of babies..."
Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa. Where did I say that? I've got no problem with people playing He-Man. Just because I don't like the game or the backstory or a good chunk of the models or the corporate choices doesn't mean I'm judging the players.
You're hitting the 'people who don't like Age of Sigmar think AoS players are childish' angle pretty hard. I haven't seen a whole lot of that around since the initial uproar died down; was that, perhaps, your poop hammer moment when it came to criticism of the game?
Sqorgar wrote: But that's your hang up, not an innate crime against good taste. I keep bringing up Frazetta's Death Dealer painting. It's freaking called Death Dealer. The painting spawned books with titles like "Plague of Knives". There's one painting of Death Dealer standing above a bunch of naked zombie women while swinging a bunch of decapitated heads around by their hair. This is the aesthetic genre that AoS takes place in (Archaon on his horse is basically just the Death Dealer painting), and it fits it to a tee. This is heavy metal, man, and subtlety is somebody else's purview.
Never said it was anything but my own opinion - in fact, I went out of my way to state that that was the way I personally felt. Just seems like a lot of other people seem to feel the same way.
"Death Dealer", by the way, is a much cooler name than anything I've seen in Age of Sigmar. Bet you wouldn't catch that guy fighting an Ogor.
You think I can't find examples from the original trilogy? Stormtroopers are literally named after a rank in the Nazi military. The Death Star? A fat pilot named Porkins?
Again, I didn't exclude the original trilogy from what I said; it also gave us Greedo the bounty hunter. I just thought it was amusing that all the names you pulled were from the prequels.
Sqorgar wrote: But that's my point. I'm a Batman fan because I like Batman in all his incarnations. I don't think any one version of Batman is the One True Form, and I can enjoy Frank Millar's Goddamn Batman, Dick Sprang's Giant Tuba Batman, and even Joel Schumacher's Nipple Batman for what they are. They are all Batman. And for the record, they did ask for hundreds of dollars for the blu ray set of Batman '66, which some people couldn't give them fast enough.
You've obviously got broader taste than I do; I can't go near Batman and Robin without a hefty dose of alcohol and a quality drinking game, and All-Star Batman...no thanks. I do see that blu ray set; it's a limited edition with all the episodes, plus an episode guide, trading cards, a Batmobile...in other words, a collector's item that you don't need to enjoy Adam West hopping around while sound effects pop out of the screen. Not saying they aren't all Batman, but I am saying that I don't enjoy all sorts of Batman, and if they stopped making the ones I like to focus on ones I didn't like - say, by having The Goddamn Batman blow up various Bat-Caves - I would probably stop enjoying Batman stuff.
Sqorgar wrote: I will say that I find the cosmic fantasy of AoS to be more refreshing than the Tolkienesque Old World, if for no other reason than it is considerably less commonplace.
Really? Because it kinda reminds me of what I remember of the Warcraft mythos. No idea what they're up to these days, but you've got portals, you've got chunky guys in giant pauldrons, daemons being driven back, an on-again off-again alliance with necromantic types that originally caused major problems for the protagonists.
...I just suggested that Games Workshop took inspiration from Warcraft. I feel dirty inside.
Sqorgar wrote: Or maybe it is a really funny joke, it was just made at an inappropriate time. Age of Sigmar is a good joke that was unfortunately told during a funeral.
At the expense of the deceased and all of his friends, yes.
I would love if the humans either revolted against Sigmar, had a settlement away from the celestial city, or at the least help a grudge against him. When Sigmar was a mortal he united the people of the Old World, but it could be interpreted that as a deity he has abandoned them twice now.
I wouldn't trust him, Karl Franz wouldn't leave his people to die while he fled! Sigmar just doesn't seem honorable in the least, he hides in his city while sending out stolen warriors to die over and over. It would be neat if someone from the forces of order didn't fully trust him or his intentions and opted to do something about it.
Yeah, Age of Sigmar's version of Sigmar is kind of an entire box of tools (not just the hammer!).
@pox
It might be a little harder to die when you're a god . The fact that Sigmar survived the destruction doesn't mean he abandoned the old world. Didn't the end times end with him battling Archaon at the heart of the new vortex?
The Chaos powers might be on a different level than that of Sigmar and the incarnates. After all, the current gods of the realms all were mortals once and became divine when becoming the vessel of a portion of chaos energy (the winds of magic). The Chaos powers on the other hand were "unmade", eternal and ever existing yada yada. They were never mortal, reside in the heart of their dominion, in the realm of chaos, are omnipotent within their boundaries, personalize different mortal aspects and principles and so on and so on. They and the new gods are fundamentally different and you aren't just to expect a fair fight between them IMO . On top of that SIgmar's alliance was shattered from within by bitter betrayal (gasp) !
the AoS setting is no less gritty than a Dragonlance or Drittz novel, in my opinion, both settings that i always enjoyed...
in comparison to the Xanth novels from when i was a kid, or the Harry Potter novels now days, even though they are fun worlds to explore, they don't have the same sense of danger or depravity...
when WFB came along, i was drawn in by the setting, because everyone was mad as a hatter, and the forces of destruction were on the move...
AoS is a continuation of that setting...
i get that it isn't what everyone wanted, but that doesn't mean i can't enjoy it for what it is...
Khorne is still taking skulls, Nurgle is still corrupting things, Tzeentch is still scheming, and Slaanesh is locked up, slumbering, gorged on skulls...
the bad guys control most of the realms, and the good guys need to get it together and take the power back...
in four months, we have learned about the situation with the Chaos Gods, seen the Trees in action, learned about the Bloodbound, Stormcast Eternals, the Lizzies, and the Plague Rats...
seems like a good start...
the Old World still lives on in the novels and Army Books, as far as I'm concerned, and the End Times was a hell of a send off...
truth be told, though, i would have been happy if they had made Age of Sigmar actually set in the age of Sigmar, and given us barbarians versus skellies...
the Lizzies were around, ditto the Dwarves and Elves, the Skaven and the Chaos Gods...
that would have been great to see minis for, and they could have done a very similar release style, with simple reissues of boxes with round bases for just as many of the armies...
a War of the Beard expansion could have happened,or the civil war in Khemri. or the Sundering...
as far as i'm concerned, any of those things would still be cool...
i would be cool with Time of Legends minis...
next you are going to tell me that a few characters left over from the Old World doesn't really qualify as Warhammer, an opinion that i would disagree with...
different strokes for different folks...
The problem with AOS is a simple but vital concept.
Tone.
AOS can't decide what tone it wants. He-Man is fine, but you can't have He-Man killing children to stop a plague. You can't have Cthulhu saying fart jokes. It's one of the main problems with the Star Wars prequels, was that it couldn't decide on a tone. Neither can AOS.
Is it a light skirmish game? Is it fun but cheesy? Dark and gritty? What are they trying for?
The problem is, whatever tone AOS is, isn't at all what WHFB was and that is yet another major change that further alienated people.
AOS is indeed an inappropriate joke at a funeral.
@MWH: safe to say that is YOUR problem with AoS, but not everyone shares your opinion...
i find it hard to agree that the tone of AoS isn't at all similar to WFB, since it is a continuation of the story, but i can understand why it isn't everyone's cup of tea...
then again, i am a big fan of the Prequels...
for me, the visuals are the most important (which is what i liked about the Prequels), followed by the story...
i can overlook story pretty easily, as long as the visuals grab me, but then i don't have an issue with the story of AoS, so that helps...
most of the the AoS minis have been stunners, in my opinion, and i am enjoying a lot of the new art...
i like the epic Asgardian aspect of the new setting, and look forward to see where it is going...
So after three pages and eighty posts? I can see a theme here, people who like it aos that is, like they vagueness of the lore and dont really care bout a story . They like the idea of new models that you make your background for?
While those who hate it wanted more to the background and enjoy more of a placed setting. With character development. But it doesnt suprise me even video games and novels now a days lack that.
OgreChubbs wrote: So after three pages and eighty posts? I can see a theme here, people who like it aos that is, like they vagueness of the lore and dont really care bout a story . They like the idea of new models that you make your background for?
While those who hate it wanted more to the background and enjoy more of a placed setting. With character development. But it doesnt suprise me even video games and novels now a days lack that.
OgreChubbs wrote: So after three pages and eighty posts? I can see a theme here, people who like it aos that is, like they vagueness of the lore and dont really care bout a story . They like the idea of new models that you make your background for?
While those who hate it wanted more to the background and enjoy more of a placed setting. With character development. But it doesnt suprise me even video games and novels now a days lack that.
I daresay that's the crux of it.
fair enough, to an extent...
@Ogre: the only problem with your theory, for me, is that i never said that i like the vagueness of anything...
the realms are being developed, and the fiction is full of specifics...
i don't have an army, or a desire to create backstory for my minis, but instead like to bring characters and events from the fiction to life in miniature form...
i would say it is not full of enough specifics for those who are not fans, or even worse, hasn't covered their army yet...
i would say that is more of a problem with the desire for instant gratification and a lack of patience...
the digital instant access age is not working in AoS's favor, that's for sure...
luckily, i can still enjoy the Old World, and paint characters from it...
second, i care about the story, i am just not living and dying with the story...
i'm not the writer, so i am not invested in the choices that the author makes...
i either like it, or i don't, but i am not going to feel like an author's, or a company's, choice are a "slap in the face" as many of the WFB fans have called AoS...
i certainly wouldn't own nearly every book GW has published over the last 30 years if i didn't care about the story...
when i say that i can overlook story easily, i mean that i can buy a mini without being invested in the story beforehand...
if the story turns out to be to my taste, that is a huge bonus...
OgreChubbs wrote: So after three pages and eighty posts? I can see a theme here, people who like it aos that is, like they vagueness of the lore and dont really care bout a story . They like the idea of new models that you make your background for?
While those who hate it wanted more to the background and enjoy more of a placed setting. With character development. But it doesnt suprise me even video games and novels now a days lack that.
So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?
OgreChubbs wrote: So after three pages and eighty posts? I can see a theme here, people who like it aos that is, like they vagueness of the lore and dont really care bout a story .
Well, no... The storyline is a big reason I am enjoying AoS.
For me it always feels like GW are scared of making anything you can't by now exciting, leaving players in the dust far to long though mismanagement and failed marketing.
On a more personal lvl I really don't think there is enough story and world built up to hold interest for a lot of players, if you don't like the storm cast or khorne then your stuffed Is how the casual players here felt and didn't bother looking into it passed that.
GW needs to start talking about what's going on, give all the races and army's some story and lore in a place in the world.
It shouldn't be hard, RPGs seem to get way more info into books.
GW just needs to start hyping up the world(universe) rather than going at it a faction at a time. There is plenty of time to expand when the game is not dead.
If you truly feel that the names in Age of Sigmar are too corny and beneath you, you must likewise criticize things like Star Wars (Darth Sideous? Darth Tyrannus? Darth Maul? I mean, come on! X-Wings,Y-Wings, A-Wings that look like Xs, Ys, As?) and Batman (The Riddler's name is E. Nigma? Poison Ivy is Pamela Isley? Mr. Freeze is Victor Fries?). Just like with Star Wars, with its sound and explosions in space, and Batman, with its bat shark repellent, I decided that I would enjoy them for what they were rather than wishing they were something else, and I've made the same decision with Age of Sigmar. Yeah, the names are corny, but so what? It's never stopped me before.
The problem for me isn't that AoS feels too gonzo. I love gonzo! It actually feels the opposite of that, a setting built around cynical money-making and IP-protection decisions, to the point where there isn't actually much else to it.
Heck, there are Fantasy Space Marines who are organised into "Chambers" distinguished by different coloured armour, created in "strikings", who fight with "boltstormers". What are the odds that they're an original and inspired idea, vs someone in a meeting saying "Space Marines sell well, stick them into this new game, okay?" Elfs are now Aelfs, Lizardmen are now Seraphon, Ogres are now Ogors, dwarves now have burning faces. Gotta make that IP stronger, find something to change!
Heck, there are Fantasy Space Marines who are organised into "Chambers" distinguished by different coloured armour, created in "strikings", who fight with "boltstormers". What are the odds that they're an original and inspired idea, vs someone in a meeting saying "Space Marines sell well, stick them into this new game, okay?" Elfs are now Aelfs, Lizardmen are now Seraphon, Ogres are now Ogors, dwarves now have burning faces. Gotta make that IP stronger, find something to change!
There's the "they're just space marines" argument again. What makes you think that "Space Marines" (talking about silly names right?) was an original and not overused concept at the time 40k was introduced? Even if the new stormcast are SM clones, what makes one more possible iteration of the "big dudes in armour" concept so worthy of complain? I've seen enough attempts of doing something "original" that I've liked a lot less than some executions of a well established stereotype.
On second thought, forget it... I don't want to spin the SM wheel again.
Elemental wrote: The problem for me isn't that AoS feels too gonzo. I love gonzo! It actually feels the opposite of that, a setting built around cynical money-making and IP-protection decisions, to the point where there isn't actually much else to it.
But that's just your impression of what is going on. Nobody but GW knows the actual truth of it. Sure, it could by a cynical IP protection thing... except that changing the names won't actually protect their IP from stuff like Chapter House. Since all the names are pronounced the same, but spelled slightly differently, they aren't getting as strong a protection as if they chose completely different name (like Seraphon). It's weird. If it was about IP protection alone, they would've gone with something much stronger and unique.
I think IP protection is part of it, but I think the move from high fantasy to cosmic fantasy may also be part of it. The Aelfs aren't exactly the same as the Elfs, and changing the name slightly but not completely communicates that these new Aelfs are the same, but slightly different. It's like, these aren't your father's Dwarves.... I mean, they are, but the also aren't. *wink* It's impossible to say. While I doubt it was (completely) an IP protection thing, I do believe it was a branding thing.
As for the Stormcast being space marines - one of the things that was a turn off for me for the original WHFB is that it didn't have a heavy platemail orientated faction. I love that aesthetic, and when I play RPGs or MMOs, I always go for the characters who can wear heavy armor. I'm probably one of the few people who played through Demons' Souls in full plate. I love that. I want an entire army built around it. The human armies in WHFB have heavily armored characters, but the are uncommon within the faction, and honestly lack the kind of heavy presence that I prefer. Probably the closest to what I like was the Warriors of Chaos, the Chaos Knights, Chosen, Crom the Conqueror. (I do also like monster factions, so the Lizardmen and Tomb Kings were somewhat appealing as well).
So maybe GW made a cynical decision to put space marines in their fantasy, but you know what? That's EXACTLY what I wanted. Not just the Stormcast, but also the new Blood Warriors and Mighty Lord of Khorne. I think the Prosecutors are some of the most amazing miniatures I've ever seen, and if the Celestant Prime wasn't 90% natto, I'd be all over him. I want big beefy dudes in heavy plate, and WHFB didn't really have that as a theme you could build an army around before. So even if it was a cynical decision, I think it was the right one to make. It was something that WHFB was missing, and it was a pretty significant hole in the line, in my opinion. And I love the Greek god motif of the Stormcast - they don't look like stormtroopers, so even within the same idea of heavily armored units, I find them to be aesthetically unique.
In fairness, I'm appreciating the chance to examine why I can let Star Wars get away with Darth Maul but Age of Sigmar loses me when it brings up Bloodbound Bloodsecrators (maybe the repetition has an effect?)
It's the poop hammer:
Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa. Where did I say that? I've got no problem with people playing He-Man. Just because I don't like the game or the backstory or a good chunk of the models or the corporate choices doesn't mean I'm judging the players.
You are right. That was my bad. I apologize.
You're hitting the 'people who don't like Age of Sigmar think AoS players are childish' angle pretty hard. I haven't seen a whole lot of that around since the initial uproar died down; was that, perhaps, your poop hammer moment when it came to criticism of the game?
It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"
"Death Dealer", by the way, is a much cooler name than anything I've seen in Age of Sigmar. Bet you wouldn't catch that guy fighting an Ogor.
You don't find that to be just as corny as Bloodstoker? I feel like they both belong in the same heightened sense of identity, where one's characterization is their visual appearance (and name).
Again, I didn't exclude the original trilogy from what I said; it also gave us Greedo the bounty hunter. I just thought it was amusing that all the names you pulled were from the prequels.
Been watching the prequels with my daughter recently. I think Revenge of the Sith is my favorite Star Wars movie (except for the last 10 minutes of so - apparently, "High Ground" means you get to reroll 1s)
You've obviously got broader taste than I do; I can't go near Batman and Robin without a hefty dose of alcohol and a quality drinking game, and All-Star Batman...no thanks. I do see that blu ray set; it's a limited edition with all the episodes, plus an episode guide, trading cards, a Batmobile...in other words, a collector's item that you don't need to enjoy Adam West hopping around while sound effects pop out of the screen. Not saying they aren't all Batman, but I am saying that I don't enjoy all sorts of Batman, and if they stopped making the ones I like to focus on ones I didn't like - say, by having The Goddamn Batman blow up various Bat-Caves - I would probably stop enjoying Batman stuff.
Everything moves in waves. Things that are popular today won't be popular tomorrow. I thought corny Batman was gone after the Dark Knight, but then they made Batman: The Brave and the Bold. I believe they even have a Batman '66 comic series now. Tastes change, but they never fully disappear. Tolkien has come and gone like four separate times since the 60s. Same with Lovecraft or Conan. Waves, man.
And it's not that my tastes are broader, it's that I make a particular effort to see the positives in the works I enjoy. There was a time, a long time ago, when I was every bit the bitter fanboy that half the internet is today, and I decided that it didn't make me happy. So what if the Star Wars prequels weren't everything I wanted them to be? I mean, what did I, personally, lose from this fact? It wasn't making me bitter. I was making me bitter. So I decided that it was better to enjoy something terrible than to cut myself off from something that could make me happy out of spite. And I've found so many awesome things this way that I never would've give a second chance to. Now when I see people crap on the Star Wars prequels, I can only think of how their bitterness made them miss out on legitimately amazing things like The Clone Wars.
Since then, "hatewatching" has become a thing, and I've lost my ability to understand what the hell that is all about. If I don't enjoy something, I'll move on. I can't comprehend the idea that one would purposefully grow bitter and hateful towards something you watch out of... what? Obligation? Or is it the feeling of superiority one gets from feeling better that something? I don't know. Just change the channel man. Life's too short to live through in bitter irony.
There's the "they're just space marines" argument again. What makes you think that "Space Marines" (talking about silly names right?) was an original and not overused concept at the time 40k was introduced? Even if the new stormcast are SM clones, what makes one more possible iteration of the "big dudes in armour" concept so worthy of complain? I've seen enough attempts of doing something "original" that I've liked a lot less than some executions of a well established stereotype.
On second thought, forget it... I don't want to spin the SM wheel again.
So you're going to spin the wheel, then claim you don't want to spin the wheel? Either argue or don't, but I'm not twisting your arm here. For me, the Sigmarines just feel lazy--there were a lot of ways the basic concept could have gone that would have distanced them from Marines, but once you're giving them "boltstormers", you can't clap your hands to your face in surprise when people assume they're low-effort knockoffs designed to cash in on Marines being popular in 40K.
Sqorgar wrote: But that's just your impression of what is going on. Nobody but GW knows the actual truth of it. Sure, it could by a cynical IP protection thing... except that changing the names won't actually protect their IP from stuff like Chapter House. Since all the names are pronounced the same, but spelled slightly differently, they aren't getting as strong a protection as if they chose completely different name (like Seraphon). It's weird. If it was about IP protection alone, they would've gone with something much stronger and unique.
Yeah, it's my impression, just as this is your impression. Not once did I claim different. Also, I never claimed GW actually understood copyright and trademarks. The way the case progressed showed that clearly.
I think IP protection is part of it, but I think the move from high fantasy to cosmic fantasy may also be part of it. The Aelfs aren't exactly the same as the Elfs, and changing the name slightly but not completely communicates that these new Aelfs are the same, but slightly different. It's like, these aren't your father's Dwarves.... I mean, they are, but the also aren't. *wink* It's impossible to say. While I doubt it was (completely) an IP protection thing, I do believe it was a branding thing.
Well, technically, they are my father's dwarves, if my dad had played D&D. That's because they're D&D Azers.
As for the Stormcast being space marines - one of the things that was a turn off for me for the original WHFB is that it didn't have a heavy platemail orientated faction.
Chaos Warriors say hi.
And it's not that my tastes are broader, it's that I make a particular effort to see the positives in the works I enjoy. There was a time, a long time ago, when I was every bit the bitter fanboy that half the internet is today, and I decided that it didn't make me happy. So what if the Star Wars prequels weren't everything I wanted them to be? I mean, what did I, personally, lose from this fact? It wasn't making me bitter. I was making me bitter. So I decided that it was better to enjoy something terrible than to cut myself off from something that could make me happy out of spite. And I've found so many awesome things this way that I never would've give a second chance to. Now when I see people crap on the Star Wars prequels, I can only think of how their bitterness made them miss out on legitimately amazing things like The Clone Wars.
Since then, "hatewatching" has become a thing, and I've lost my ability to understand what the hell that is all about. If I don't enjoy something, I'll move on. I can't comprehend the idea that one would purposefully grow bitter and hateful towards something you watch out of... what? Obligation? Or is it the feeling of superiority one gets from feeling better that something? I don't know. Just change the channel man. Life's too short to live through in bitter irony.
I agree, it's very annoying when someone pays close attention to something they dislike, just so they can smugly declare themselves better than that thing.
So you're going to spin the wheel, then claim you don't want to spin the wheel? Either argue or don't, but I'm not twisting your arm here. For me, the Sigmarines just feel lazy--there were a lot of ways the basic concept could have gone that would have distanced them from Marines, but once you're giving them "boltstormers", you can't clap your hands to your face in surprise when people assume they're low-effort knockoffs designed to cash in on Marines being popular in 40K.
I don't want to spin it. If I could I would delete the post, but the option is not there and the bell rung a little bit late. I couldn't think of anything else I wanted to say regarding your post so I just edited it and left it that way.
I think its the lazy "they're just space marines in fantasy" that causes the most issue. No thought or imagination was put into them. They're just space marines.
As for the Stormcast being space marines - one of the things that was a turn off for me for the original WHFB is that it didn't have a heavy platemail orientated faction. I love that aesthetic, and when I play RPGs or MMOs, I always go for the characters who can wear heavy armor. I'm probably one of the few people who played through Demons' Souls in full plate. I love that. I want an entire army built around it. The human armies in WHFB have heavily armored characters, but the are uncommon within the faction, and honestly lack the kind of heavy presence that I prefer. Probably the closest to what I like was the Warriors of Chaos, the Chaos Knights, Chosen, Crom the Conqueror. (I do also like monster factions, so the Lizardmen and Tomb Kings were somewhat appealing as well).
I'm not sure how you can argue that there was no heavy platemail faction in WHFB (don't know what you mean by original WHFB, even GW says that Age of Sigmar isn't WHFB! _ when in the next few sentences you mention Warriors of Chaos. You could absolutely make an army entirely built around Chaos Warriors with that (although you'd probably want a few units of disposable warhounds or something, but hey. Even Space Marines need scouts.) If bad guys aren't your thing, you could play Bretonnians. If cavalry isn't your thing, then you could play Dwarfs. Or if you loved conversions and looking for alternate miniatures, you could play Chaos Dwarfs.
It would be odd to have a mass fantasy battle game without a heavy armor-themed faction, wouldn't it?
No, I really actually think it's the repetition. I can see Death Dealer as a sort of Man With No Name/Conan hybrid badass. Like, he walks into the Dancing Pony Inn and everyone's all 'Oh, crap, it's Death Dealer, don't spill his drink!" He'd fit right in with Korgoth of Barbaria. Whereas with the Stormcast, almost literally everything is Storm, Sigmar, Storm, Sigmar, Thunder, Lightning, Sigmar, SIGMAAAAAAR, and the Bloodbound are even worse. It feels like they're compensating for something. Like maybe most of the Bloodbound aren't really into that whole blood thing, and so they're trying to make it seem like they're the best blood-lovers EVER while they've got knitting projects and tiny kittens stashed away under their skull collections.
It's fine if it shows up once or twice, which is why Warhammer could get away with Strollaz's Rune being the rune that made your Dwarfs walk forward before the battle and Kroq-Gar the dinosaur. They showed up every once in a while and you either laughed or rolled your eyes, but it was clearly a goofy wink to the audience. The Stormcast and Bloodbound aren't meant as goofy winks, they're supposed to be the awesome new factions. It'd be different if you had the occasional Blood-Guy thrown in with Knights of Khorne and Wasteland Cannibals or whatever, but as it is, you can practically see the committee behind each of the names going "Can we trademark that? Can we put a big TM on it? Is it in line with our IP, which can be reduced to a few words for easy defense?"
It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"
He did say that, and I didn't say it was gone entirely, but...if you change the tone, isn't that a legitimate critique of the game? A lot of the things I've heard from people who enjoy it - including you! - are 'it's faster', 'it doesn't have all that background I could never get into weighing it down', 'you don't have to dig through the rulebook, it's all on the cards', 'you can play whatever you like', 'it's more cinematic', stuff like that. Now, I would have phrased it differently, but still.
Everything moves in waves. Things that are popular today won't be popular tomorrow. I thought corny Batman was gone after the Dark Knight, but then they made Batman: The Brave and the Bold. I believe they even have a Batman '66 comic series now. Tastes change, but they never fully disappear. Tolkien has come and gone like four separate times since the 60s. Same with Lovecraft or Conan. Waves, man.
And it's not that my tastes are broader, it's that I make a particular effort to see the positives in the works I enjoy. There was a time, a long time ago, when I was every bit the bitter fanboy that half the internet is today, and I decided that it didn't make me happy. So what if the Star Wars prequels weren't everything I wanted them to be? I mean, what did I, personally, lose from this fact? It wasn't making me bitter. I was making me bitter. So I decided that it was better to enjoy something terrible than to cut myself off from something that could make me happy out of spite. And I've found so many awesome things this way that I never would've give a second chance to. Now when I see people crap on the Star Wars prequels, I can only think of how their bitterness made them miss out on legitimately amazing things like The Clone Wars.
Since then, "hatewatching" has become a thing, and I've lost my ability to understand what the hell that is all about. If I don't enjoy something, I'll move on. I can't comprehend the idea that one would purposefully grow bitter and hateful towards something you watch out of... what? Obligation? Or is it the feeling of superiority one gets from feeling better that something? I don't know. Just change the channel man. Life's too short to live through in bitter irony.
No, but see, this is what I mean. You do have broader tastes, because you simply like more things than most people do. Maybe you have to make yourself find the bits you like, but you're still saying 'I like this' and other people are saying 'I don't'. Which is totally okay. The world has a lot of things to like and dislike. Heck, I find things that I like even in things I dislike. Stormcast Eternals make pretty good statues. Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Christopher Lee did awesome jobs in the Star Wars prequels (actually, I think there was some pretty good acting in those from most of the cast). That doesn't mean I like the product as a whole.
And no, I'm not 'hatewatching' Games Workshop, although the sheer number of bad decisions they're making IS pretty fascinating. It's a great case study in inward-facing corporate attitude. In another thread, I made a comparison between GW fans and Harley Quinn, and I honestly think it's pretty apt. I'm not sticking around to watch them crash and burn. I just want Mistah GW to do something fun again.
(And then I won't buy it because by the time it happens, whatever it is is likely to cost the GDP of a small European nation, but whatever.)
MWHistorian wrote: I think its the lazy "they're just space marines in fantasy" that causes the most issue. No thought or imagination was put into them. They're just space marines.
Absolutely this. I remember a lot of people defending them with "No, they're really different, you guys!" until their book came out with all those flow charts looted from Codex: Space Marines to demonstrate how Warrior Chambers worked.
It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"
In all fairness, I was paraphrasing what Jah was saying and he didn't deny that.
But I do think it's accurate to say that AOS lacks substance to its fluff.
I'm not sure how you can argue that there was no heavy platemail faction in WHFB (don't know what you mean by original WHFB, even GW says that Age of Sigmar isn't WHFB! _ when in the next few sentences you mention Warriors of Chaos.
As someone who didn't play WHFB, I knew there were restrictions on what I could field, but I didn't know what those restrictions were. I was afraid I'd have to field the models I didn't like (which I REALLY didn't like). Of course, I loved pretty much all of the Lizardmen, but never convinced myself to buy in, so yeah.
No, I really actually think it's the repetition. I can see Death Dealer as a sort of Man With No Name/Conan hybrid badass. Like, he walks into the Dancing Pony Inn and everyone's all 'Oh, crap, it's Death Dealer, don't spill his drink!" He'd fit right in with Korgoth of Barbaria. Whereas with the Stormcast, almost literally everything is Storm, Sigmar, Storm, Sigmar, Thunder, Lightning, Sigmar, SIGMAAAAAAR, and the Bloodbound are even worse. It feels like they're compensating for something. Like maybe most of the Bloodbound aren't really into that whole blood thing, and so they're trying to make it seem like they're the best blood-lovers EVER while they've got knitting projects and tiny kittens stashed away under their skull collections.
I get it. I don't see it, but I get it. I mean, when I was a kid, my favorite toy, like, ever was the DnD playset Fortress of Fangs. Castle Greyskull. Snake Mountain. It's all corny as hell, and I guess I kind of like that sort of corny. Always have.
I think the repetition thing with the Stormcast/Bloodbound will go away as more factions are introduced. Right now, it's just those two factions filling up every novel and campaign book, but as they add more factions and their own silly names (Rotbringers, Putrid Blightkings, Plague Monks), it'll even itself out a bit. I like that the names reflect the army's theme. It really sort of makes it obvious what the conflict is. Once there's a dozen armies, you'll be able to tell at a glance what each unit belongs to. Oh, this guy has "Putrid" in the name. Must be a Nurgle follower - bet he does poison damage of some sort. Blood Reavers? Khorne. Bet they are all about the melee violence. The amount of fluff you need to memorize becomes basically zero - it's optional. Everything you need to know about the conflict is right there on the table, written explicitly in the warscroll.
He did say that, and I didn't say it was gone entirely, but...if you change the tone, isn't that a legitimate critique of the game? A lot of the things I've heard from people who enjoy it - including you! - are 'it's faster', 'it doesn't have all that background I could never get into weighing it down', 'you don't have to dig through the rulebook, it's all on the cards', 'you can play whatever you like', 'it's more cinematic', stuff like that. Now, I would have phrased it differently, but still.
But do any of those things indicate that there isn't any substance to the game?
I mean, it really depends on what you define as substance. As an avid video and board gamer, to me, the things that miniature games do that these other types of games don't do is its substance. I can play any kind of super complicated game with untold depth, or shiny glitzy games with minimum skill (I'm a FFG fan), but what miniature games do that these games don't do is the hobby element, that sense of space, a particular social group to interact with, and a way to interact with the game above and beyond the act of playing it. To me, that's the substance of the miniature gaming genre - and I feel like AoS makes the decision to put those elements first. I don't think AoS is a shallow game at all (if it was too simple, I wouldn't play it), but the substance comes from the bunch different small modules that you have the freedom to put together in any form you'd like.
No, but see, this is what I mean. You do have broader tastes, because you simply like more things than most people do.
It's not that I like more things. I dislike a lot of things. I hated the ending to Breaking Bad. I think Lost was a crime against humanity. But in both those cases, I made an attempt to like them first, and when I didn't, I moved on. I try not to let the things I dislike define me.
Like, I'm coming to the end of my enjoyment of Warmachine. I love the models, but I hate how important the synergies are, how they define list building so completely as to dominate them. I hate how unfun the game can be when those synergies become unfair. There's some Warmachine units that I would love to get and paint, but I know they wouldn't last 30 seconds against an opponent. Like, I LOVE the warjacks. There's only two or three warcasters in the entire game that can run a jack heavy army, and they are very susceptible to certain counter builds.
In MtG parlance, Warmachine is built for the Timmys. It's all about big, explosive combos that decimate the opponent in a spectacular shower of raining doom. I imagine that for Timmy players, Warmachine is pretty much the perfect game. I'm not a Timmy player. I'm more of a Johnny, where playing the game is a form of creative expression. I want to pick the units I want to pick and play on beautiful tables with all sorts of (non-flat) terrain. I want a variety of scenarios and goals, where each game is uniquely memorable. And that's not Warmachine.
So, I've ultimately decided that the direction that Warmachine wants to go is incompatible with the direction I wish the game would go. There's a lot about it that I like, and I'll probably still get models, but the gameplay itself is incompatible. I don't hate the game, nor even blame the game. It's simply not the game I want, and that's okay. I think I have a pretty good handle on what the game is, what it is trying to do, and why the people who like it play. It's just not for me. I'm moving on to something else - I've got a box of Deadzone to assemble, and my Infinity starter set will show up on Monday. They probably won't be for me either, but it will be fun finding out.
And no, I'm not 'hatewatching' Games Workshop, although the sheer number of bad decisions they're making IS pretty fascinating. It's a great case study in inward-facing corporate attitude. In another thread, I made a comparison between GW fans and Harley Quinn, and I honestly think it's pretty apt. I'm not sticking around to watch them crash and burn. I just want Mistah GW to do something fun again.
I don't have a history with GW, and it's possible that they are turning over a new leaf with the new CEO right as I'm paying attention, but I think what GW is doing now is pretty fun. I have a problem with the cost - GW is only Black Friday sale where the minimum buy in is $250 - and I wish there was a large online marketplace to comparison shop. But I don't feel like I'm in anything resembling an abusive relationship with GW. And if you feel you are, maybe it's worth packing up the kids in the dead of night and fleeing to the Mantic Battered GW Fan Shelter...
Absolutely this. I remember a lot of people defending them with "No, they're really different, you guys!" until their book came out with all those flow charts looted from Codex: Space Marines to demonstrate how Warrior Chambers worked.
It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"
In all fairness, I was paraphrasing what Jah was saying and he didn't deny that.
But I do think it's accurate to say that AOS lacks substance to its fluff.
"it is possible to like both" was me saying that i do thing that there is some substance to the AoS fluff, without trying to argue over different perspectives and tastes...
so, your "accurate" is not my "accurate", since i disagree...
i totally get why people feel that there is not enough substance yet, though...
i think Apple fox put it very well at the end of that post, "There is plenty of time to expand when the game is not dead."....
that is a very level-headed, observant, and neutral observation, which i can really appreciate...
i do agree that GW could have had much more development done before launch day...
a lot less people would feel left out...
i still don't agree that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines"...
i certainly don't thing that the SE are a lazy move by GW...
lazy would have been opening some kind of time warp, or dimensional rift, and having Kaldor Draigo or Marneus Calgar step out into the Realms...
instead we have the question of who is Ionus Cryptborn...
is he Arkhan???
we have Stormhosts and Warrior Chambers...
if they were truly lazy at HQ, they wouldn't have come up with their own names, or even written fiction...
i don't expect anyone to agree with me, but i like them...
I wouldn't call GW naming policy a good representation of not being lazy. And as far as the not fantasy space marines fluff goes, I have read a few parts of the AoS novels, they sound and feel like w40k books about marines.
@Makumba: where did i say that GW's naming policy was a good representation of anything???
i simply said i don't think that the Stormcast Eternals are a lazy move...
they are a very valid, mythic Asgardian style warrior faction, which i think is cool...
i totally understand why some people wouldn't like them, though...
as for AoS reading like 40K, not enough guns, and a distinct lack of power in the power armor, but to each their own...
i like Marines way more than i like Eternals, so if they actually are meant to hit the same note with Marine Fanatics like me, then they failed miserably...
i am much more excited to see what is going to happen with the Fyre-Slayers...
Slayers have been my favorite WFB characters since the first print of the WF Roleplay book came out...
the Slayer jumped out of the original cover, even among a drawing of 5 or 6 characters, and i knew those were my dudes even before i read anything about them...
i still don't agree that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines"...
i certainly don't thing that the SE are a lazy move by GW...
we have Stormhosts and Warrior Chambers...
if they were truly lazy at HQ, they wouldn't have come up with their own names, or even written fiction...
i don't expect anyone to agree with me, but i like them...
Having the same organization with different names isn't exactly stretching the ole' imagination muscles there.
Let's check out the shoulder pads. (Pauldrons, if you will)
Here's a Space Marine
Spoiler:
Here's a Stormcast Eternal
Spoiler:
The pauldron style isn't found anywhere in history that I could find. Medieval pauldrons looked like this...
Spoiler:
The pauldrons aren't similar to anything except 40k space marines.
The helmets, while similar to late Roman cavalry helmets, still have a striking similarity to something else from 40k.
Late Roman cav helmet.
Spoiler:
Stormcast Eternal helmet
Spoiler:
And now...oh, dear. This does look familiar.
Spoiler:
Basically, they're far more like space marines in 40k than anything else in terms of aesthetics, theme and functionality. (especially when all three are combined) To say they're not fantasy versions of space marines is being disingenuous. You can still like them and think they're the coolest things ever created, but they are fantasy space marines.
The original rumours all ststed that the GW studio (or possibly accountants) wanted to put space marines into fantasy.
That combined with the pictures above, the whole part about being broken down into things bery similar to chapters that are colour coded, and the whole near immortal superhuman deep striking into battle at the behest of an all mighty god king....
Yeah there is far too much pegging them as fantasy space marines to ignore.
Okay, I have to ask. Who cares if the Stormcast are Space Marines or not? I mean, what difference does it make to anything?
Now, if you just want to get technical about medieval armor, then I'm game. Personally, I feel like the Space Marine pauldrons (or are the spaulders - never understood the difference) are probably a variation on the Galerus - a shoulder guard used by a Retiarius (a type of gladiator that used a net). The pauldron goes up a bit at the end, to protect the neck, but I think they are similar because the Galerus would have symbols etched into the side, not unlike the Space Marine chapter. The Stormcast have more flared out pauldrons/spaulders which seem more typical of the scalloped stuff - maybe the comically oversized pauldrons from Italy in the 15th century.
As for the helmets, the Liberators have helmets that remind me of the guy in the gold mask from Kingdom of Heaven, though I also get a Greek theater mask vibe from them. The Prosecutors and Retributors definitely have more Spartan-type masks, with the big side burn protectors and push broom mohawks. Space Marines, of course, have Stormtrooper helmets. The Stormcast, with their pleated skirts and tower shields, definitely feel more roman inspired than Space Marines. The spiked halos are from ancient greek art as well, and the Prosecutor wings put me in the mind of Icarus, with a bit of an art deco feel to the wings being rays of light. If you were to tell someone to design a heavily armored guy using inspiration from Greek mythology, the Stormcast is what you'd end up with.
It's been fun looking up various ancient armor on Google, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The Stormcast are what they are and if you like them, fine, and if you don't, that's fine too. Even if they are cynical cash grabs, they're easily some of the best cynical cash grabs I've ever seen.
Sqorgar wrote: Okay, I have to ask. Who cares if the Stormcast are Space Marines or not? I mean, what difference does it make to anything?
Because they're obviously fantasy space marines and denying it is ridiculous.
That said, them being fantasy space marines isn't good or bad. It just depends on personal tastes. (though they could have made it less obvious) Its the idea that people say "no, they're not at all like space marines" that is the problem.
And it's a bit of a stretch to say this looks like stormcast pauldrons.
I just don't agree with your thesis. I find the story very interesting and engaging. When my son and I play with/against the Stormcast we put thunder background noise and have a blast. We both love reading the books and playing games. Each game has a story and has been nothing short of exceptional fun.
After reading three of the novels and the various books that have come out, I found myself liking the "official" setting less and less myself. And, it's largely because of what the OP is talking about.
The setting is vast and open to endless possibility. But, that also means the stories and outcomes there are meaningless. If Altdorf fell or Ulthuan burned, it meant something because they just didn't have an infinite supply of these locations. But, if Mount SkullBrass or Blood Canyon or The Endless Swamp or wherever falls to Chaos or is taken back, does it matter?
Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.
If there were ordinary mortals to be protected that would be a noble goal for the "good" factions, but so far mortals have taken a narrative back seat to the burly battles of magically pumped up warriors and the occasional moving tree or dream lizard.
I still enjoy it - the game, and the fluff. But, for me, the Old World was better, and AoS would be better if set in the Chaos dominated ruins of the old world.
Oggthrok wrote: Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.
It's kind of amazing how GW managed to take 40ks 'there is only war' slogan and apply it literally, isn't it?
@MWH: is it any less disingenuous to say that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines", when the writers and sculptors have worked to give them an identity of their own???
i'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, so i don't see how my opinion is "disingenuous" or "ridiculous", simply because it is the opposite of yours...
if these guys hit the same note for me that Marine models and fiction does, i wouldn't even be having this debate...
the Stormcast Eternals are patently fantasy knights, while Marines are sci-fi knights, of course there are similarities...
unfortunately, they lack the visual sci-fi elements that i like so much...
you can call them whatever you like, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with you, especially when i'm not feeling any sci-fi vibes from the SE...
did you look at the Guards in the Thor movies and say, "lazy Marvel, those are just fantasy Space Marines"???
i just thought they were awesome armor designs, and am happy that the SE minis and fiction have a similar vibe to Marvel's Asgard...
again, i am not going to call you insincere for having your opinion, and can respect your view even when i don't agree with it...
it would be nice if that kind of understanding would be reciprocated, but i guess that is asking too much when "someone is wrong on the internet"...
Oggthrok wrote: After reading three of the novels and the various books that have come out, I found myself liking the "official" setting less and less myself. And, it's largely because of what the OP is talking about.
The setting is vast and open to endless possibility. But, that also means the stories and outcomes there are meaningless. If Altdorf fell or Ulthuan burned, it meant something because they just didn't have an infinite supply of these locations. But, if Mount SkullBrass or Blood Canyon or The Endless Swamp or wherever falls to Chaos or is taken back, does it matter?
Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.
If there were ordinary mortals to be protected that would be a noble goal for the "good" factions, but so far mortals have taken a narrative back seat to the burly battles of magically pumped up warriors and the occasional moving tree or dream lizard.
I still enjoy it - the game, and the fluff. But, for me, the Old World was better, and AoS would be better if set in the Chaos dominated ruins of the old world.
That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.
Oggthrok wrote: After reading three of the novels and the various books that have come out, I found myself liking the "official" setting less and less myself. And, it's largely because of what the OP is talking about.
The setting is vast and open to endless possibility. But, that also means the stories and outcomes there are meaningless. If Altdorf fell or Ulthuan burned, it meant something because they just didn't have an infinite supply of these locations. But, if Mount SkullBrass or Blood Canyon or The Endless Swamp or wherever falls to Chaos or is taken back, does it matter?
Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.
If there were ordinary mortals to be protected that would be a noble goal for the "good" factions, but so far mortals have taken a narrative back seat to the burly battles of magically pumped up warriors and the occasional moving tree or dream lizard.
I still enjoy it - the game, and the fluff. But, for me, the Old World was better, and AoS would be better if set in the Chaos dominated ruins of the old world.
That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.
Sounds alright, if you like chaos. I wouldn't want to be playing a race where there isn't enough left to muster a decent scrap. That sounds too far past post apocalyptic and into 'why bother'.
What I dont get is why does the Official GW fluff stops anyone from forming its own narrative... this is what this hobby is and was all about.
When you read a book does your imaginary stop after you finish it or its just more fuel for your thought? When you see a movie do your ideas all of a sudden vanish after the movie credits? When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.
THe Idea I get with AOS is that GW throws you some basic ideas and lets you run with it your own way... thats why there are different factions etc. Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.
NAVARRO wrote: What I dont get is why does the Official GW fluff stops anyone from forming its own narrative... this is what this hobby is and was all about.
When you read a book does your imaginary stop after you finish it or its just more fuel for your thought? When you see a movie do your ideas all of a sudden vanish after the movie credits? When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.
THe Idea I get with AOS is that GW throws you some basic ideas and lets you run with it your own way... thats why there are different factions etc. Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.
Because I liked the world they created, and want to play in that. Like most of the sittings I play in, it's the setting itself that's interesting, it's ideas and rules that drive imagination.
If i don't like an eliment of the world, then it is a part of the whole that I don't like.
If I play my chaos and have to face downcast eternal, then any story I have created for my own army is null. The game loses context, I play lots of difernt settings for difernt reasons. But I don't want to push them all together.
GWs new setting hinders my imagination by its openness, it's bland and offers little that another setting doesn't for me.
It's fun to create story's and charecter within a setting that has rules and context.
People enjoy in RPGs I run when they can tell information on a charecter based on the rules and context, ex This charecter is a paladin of this god, very rare in this part of the world!
Not everything is to everyone's own interest within settings they like equally. But how certen parts interact within the setting can also be a issue, for context we have a player that desperately wants to get 30k going. But with half the players playing mostly army's not in that era, they cut off half the interest. And other marine players want to play In 40k anyway, so 30k isn't really starting due to a lack of interest In the setting from the whole.
This won't be everywhere, but it's a issue that has come up here.
jah-joshua wrote: @MWH: is it any less disingenuous to say that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines", when the writers and sculptors have worked to give them an identity of their own???
i'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, so i don't see how my opinion is "disingenuous" or "ridiculous", simply because it is the opposite of yours...
if these guys hit the same note for me that Marine models and fiction does, i wouldn't even be having this debate...
the Stormcast Eternals are patently fantasy knights, while Marines are sci-fi knights, of course there are similarities...
unfortunately, they lack the visual sci-fi elements that i like so much...
you can call them whatever you like, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with you, especially when i'm not feeling any sci-fi vibes from the SE...
did you look at the Guards in the Thor movies and say, "lazy Marvel, those are just fantasy Space Marines"???
i just thought they were awesome armor designs, and am happy that the SE minis and fiction have a similar vibe to Marvel's Asgard...
again, i am not going to call you insincere for having your opinion, and can respect your view even when i don't agree with it...
it would be nice if that kind of understanding would be reciprocated, but i guess that is asking too much when "someone is wrong on the internet"...
cheers
jah
I never said anything about them having sci-fi elements. You do know what theme, aesthetics and purpose mean, right? Because they're all the same as Space Marines. You're looking at it too literally.
And SE aren't knights. They're armored dudes, but that doesn't make one a knight.
NAVARRO wrote: THe Idea I get with AOS is that GW throws you some basic ideas and lets you run with it your own way... thats why there are different factions etc. Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.
I get what you're saying, but I (and I think many others) need something to connect to, something we enjoy, to begin with otherwise if we are just imagining our own stuff why not do it in any other setting, or make up our own settings? What appeal does AoS then hold?
Because I liked the world they created, and want to play in that. Like most of the sittings I play in, it's the setting itself that's interesting, it's ideas and rules that drive imagination.
If i don't like an eliment of the world, then it is a part of the whole that I don't like.
If I play my chaos and have to face downcast eternal, then any story I have created for my own army is null. The game loses context, I play lots of difernt settings for difernt reasons. But I don't want to push them all together.
GWs new setting hinders my imagination by its openness, it's bland and offers little that another setting doesn't for me.
It's fun to create story's and charecter within a setting that has rules and context.
People enjoy in RPGs I run when they can tell information on a charecter based on the rules and context, ex This charecter is a paladin of this god, very rare in this part of the world!
Not everything is to everyone's own interest within settings they like equally. But how certen parts interact within the setting can also be a issue, for context we have a player that desperately wants to get 30k going. But with half the players playing mostly army's not in that era, they cut off half the interest. And other marine players want to play In 40k anyway, so 30k isn't really starting due to a lack of interest In the setting from the whole.
This won't be everywhere, but it's a issue that has come up here.
I get that context is crucial but in the context of the Oldworld that you prefer is there no space for some skirmishes in the future? I mean you don't like the future as it is presented to you but you can still grab say your Lizzies and ignore the bit that they are errr memories of former selfs and do a battle with them still as reptilian in a jungle pocket forgotten in time... Yes its more effort and you may just prefer to ignore all together I'm just suggesting alternatives.
@jonolikespie AoS has lots of things going on that makes it worth it for me personally. Why would I go and walk Thousands of kilometers creating all from scratch if I can walk a few meters and fine tune a formula. What im trying to say here is that the miniatures are there, the game is there( need some tweaks) the universe does need a bigger dose of readjustment but I can do that by ignoring the bits I do not agree with and go back to Oldhammer stories and backgrounds to patch up the nonsense.
Its like I have the ability to sculpt miniatures from scratch but it takes much more time and effort than Im willing to give to the Hobby so if I want a full army I just convert some minis and sculpt the odd special one.
That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.
Sounds alright, if you like chaos. I wouldn't want to be playing a race where there isn't enough left to muster a decent scrap. That sounds too far past post apocalyptic and into 'why bother'.
I agree with both of you - I love the idea of a post-apocalyptic version of the Old World, but there's no need for there to be too few people left for a good scrap.
In theory, AOS has reduced the over-all size of a Warhammer army. This means you could easily setup the existing armies as surviving remnants who are in hiding, marshaling their forces, without altering them from how they appear in AOS. Imagine a surviving regiment of Empire soldiers using abandoned Skaven tunnels and the ruins of dwarven holds to move unseen and strike at Chaos through guerrilla raids. Or, imagine tribes of forest Goblins who had to flee the forests when Chaos burned them, riding their spiders on a long journey south, away from the North Men, into the burning wastes of what was once Araby. There, they hide from the hated sun by building spider-web suspended villages in the shadows of canyons, venturing out at night to look for water, and fight Chaos scouts who are moving in to take even this refuge from them.
Forces like that would be inclined to band together, allowing a lot of alliances to be played out. (Empire and Goblins in the same army?) Combine it with a more human-seeming Sigmar, one who remembers his life as Karl Franz as well as he does his time as a man founding the Empire. That Sigmar's stormcast would be the preserved souls of warriors of the before-times, Empire soldiers who wear iron masks of Sigmar's face to protect their identity from the gods of Chaos and Death who would try to claim their souls from Sigmar if their identities were discovered. I think it all would leed to a more exciting quest to free the enslaved and rebuild that which was taken.
As it is... motivations are hard to define, the stakes are low, and the only upside is that you can easily make up your own fluff.
(Of course, I do like the game and the setting, to be clear. It could just be a whole heck of a lot better)
jah-joshua wrote: @MWH: is it any less disingenuous to say that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines", when the writers and sculptors have worked to give them an identity of their own???
i'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, so i don't see how my opinion is "disingenuous" or "ridiculous", simply because it is the opposite of yours...
if these guys hit the same note for me that Marine models and fiction does, i wouldn't even be having this debate...
the Stormcast Eternals are patently fantasy knights, while Marines are sci-fi knights, of course there are similarities...
unfortunately, they lack the visual sci-fi elements that i like so much...
you can call them whatever you like, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with you, especially when i'm not feeling any sci-fi vibes from the SE...
did you look at the Guards in the Thor movies and say, "lazy Marvel, those are just fantasy Space Marines"???
i just thought they were awesome armor designs, and am happy that the SE minis and fiction have a similar vibe to Marvel's Asgard...
again, i am not going to call you insincere for having your opinion, and can respect your view even when i don't agree with it...
it would be nice if that kind of understanding would be reciprocated, but i guess that is asking too much when "someone is wrong on the internet"...
cheers
jah
I never said anything about them having sci-fi elements. You do know what theme, aesthetics and purpose mean, right? Because they're all the same as Space Marines. You're looking at it too literally.
And SE aren't knights. They're armored dudes, but that doesn't make one a knight.
That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.
Sounds alright, if you like chaos. I wouldn't want to be playing a race where there isn't enough left to muster a decent scrap. That sounds too far past post apocalyptic and into 'why bother'.
I agree with both of you - I love the idea of a post-apocalyptic version of the Old World, but there's no need for there to be too few people left for a good scrap.
Oh yeah, I should've said, the idea of a post apocalyptic Old World is cool, but the way it was described there sounded a bit too far.
(Of course, I do like the game and the setting, to be clear. It could just be a whole heck of a lot better)
Exactly how I feel! I've already built and fully painted a 45 model army for AoS that I plan to seperate into 4 or 5 armies of its own. I am having lots of fun with the free list building and the skirmish war band scope of the game.
I think it could be sooooo much better though. Better rules and better background, and it's frustrating it's not as good as it could be by a long stretch.
NAVARRO wrote:Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.
Until the other guy piles on more stormcasts with stormbolters, I mean boltstormers, and massive hammers and warscrolls and fings, and murdalises your beastmen while you're on all fours bleating or measuring your armpit hair or something to get a bonus with your old models.
Not to pick on you, Navarro, but one of things that makes me shake my head is how some AoS proponents fall back on the '"GW is actually letting you tailor your armies and themes" line, as if that excuses the bald, pile-in-the-middle rules; as if it's some novel, unique concept that no other game has done before (and better); and as if the warscroll formations aren't some ready-made shopping lists with extra carrots dangled in front of the power seekers.
If GW's pushing gamers to shake things up for themselves ("shake things up for yourself, but only in the ways we tell you") why not shake things up a bit more? Lately I could actually see myself using stormcast in one or two of those other games; though perhaps more as golems or baroque robots, or small numbers of summoned beings rather than an entire sigmarite steamroller force. (But in that case they might have to compete with Mantic's own golden boys)
Oggthrok wrote:Or, imagine tribes of forest Goblins who had to flee the forests when Chaos burned them, riding their spiders on a long journey south, away from the North Men, into the burning wastes of what was once Araby. There, they hide from the hated sun by building spider-web suspended villages in the shadows of canyons, venturing out at night to look for water, and fight Chaos scouts who are moving in to take even this refuge from them.
Y'know what, that sounds fantastic. Like old Mos Espa concept art (think Owen and Beru's farmstead on a massive scale, with hints of native american cliff cities) by way of Skull Island's ravines and Ered Gorgoroth.
NAVARRO wrote:Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.
Until the other guy piles on more stormcasts with stormbolters, I mean boltstormers, and massive hammers and warscrolls and fings, and murdalises your beastmen while you're on all fours bleating or measuring your armpit hair or something to get a bonus with your old models.
Not to pick on you, Navarro, but one of things that makes me shake my head is how some AoS proponents fall back on the '"GW is actually letting you tailor your armies and themes" line, as if that excuses the bald, pile-in-the-middle rules; as if it's some novel, unique concept that no other game has done before (and better); and as if the warscroll formations aren't some ready-made shopping lists with extra carrots dangled in front of the power seekers.
If GW's pushing gamers to shake things up for themselves ("shake things up for yourself, but only in the ways we tell you") why not shake things up a bit more? Lately I could actually see myself using stormcast in one or two of those other games; though perhaps more as golems or baroque robots, or small numbers of summoned beings rather than an entire sigmarite steamroller force. (But in that case they might have to compete with Mantic's own golden boys)
Why so harsh Vermis? Navarro is simply saying if one doesn't like parts of the background, there's no need to let them interfere with one's personal enjoyment of the game. Are you saying we shouldn't alter a game's background setting to suit personal preferences? That seems close minded in my opinion.
Rules are just rules, they don't dictate where you end up on the table in this sort of game.
If players are always getting a pile in the middle that is their fault, not the rules. Play a game that isn't simple kill everything in the middle. It really is exceptionally easy to come up with victory conditions that force you to do other things. E.g. The last game I played (a home made scenario) had my opponent avoiding fights and running away mainly whilst feeding a unit a time in to buy time and space, as time was the critical factor for him, my problem was to not get caught up by that. His army was ultimately crushed for almost no loss to me but I lost the game as I couldn't get to his hero before it met the victory condition.
@MWH: again, if the Stormcast Eternals are "all the same as Space Marines" to you, that's perfectly fine...
they are not to me...
where are the Salamanders SE, the Space Wolves SE, or the robed Dark Angels SE???
like i said earlier, they don't hit any of the same notes for me that Marines do...
that is not a matter of being too literal, that is a matter of being a customer who buys every single Space Marine kit, and is only buying a smattering of SE minis...
if the SE were "just Space Marines", i would be going gaga over them...
instead, i have two, and may buy two more...
Space Marines are way cooler, in my opinion...
that was my point about lacking a sci-fi element, which is my main interest...
as for theme, aesthetics, and purpose, i see the SE as magical Avatars of Sigmar, while Marines are post-human man-machines of death...
aesthetics-wise, the armor of the SE has more in common with the established fantasy armor look of the HE Prince Althran, Archaon, and Valten...
their purpose is to reconquer, and take back all of the territory that the Chaos Gods have dominated...
looking at it that way, it is actually the opposite of the 40K setting, where the purpose is still to hold Chaos back and protect your territory...
i'm not saying that the SE are not meant to capitalize on the popularity of Space Marines...
i just respect the work of the artists, writers, and sculptors in the studio enough to not simply dismiss the work they have done on the Stormcast Eternal art, background, and minis as "just Space Marines"...
pardon me for giving credit to the creative guys for doing a nice job with the brief they were given, and enjoying the books and minis they create...
I hold onto all of my White Dwarfs from 4th - 6th editions of Fantasy, as well as the army books from that time. So these are the things I read when I want some Warhammer.
Yeah, Fantasy is dead. It may never come back. But I'll never switch my mindset and my setting to the new trash GW has ripped off of Norse mythology. At least the stuff they used to rip off was fun and familiar to our own world's history.
NAVARRO wrote:Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.
Until the other guy piles on more stormcasts with stormbolters, I mean boltstormers, and massive hammers and warscrolls and fings, and murdalises your beastmen while you're on all fours bleating or measuring your armpit hair or something to get a bonus with your old models.
Not to pick on you, Navarro, but one of things that makes me shake my head is how some AoS proponents fall back on the '"GW is actually letting you tailor your armies and themes" line, as if that excuses the bald, pile-in-the-middle rules; as if it's some novel, unique concept that no other game has done before (and better); and as if the warscroll formations aren't some ready-made shopping lists with extra carrots dangled in front of the power seekers.
If GW's pushing gamers to shake things up for themselves ("shake things up for yourself, but only in the ways we tell you") why not shake things up a bit more? Lately I could actually see myself using stormcast in one or two of those other games; though perhaps more as golems or baroque robots, or small numbers of summoned beings rather than an entire sigmarite steamroller force. (But in that case they might have to compete with Mantic's own golden boys)
.
I have no problems with my pocket of beastman being beaten to a pulp, I just play for fun and games are only a percentage of my full enjoyment with AoS. Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples. Same applies to anything AoS related.
Regarding the " unique concept argument " If you back track my post you will see that my comparison with WFB was just the opposite of claiming that AOS is something new or revolutionary like I said
"When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere. "
So yeah nothing new nothing extravagant with AOS just probably less regulated and more obvious in the sense of the do it yourself.
Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples.
All of my opponents are friends or family. I have yet to see someone play a non as good as it gets list or allow the changing of rules for a specific army. Changing general rules, that work against everyone, that happens for all system. But unnerfing or nerfing of models or rules for one model? That never happens. It would be stupid too, as it would be like changing how a bishop moves, just because someone doesn't like its rules.
When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.
I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, people liked the non medival france, chaos vikings, XV century germany and totaly not drow armies, and the fluff those had. Even if they were not original, it was stuff that people seemed to like.or at least it was making people play WFB. It seemed to work even when rules were realy bad and editions were realy bad. And all those people and all the potential new seem to not like the idea of space marine of fantasy and space ghost lizardman. The old stuff, which was not very original, had something that was good. What was it I do not know. But I do know that the new stuff is cringy as hell. At best people laugh at how stupid the new fluff is, while talk about old WFB stuff was interesting. I got to know more about female clothing and females durning wars in XII-XVII century by talking to people about WFB, then I learned at school. It even made me look for such stuff on my own, just because it sparked my interest. The eternals don't spark a thing, and they are technicly made out of sparks.
Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples.
All of my opponents are friends or family. I have yet to see someone play a non as good as it gets list or allow the changing of rules for a specific army. Changing general rules, that work against everyone, that happens for all system. But unnerfing or nerfing of models or rules for one model? That never happens. It would be stupid too, as it would be like changing how a bishop moves, just because someone doesn't like its rules.
When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.
I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, people liked the non medival france, chaos vikings, XV century germany and totaly not drow armies, and the fluff those had. Even if they were not original, it was stuff that people seemed to like.or at least it was making people play WFB. It seemed to work even when rules were realy bad and editions were realy bad. And all those people and all the potential new seem to not like the idea of space marine of fantasy and space ghost lizardman. The old stuff, which was not very original, had something that was good. What was it I do not know. But I do know that the new stuff is cringy as hell. At best people laugh at how stupid the new fluff is, while talk about old WFB stuff was interesting. I got to know more about female clothing and females durning wars in XII-XVII century by talking to people about WFB, then I learned at school. It even made me look for such stuff on my own, just because it sparked my interest. The eternals don't spark a thing, and they are technicly made out of sparks.
If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.
As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS... but someone at GW decided to nuke it all... you can either move away from the radiation or wait a bit and see what is beneath the ashes
Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples.
All of my opponents are friends or family. I have yet to see someone play a non as good as it gets list or allow the changing of rules for a specific army. Changing general rules, that work against everyone, that happens for all system. But unnerfing or nerfing of models or rules for one model? That never happens. It would be stupid too, as it would be like changing how a bishop moves, just because someone doesn't like its rules.
.
with respect, only playing 'best' lists, and never anything else, and never changing rules says more about your group than it does with the concept behind it.
I play in a 'closed group' as well with 3 good friends, and occasionally, two other friends join us. And we happily change things up between games, and often for no more reason than 'wouldnt it be fun to try....', or 'i have a really cool idea for a game in mind. lets do this...'
saying it 'never happens' is categorically false - as i said it, we do it, and its a lot more common than you realise. it may not happen for you, but there are plenty groups out there that bend, break, change or ignore various rules if they don't like them. and its certainly not 'stupid' either. ultimately, our enjoyment as a group is the number one aim, and frankly, changing broken, and unfair rules and abilities is in everyones interests.
Deadnight wrote: it may not happen for you, but there are plenty groups out there that bend, break, change or ignore various rules if they don't like them. and its certainly not 'stupid' either. ultimately, our enjoyment as a group is the number one aim, and frankly, changing broken, and unfair rules and abilities is in everyones interests.
I should say you get plenty of practise with GW around.
saying it 'never happens' is categorically false - as i said it, we do it, and its a lot more common than you realise. it may not happen for you, but there are plenty groups out there that bend, break, change or ignore various rules if they don't like them. and its certainly not 'stupid' either. ultimately, our enjoyment as a group is the number one aim, and frankly, changing broken, and unfair rules and abilities is in everyones interests.
No I know it doesn't happen, because for it to happen, you would have to play 2-3 people with huge collections bigger then a normal sized army over and over again. Only then changing unit stats, or telling someone you don't want to play vs this or that army works. But I do agree with you that when 700$+ are spent people want to enjoy the stuff. So they go buy the stuff that is the most efficient, otherwise they would be wasting money twice. First time when they buy bad stuff and get no joy from it, and second time when they buy the good army, but their opponent has spent twice as much on good stuff or moved to a different game or system.
If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.
I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.
But I do agree with you that when 700$+ are spent people want to enjoy the stuff. So they go buy the stuff that is the most efficient, otherwise they would be wasting money twice.
That would be starting from the premise that enjoyment is only based on winning and being competitive to the exclusion of all else. Different people enjoy games for different reasons. The majority of players I personally know do fantasy miniature wargaming for the playing with nice figures on nice tables. You don't have to have the most efficient list to have a good time, you don't even need a good list to have a good time. All you need is some figures that you like and some good friends, preferably one of them with a big gaming table and room around it for half a dozen people, a near by off license and take away shop goes down well as well
Even those of us who might go for an event at Nottingham aren't going to give a hoot about having some 'efficient list', take our models, go and play some other dudes with painted models on nice tables and just have a day out.
I have yet to find a person who wants to play a game and lose most or every time. The looks don't matter much, the rules are what drives the sells. But I do agree with you that you do not need a good time to spend quality time with good friends. In fact you do not need an army at all. This way you not only save 700$ you may have thrown out on a bad army, but have 700$ to buy something else. And that is like having 1400$.
NAVARRO wrote: As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS..
I am calling this bs of the highest order right off the bat.
Where's Ulthuan? Naggaroth? The Empire? The Ruins of Mordheim? Where's Lustria?
Go on. Find them for me.
You can play in the Old World setting with the (abominably bad) rules for AoS, but you can't bring them to AoS.
Vermis wrote:
I should say you get plenty of practise with GW around.
Sadly, it’s almost a requirement for GW games since it is such an open sandbox and so prone to abuse. I know the 40k players here generally play with a co-operative game-building approach – organise a game in advance, and make sure that the armies are compatible, and make good matches rather than risk the too many hard counters that can result from a ‘blind’ match up. My experience amongst the historical playing crowd shows that this attitude is quite prevalent amongst them too.
As for us, we generally play that approach with games like Flames of War and Infinity. Tank only battle? No artillery or aircraft? Yeah, sure, why not? We don’t use points (I actually could not tell you the points cost of anything in that game!), we don’t really follow the games army composition rules, but theme the forces and the mission around interesting goals and objectives, stick with historical organisations (two of my friends are interested in ww2) or throw in unique scenario rules. We did a great ‘inverse escalation’ game recently where the attacker came on full force against a defenders skirmish line. And the skirmish line had to hold out long enough for the defenders reserve to come on board, while the attackers reserves were far more limited and ended up having far further to move to get into position. You wont find it in any rulebook, but it was great fun. Same with Infinity really.
Makumba wrote:
No I know it doesn't happen, because for it to happen, you would have to play 2-3 people with huge collections bigger then a normal sized army over and over again.
Well, firstly there’s your problem. You define your army in terms of a ‘single’ list, and define that as a ‘normal’ army. I play warmachine. The idea of multiple lists with an extra 20pts of sideboards (ADR) is quite common in WMH, and frankly, far from unique in wargames. When I played 40k, I had enough extra stuff for my armies that I could swap stuff out and modify it (because playing the same list over and over againis kinda boring if you ask me).And my collection certainly was far from ‘huge’ – an extra few squads of fire warriors, with some broadsides, crisis suits, pathfinders on top of my regular 1500pt mech-tau list. I think my stuff probably maxed out at 2250-2500pts at most. And I had it bought over the course of a few years so it hardly broke the bank. Regarding playing those two or three people 'over and over again' - is that a bad thing?, it's called 'playing against friends' - I don't see much point is just playing against someone once, do you? Most gaming groups are pretty small to begin with. And frankly, it's better to have a good small group that you can expand slowly than just have bunch of people with conflicting likes, dislikes and interests.
As to you ’knowing’ it doesn’t happen, the fact that we actually do this invalidates your statement. Having more stuff for the sake of variety that you can swap out is quite common. Like I said, it speaks more for your group than the community at large.
Makumba wrote:
Only then changing unit stats, or telling someone you don't want to play vs this or that army works.
Or we brew up our own scenarios.
Makumba wrote:
But I do agree with you that when 700$+ are spent people want to enjoy the stuff. So they go buy the stuff that is the most efficient, otherwise they would be wasting money twice. First time when they buy bad stuff and get no joy from it, and second time when they buy the good army, but their opponent has spent twice as much on good stuff or moved to a different game or system.
Oh?
Im sorry to disappoint you, but I buy stuff because I like it. Optimum efficiency is certainly not my number one priority. A lot of 40k players (or wargamers in general) buy an army because they like the lore or the aesthetics, and its table top performance, or a top place in the meta isn’t really a driving force. If there are imbalances, we build around it. We will make it work. And ours is a far from unique approach. As to ‘enjoying it’, if my group approaches it in the same manner, and if we are happy to talk amongst ourselves to organise an engaging game where one doesn’t auto-hard counter the other, aren’t interested in netdecking each other with power lists, then those issues you speak about cease to matter. You don't need to have two players wielding über power lists and trying to one-up each other to have 'fun'. We’re grown-ups, and reasonably mature (about as mature as any bunch of guys who play toy soldiers can be). Being honest, netdecking my opponent has no interest to me. Any twelve year old kid with half a brain can break 40k with a broken list. That doesn’t make them a great gamer. It’s juvenile and immature. Our responsibilities as gamers come to more than just bring whatever we like to a game in a ‘blind’ match up with the sole aim of seeing your foes driven before you, hearing the lamentation of their women and so on.
Makumba wrote:
I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.
Why not? We’d theme the scenario to suit the slower army. To make it fun for their player. Putting them in a defensive position would be the first suggestion. Lack of magic can be worked around. Our approach is to be proactive, and would be to look at what you have, and how it would likely be deployed and fielded within the context of the game world, and work from there to build an interesting and themed scenario that is both interesting and fair to both participants. You don't need to play out of the box.
Makumba wrote:
I have yet to find a person who wants to play a game and lose most or every time. The looks don't matter much, the rules are what drives the sells.
Rules sell to a certain segment –the more hardcore element in our hobby. But looks absolutely do matter. Maybe not for you, which is fine, but plenty people who post here, like Talys and jah will wax lyrically about the smallest little aesthetic greeble that makes them go out and buy a dozen of model/unit x. While their approach often makes no sense to me, I too have bought models that actually have no rules whatsoever (hasslefree minis), or have no interest in playing (chaos aspiring champ, haqqislam/operation ice storm starter) just for the sheer joy of painting wonderful models. In terms of rules, talys plays like we do – theme the scenario and the forces available around the players.
I have yet to find a person who wants to play a game and lose most or every time.
Losing every time does not equate to wanting to lose every time. Equally playing with a 'sub optimal' army does not mean you lose every time. If I'm playing with the minis I like and so is the other guy and we are not in some WAAC environment then either of us can win.
Then of course there is player skill, good players win with 'inferior' armies. The 'best' players will want to play with the sub-optimal armies just for the challenge, if you are good then why play the best armies and have easy wins all the time?
I think it comes down to the fact that sometimes people can't quite see the separation between playing solely to win, and playing with the aim of having fun and hoping to win when having these discussions.
If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.
I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.
If someone wants to play some games without magic I do not see what is the issue there? But unlike you I understand that different groups probably have different preferences.
@Lithlandis Stormcrow you sound a bit stressed and probably confused too. If you cannot find bridges between both then its an issue you should resolve yourself. I do not need or intend to find you anything after all is my immersion not yours. Do your own thing and curse GW for taking away your toys if you prefer I rather continue to have a good time and be inspired with the extra content, but exactly like I did with WFB not all content is a good one so being selective is essential.
If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.
I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.
If someone wants to play some games without magic I do not see what is the issue there? But unlike you I understand that different groups probably have different preferences.
@Lithlandis Stormcrow you sound a bit stressed and probably confused too. If you cannot find bridges between both then its an issue you should resolve yourself. I do not need or intend to find you anything after all is my immersion not yours. Do your own thing and curse GW for taking away your toys if you prefer I rather continue to have a good time and be inspired with the extra content, but exactly like I did with WFB not all content is a good one so being selective is essential.
Spare me the patronizing attitude and answer me, if you can. Don't dodge the bullet. So far all I read is empty air.
@Lithlandis Stormcrow You are coming across with a weird sense of entitlement like I owe you something... guess what be polite before asking something next time.
If you don't understand the basic concept that other WFB fans can establish links with AOS and enjoy AOS then there is nothing to talk about.
NAVARRO wrote: @Lithlandis Stormcrow You are coming across with a weird sense of entitlement like I owe you something... guess what be polite before asking something next time.
If you don't understand the basic concept that other WFB fans can establish links with AOS and enjoy AOS then there is nothing to talk about.
Ah yes, the "Entitlement" defense - and calling someone unpolite too! Right after you acted condescending and patronizing when that same person called you out on your claim of bringing WHFB settings to AoS... which you are now upgrading to calling dumb. So... who isn't being polite? I criticized your reasoning, not you.
And yet, zero reasoning - are you so afraid to back up your words?
NAVARRO wrote: As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS..
I am calling this bs of the highest order right off the bat.
Where's Ulthuan? Naggaroth? The Empire? The Ruins of Mordheim? Where's Lustria?
Go on. Find them for me.
You can play in the Old World setting with the (abominably bad) rules for AoS, but you can't bring them to AoS.
I think that's what he meant (using the AoS rules to play in the Old World setting).
RoperPG wrote: I think it comes down to the fact that sometimes people can't quite see the separation between playing solely to win, and playing with the aim of having fun and hoping to win when having these discussions.
Are you implying that anyone who wants a modicum of balance or structure in a game falls firmly in the former camp? 'Cos that argument's been done.
(Alternatively, you might be implying that someone in the latter camp hopes to win [who doesn't hope to win?] because they're only pushing random minis around randomly... or because the game doesn't allow much else, and doesn't reward canny playing.)
I think Lithlandis is being too harsh (sorry Lithlandis) but I can understand the frustration. Adapting a game to your own liking can be a good thing, but perhaps not when the game forces you into adapting it, or otherwise pushes you into a narrow type of play. What might be more irritating is when criticism of that route and style is met with veiled, dismissive taunts about joyless powergamers (as if chaotic games with random minis is the only way to have fun, and gamers who like strategy and tactics do it not for fun but for... reasons) or otherwise dodging the issue. I certainly better appreciate anyone who tries to debate or reason things out.
Navarro, I generally agree with Lithlandis, but maybe coming from the other direction. You can use your old Warhammer models in AoS, and fight over locations in the old world, but the plain fact is that the new game isn't intended for the old factions and old world. (There are the legacy warscrolls, but as has been said, the goofy actions you need to perform seem almost tailored to drive you away from the old fluff) You're pushing your minis into a different game, regardless of publisher or manufacturer. With that in mind, is AoS the best, most optimal, automatic choice of game for your old minis? A lot of people didn't think so - they jumped ship to KoW. Were they wrong to choose that game? Were they wrong to try any alternative game? What makes alternate games less viable than AoS, for old-world gaming?
Vermis wrote: I think Lithlandis is being too harsh (sorry Lithlandis)
No need to apologize when you're speaking the truth - I am by nature (or upbringing, I guess) a harsh person, and I have very low tolerance levels for unfounded claims, especially when backed by nothing but a dismissive, pretentious atitude.
NAVARRO wrote: As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS..
I am calling this bs of the highest order right off the bat.
Where's Ulthuan? Naggaroth? The Empire? The Ruins of Mordheim? Where's Lustria?
Go on. Find them for me.
You can play in the Old World setting with the (abominably bad) rules for AoS, but you can't bring them to AoS.
I think that's what he meant (using the AoS rules to play in the Old World setting).
Then someone needs to learn how to phrase things better
NAVARRO wrote: As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS..
I am calling this bs of the highest order right off the bat.
Where's Ulthuan? Naggaroth? The Empire? The Ruins of Mordheim? Where's Lustria?
Go on. Find them for me.
You can play in the Old World setting with the (abominably bad) rules for AoS, but you can't bring them to AoS.
I think that's what he meant (using the AoS rules to play in the Old World setting).
If you are pulling whole cities our countries from WHFB that do not canonically exist within AoS is that not admitting that AoS is not as good as a setting?
RoperPG wrote: I think it comes down to the fact that sometimes people can't quite see the separation between playing solely to win, and playing with the aim of having fun and hoping to win when having these discussions.
Are you implying that anyone who wants a modicum of balance or structure in a game falls firmly in the former camp? 'Cos that argument's been done.
(Alternatively, you might be implying that someone in the latter camp hopes to win [who doesn't hope to win?] because they're only pushing random minis around randomly... or because the game doesn't allow much else, and doesn't reward canny playing.)
No, not in the slightest. My experience is you can get highly competitive players in both brackets, but you only get sportsmen in the latter.
The aim should be to have a good game with winning as an added bonus.
Some people want/need balances and checks in place, some people don't.
But highly competitive players tend to require them because part of their enjoyment from the game is knowing that their opponent had - in some measure - as much a chance of winning as they do.
Others enjoy the idea of an uphill struggle, so don't mind being the underdog.
Either way, as long as both players had an enjoyable game, that's the important thing.
People who derive their enjoyment in gaming solely from winning tend to be/become asshats, and that's speaking as someone who very definitely used to be 'that guy'.
AoS definitely does reward canny playing, by the way. I've seen enough of it in games to know that's not a fluke. Perhaps hoping was the wrong word to use?
If you are pulling whole cities our countries from WHFB that do not canonically exist within AoS is that not admitting that AoS is not as good as a setting
Question of perspective. AoS is a game as far as I'm concerned, not a setting. It's fantasy wargame, and as with any other fantasy wargame I've ever played we use it as a wargame not a setting. Same with KOW, I have no idea whether it even has a setting, never mind whether it is good or bad. I simply downloaded the free rules and played the game. It's a good enough game for any setting with pretty traditional fantasy races. It is not about whether the canonical setting is good or bad. In the dim and distant past I've used games like WFB or D&D battesystem for RPG worlds. That didn't make the official settings better or worse, just not the ones we were using for other reasons.
You can use your old Warhammer models in AoS, and fight over locations in the old world, but the plain fact is that the new game isn't intended for the old factions and old world. (There are the legacy warscrolls, but as has been said, the goofy actions you need to perform seem almost tailored to drive you away from the old fluff) You're pushing your minis into a different game, regardless of publisher or manufacturer. With that in mind, is AoS the best, most optimal, automatic choice of game for your old minis? A lot of people didn't think so - they jumped ship to KoW. Were they wrong to choose that game? Were they wrong to try any alternative game? What makes alternate games less viable than AoS, for old-world gaming?
The game like you said has the full war scrolls supplied for free so its clearly compatible with most wfb models. The GW attempts at humor rules are a good example actually, see, I can play the game without using them. That applies to pretty much anything in AOS or in fact any game.
A lot of people went to KOW or other games and I did had a look into KOW but in the end I opted to use AoS. I'm I wrong by doing so even if I'm a minority according to your statements? Let me reply to that, there is no right or wrong in this equation, its just a game a company published and some people will play it and others will not.
Is AOS the optimal game for my minis? Very good question, I would say that Songs of blades and heroes is nice, I had fun with Confrontation and a bit of alkemy but all of them are skirmish orientated so I do have a soft spot for that kind of game. I think in the end I opted to skip the mass battle thing altogether and adapted GW minis to skirmish. I believe that 15mm is better for mass battle games.
jonolikespie "If you are pulling whole cities our countries from WHFB that do not canonically exist within AoS is that not admitting that AoS is not as good as a setting?"
I think its admitting that AoS is far from perfect and needs amends, but that applies to any game. GW puts out lots of trash as well as lots of good stuff Im the first to point out both with little reservations.
With that in mind, is AoS the best, most optimal, automatic choice of game for your old minis. A lot of people didn't think so - they jumped ship to KoW.
I got to have a glance at the new KOW supplements last week, the one I had heard (maybe wrongly) would be lists for all those GW armies. The army I am building was not fully supported that I could see, it was hard to tell easily in the time I was holding it due to all the name changes and units that GW never had, but it appeared there were at least 2 key models/units for me that had no stats. Not a mega issue, we can make up stats, as we did when we played KOW v1 (but which never felt very satisfactory), but given it makes me make up stats for my models or makes me put extra time and effort into working out whether our minis are supported, then AoS seems a more 'optimal and automatic' game for my minis.
But I'm not really sure what you mean by optimal in this sense?
Probably bizarrely given what you were saying, I was looking at KOW at the start of the year as the urge to have another fantasy mini phase in my life was building up. Choice was KOW or WFB and KOW was a clear winner. Then AOS dropped and AOS is the clear winner. At least in part due it having a much more optimal/automatic support for the GW minis.
I'm planning on playing both. I like the look of round bases more but since movement tray footprint is all the matters in KoW I can still use em for both.
I like the cerebral block maneuvering style of gameplay but find it too limiting if trying to do something more evocative of a particular story (cityfight, tunnel battles, etc) Best of both worlds.
Just lately I compared 8th edition WoC army book with AoS Khorne Bloodtide or whatever the name was, art wise. AoS book came out bad beyond words, the digitised, soulless and uninspiring low quality cheap lol-babarians art would fit as a loading screen in some indie fantasy tower defense game. I wasn't comparing to slaves to darkness mind you just 8th edition.
The mighty battles something something Sigmar book was better but still most of it reeked of deviant arty post proccess on post proccess.
Fluff is even worse, chambers (lol) of stormcast eternals (lol) ride the lighting (lol) and win (suprise). Also color coded chambers, must be greece. It's all excuses for sales department decisions, not a creative vehicle to inspire model and rules designers. Empty fluff for empty game from empty people.
I wouldn't mind a celestial take on he man by (old) GW, great idea tbh but not at a cost of loosing whfb, not with rules so awful and sigmarines.
Yes even in the AoS bloodbound book there are few good pieces. One of the Khul pictures was ok for example, the rest not so much to say the least though. There are more in mighty battles book, I even liked one containing sigmarines heh.
But most of the time it's cartoonish, videogamy and looks like Warhammer censored. Enough to look for example at chaos spawn picture from 8th ed army book to see the difference.
Mannfred has returned and the Stormcasts are currently tracking down Nagash (the nutters). There is also a big plot device with regards Stormcast reforging and Nagash's claim on their souls, so development is in progress. I am guessing we will see something every soon for these guys - it is already coming out in the 
...
Like old 