I must admit it. I've grown to actually like Stormcasts.

At first, I was like anyone else; I thought them to be just fantasy Marines that were way too much build around hammers and oh-so-awsum, and to some extend, I still think that, but just like how I feel about Marines, Stormcasts do have their own feel to them that fits better with the very power-metal-like Age of Sigmar setting.

Here's how I see it; they're the more empathetic, heroic Marines with Hammers and stuff. Their minds aren't what they were before their Forging, but they are still human (or whatever) deep within, and can understand what people around them feel like, unlike Marines. They know what the stakes are, and what they fight to achieve that way. A lot or the lore is written in a stupid, over the top way though, so you need to think outside that preverbial box.

Second; There's so goddamn FEW of them! The Hammers of Sigmar has just around 300 Stormcasts in their Host, with an unknown amount of reserves (propably not many), and with the scale of the celestial, unending realms with absolutely extreme worlds with spans way over what you can imagine, that's just almost NOTHING! They are HUGELY outnumbered, which make them more of a heroic faction!

In combat, they are, as far as I see, not described as being completely infallible. They're skilled, they're huge, their armor is very powerful and weapons too, but they aren't automatically DA BEST like Marines have a tendency to. A Warhammer is a good weapon sure, but it's not described with the stupidity that is Bolter Porn. They're powerful, but reasonably so I feel.

... I don't even know what I'm doing, saying good things about Age of Sigmar... But gotta say, for a power fantasy over the top power-metal holy knights in plate armor faction of heroes and mary sues, it's not particularly gakky is all I'm saying.

I didn't take to them at first myself but grew to like them. The models are a really nice chunky size I find. They lend themselves to any sort of colour scheme you can come up with, though even though they are fairly simple models, I find they take me at least a while to paint. I actually like how consistent they look throughout the range.

You're not alone. I also like the Stormcast Eternals. I see them as total opposites of the emblematic Chaos Warriors. After all, if the Chaos Gods have their own champions fighting for their glory, why the Gods of Order wouldn't have their own? And here they are! Well, sure, they only fight for Sigmar. For now.

Sure, some may say they mostly look the same, but that's the difference between Order and Chaos.

I'm quite glad of what we have until now as troops and heroes - even a big monster now. I hope the next ones will be as nice as well, even if I would understand if there was more love for the other factions in AoS. No, that doesn't mean Khorne.

I think I'd actually like them if they were just the elite troops within a larger fighting force. If they had have been introduced as the Empire's shock infantry or something. Or if they were fighting alongside human auxiliaries, forming the core of an army, but fighting alongside a greater number of humans acting as their ranged support, scouts, and guarding their flanks.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think I'd actually like them if they were just the elite troops within a larger fighting force. If they had have been introduced as the Empire's shock infantry or something. Or if they were fighting alongside human auxiliaries, forming the core of an army, but fighting alongside a greater number of humans acting as their ranged support, scouts, and guarding their flanks.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I was hoping for a wizard or scouts back when the Extremis Chambers were rumoured.

But yes, the Stormcast are still a very flexible army which is a thing I love about them. You want lots of archers? Sure. How about a glass hammer formation? Go for it. There is so much to do with them it is great. They also look amazing in large amounts which I find.

My headcannon for them is that they're the faceless servants of Order - Daemons of Order if you will. Just as bad as the Daemons of Chaos, in their way, but essential to maintaining the balance given the invasion of Chaos into the Old World.

I like to make fun of Sigmarines but I think they're pretty cool too. They are kind of like the other side of the same coin with Chaos warriors. Mortals that gave up their humanity for glory in the name of their god. Warriors of Order in other words.

I have a medium sized Stormcast army and I dig them. Good fun to play too. As stated only let down by no Wizards, but I have a hunch that will change.

I don't understand why anybody wouldn't like the Stormcasts? They're awesome!

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't understand why anybody wouldn't like the Stormcasts? They're awesome!

I think the people who don't like them are the ones who don't like AOS. They go hand in hand really.

They've grown on me, too. I'm still not sure if I like their scale (I'd kind of rather they were a more similar size as Warriors of Chaos), and I still maintain that AoS naming conventions in general are just... just not good. But I like the Stormcast background and Black Library authors have done some good thing with them so far! The models themselves have been pretty great, too.

Like many others, though, I *do* wish narrative focus would shift back to mortals, though. I love the idea of these demigods, but they're not who I *care* about, so to speak. The brief vision of the post-apocalyptic humans I've seen in the novels have done more to spark my imagination and draw me into the world(s) of AoS more than the Stormcasts themselves.

For me there's a divide between the Stormcast of the fluff (particularly novels) and the Stormcast of the tabletop. Unfortunately the actual models don't have the same character and personality that they do in the fluff. On the table they seem like one big bland metallic blob to me, but in the story they are quite different. Something I do like particularly is that they will actually lose to better opponents in the fluff, something marines have difficulty with.

I HATE the gold. That is why I can't stand them right now. I saw someone paint them white, and thought they looked really cool.

But GW wants to keep them gold, so it keeps being a big turn off for me.

Gold's just their associated color like the Empire's red and white or space marine's blue. There's other chambers of Stormcast with more creative colorings.

For me, the hallowed knights are the best. Only the faithful!

Davor wrote:
I HATE the gold. That is why I can't stand them right now. I saw someone paint them white, and thought they looked really cool.

But GW wants to keep them gold, so it keeps being a big turn off for me.

Maybe you haven't been made aware yet, but that gold is one of the best things about Age of Sigmar. (I like the Celestial Warbringers)

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't understand why anybody wouldn't like the Stormcasts? They're awesome!

I really just can't get attached to an army of immortals and don't buy that whole 'they lose part of themselves when they reincarnate' as a legitimate alternative.

I actually look at chaos in the AoS and have a similar problem with them being completely numberless. I just don't at all like the over the top fantasy style of AoS. I don't want anything as gritty and realistic as Game of Thrones but I like my fantasy more grounded in reality, where losing a battle and thousands of soldiers is something that makes you stop and notice.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I really just can't get attached to an army of immortals and don't buy that whole 'they lose part of themselves when they reincarnate' as a legitimate alternative.

I actually look at chaos in the AoS and have a similar problem with them being completely numberless. I just don't at all like the over the top fantasy style of AoS. I don't want anything as gritty and realistic as Game of Thrones but I like my fantasy more grounded in reality, where losing a battle and thousands of soldiers is something that makes you stop and notice.

Complaints about fantasy not being grounded enough have always bewildered me. All fantasy is stupid. To say that one kind of fantasy is less stupid than another feels a bit myopic to me. Personally, I think the Tolkien-esque fantasy tropes have been played out and then some. But to each their own. At the very least, if you prefer your fantasy in that style, you are well taken care of by the past 40 years of fantasy. You could read for another 40 years and still never come close to running out of that grounded fantasy style.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I really just can't get attached to an army of immortals and don't buy that whole 'they lose part of themselves when they reincarnate' as a legitimate alternative.

I actually look at chaos in the AoS and have a similar problem with them being completely numberless. I just don't at all like the over the top fantasy style of AoS. I don't want anything as gritty and realistic as Game of Thrones but I like my fantasy more grounded in reality, where losing a battle and thousands of soldiers is something that makes you stop and notice.

Complaints about fantasy not being grounded enough have always bewildered me. All fantasy is stupid. To say that one kind of fantasy is less stupid than another feels a bit myopic to me. Personally, I think the Tolkien-esque fantasy tropes have been played out and then some. But to each their own. At the very least, if you prefer your fantasy in that style, you are well taken care of by the past 40 years of fantasy. You could read for another 40 years and still never come close to running out of that grounded fantasy style.

Uh.. no? Storytelling has rules and a reader will notice lack of coherence in the world he is reading about. If such lack of coherence reaches a critical level, the suspension of disbelief is broken and the immersion ruined. There is a good or a bad way to write fantasy, like there is a bad or a good way to bake a cake.
Having standards and requiring coherence and relatable characters from the writers is not an absurd request.

Unless, of course, we want to be Perfect Customers (TM) that swallow every crap writers for games and movies paid a dime write in their lunch pause. Thus rewarding the companies that produce such low-quality content for treating us with utter contempt.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Uh.. no? Storytelling has rules and a reader will notice lack of coherence in the world he is reading about. If such lack of coherence reaches a critical level, the suspension of disbelief is broken and the immersion ruined. There is a good or a bad way to write fantasy, like there is a bad or a good way to bake a cake.
Having standards and requiring coherence and relatable characters from the writers is not an absurd request.

Au contraire mon frère. Storytelling has expectations, not rules. Taking fantasy as an example, you can read a bunch of fantasy written before Tolkien, and even Howard, and find examples like Flash Gordon, Wizard of Oz, Doc Savage, John Carter, the Lost World, From Earth to the Moon, and so on. Many of these works, such as Flash Gordon in which people have sword fights on the wings of their spaceship in deep space, are harder for modern audiences to accept due to increased cynicism, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. They didn't break any storytelling rules. 'Tis the audience that changed, not the nature of storytelling.

I think it is important to keep an open minded about these things. Putting things in boxes is a good way to end up trapped in one yourself.

Unless, of course, we want to be Perfect Customers (TM) that swallow every crap writers for games and movies paid a dime write in their lunch pause. Thus rewarding the companies that produce such low-quality content for treating us with utter contempt.

Why are you so insecure in your tastes that you feel the need to insult other people for theirs?

From a lore and world building perspective I think they are lacking, but they do have places to go. The entire way GW has set this up sorta amazes me, how little they can say with so many pages.
At the moment I think it's a wargame with nothing to war over.

The art I think is fine, Angels in armour. Not anything new but can be interesting. But they are a bit bland with little charecter, they should have done more with this, if female downcast come with a slight alternative look I think that will at least provide something here. (From the little lore tidbit).

From my own perspective the minis are super avg, good quality but no charecter. A sea of gold with even there stand out minis looking bland.
They come off as half hearted, with even high fantasy I just can't see this universe being something people will remember with them as the poster children of GW.

Apple fox wrote:

From my own perspective the minis are super avg, good quality but no charecter. A sea of gold with even there stand out minis looking bland.
They come off as half hearted, with even high fantasy I just can't see this universe being something people will remember with them as the poster children of GW.

No character? They exude strength. The Stormcast are these giant, hulking men, stooped over carrying massive hammers that look like they feel heavy, standing a full inch taller than mortal figures. Their holy involvement given away by their shining gold armor and angel wings made from rays of light - not to mention the starred halos most of them feature. Their emotionless masks hide their true face, giving them a sense of mystery and power, making their thunderous arrival in the realms awe inspiring, threatening, and unknowable. Everything you need to know about them is in the miniature itself. I disagree. They've got character. You may not like their character, but that's not a problem with the design and implementation of the miniatures themselves.

Stormcast are the fantasy equivalent of space marines. They have the same character as space marines do. They operate pretty much just as space marines do in the novels.

It may not be character to one's liking, but they have character.

That was a complaint at the miniatures themselves, they in there world are ok but GW got a long way to go. If that's all people want from them then guess that's ok, but eh.

I actuly really like this kinda fantasy world... It's why I keep coming back to see where the game goes.

I absolutely disagree that the notion that Fantasy (and any fantastic genre as a whole) is "stupid" by default. Just like with every other fiction genre out there, you can find well written and poorly written Fantasy. Outside of very specific examples GW's Fantasy fluff has never been truly a top-quality material, but at least it had its charm.

The Stormcast however have no charm in my eyes. They're nothing more than a clunky attempt to bring Space Marines to Fantasy, and if you can't see this from a mile away then you have serious sight issues or you're just deluding yourself. To me, they look like oversized chunks of shiny metal, and their fluff reads like "we're super cool, ain't we?" all the time.

They're one of the blandest, laziest concepts ever developed by GW.

Twelve years ago GW had a fantastic diversity of human factions and subcultures in WHFB. You had the "vanilla imperial" look, plus the Cult of Ulric (lovely, lovely SoC models), the several knightly orders, Bretonnia, Mercenaries (great model range, mostly by the Perrys), etc. To see all that flushed down the toiled and replaced by Sigmarines... no words really.

Oh, one thing I dislike; I've gone through so much Stormcast artwork, and up until now, I haven't found a single Stormcast who looks like it's in problems, being overwhelmed, dead, dying or in any way in danger. That is bs, and I hope it changes soon. Like, there's one image of some Stormcasts heraldring victory over piles of fallen warriors, and they're ALL Khorne Mortals! No Stormcasts at all, even though there's only, like, four of them left standing!

 WarbossDakka wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't understand why anybody wouldn't like the Stormcasts? They're awesome!

I think the people who don't like them are the ones who don't like AOS. They go hand in hand really.

There's definitely a correlation. I think that the sort of person who dislikes AoS is also likely to dislike Stormcasts, for the same reasons.

The Stormcast are definitely the poster boys for AoS, and they personally represent a lot of what I don't like about the game. They're bland. Stormcast armor has even less variation than space marines! They're shallowly developed. The fact that there've been arguments here on Dakka about whether women can even become Stormcasts shows a hilarious disregard for even the basics of worldbuilding. At the same time, what we do know about them is ridiculous. Stormcast are the absolute good guys, full stop. No shade, no nuance, no stakes. They fight and kill all the bad guys, because they're super cool, you guys, and any that die get resurrected to keep fighting. And the "losing humanity upon rebirth" thing is really only an informed problem. We have yet to see it actually cause any issues, apart from some individual angst.

GW has really written themselves into a corner with the Stormcast. As is, they're uninspired. But if they start adding nuance and variation amongst the "chambers," they risk making them even more obviously fantasy space marines.

 Guildsman wrote:
And the "losing humanity upon rebirth" thing is really only an informed problem. We have yet to see it actually cause any issues, apart from some individual angst.

Thostos Bladestorm has been shown to fight with no thought about the well being of his warriors (charging blindly and recklessly into battle), performing acts of brutality against the enemy and cut short a possible parley by burying his sword in the head of an orc leader, without even saying a word. All this can be read in a short (and free) story... provided you can stand the writing style long enough...

 Guildsman wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't understand why anybody wouldn't like the Stormcasts? They're awesome!

They're shallowly developed. The fact that there've been arguments here on Dakka about whether women can even become Stormcasts shows a hilarious disregard for even the basics of worldbuilding. At the same time, what we do know about them is ridiculous. Stormcast are the absolute good guys, full stop. No shade, no nuance, no stakes. They fight and kill all the bad guys, because they're super cool, you guys, and any that die get resurrected to keep fighting. And the "losing humanity upon rebirth" thing is really only an informed problem. We have yet to see it actually cause any issues, apart from some individual angst.

You have not read the novels.

The Wise Dane wrote:Oh, one thing I dislike; I've gone through so much Stormcast artwork, and up until now, I haven't found a single Stormcast who looks like it's in problems, being overwhelmed, dead, dying or in any way in danger. That is bs, and I hope it changes soon. Like, there's one image of some Stormcasts heraldring victory over piles of fallen warriors, and they're ALL Khorne Mortals! No Stormcasts at all, even though there's only, like, four of them left standing!

They zap back to Sigmar to get reforged when they die; Stormcast don't leave corpses. If there is only four left standing then rest assured there are quite a few who didn't make it that far.

Korinov wrote:and their fluff reads like "we're super cool, ain't we?" all the time.

You have not read the novels.


Now all of that said, I think statements about them being bland and lacking character are very much true when it comes to the models. The models simply do not live up to the fluff, and (to me at least) just give the feeling of a big bland metallic blob.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Au contraire mon frère. Storytelling has expectations, not rules. Taking fantasy as an example, you can read a bunch of fantasy written before Tolkien, and even Howard, and find examples like Flash Gordon, Wizard of Oz, Doc Savage, John Carter, the Lost World, From Earth to the Moon, and so on. Many of these works, such as Flash Gordon in which people have sword fights on the wings of their spaceship in deep space, are harder for modern audiences to accept due to increased cynicism, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. They didn't break any storytelling rules. 'Tis the audience that changed, not the nature of storytelling.

I think it is important to keep an open minded about these things. Putting things in boxes is a good way to end up trapped in one yourself.

I fear you are completely missing the point. The point is not how much weird is a given world for modern tastes, but how much this world is coherent with itself. If the writer gives or describes "rues" of this world, the reader keeps is immersion (but can or cannot enjoy it, in base of the tastes). But if such rules are dumb and contradictory, the immersion is broken. Sometimes this is played on, like in some kind of parodies (like the movie Spaceballs or the Space Wolves from 5th edition).

How much the universe described itself is well detailed, coherent, immersive, creates (or not) the same effect and this is due to the skill of the writer. Funny how you cite Tolkien: Tolkien created an universe well described (at least in the land focus of the story) up to the languages talked (the trigger was actually the language creation) and this world and its character a good example of something relatable.

So no, I will not lower my standards to be "open minded". Eat crap is not being "open minded".

Why are you so insecure in your tastes that you feel the need to insult other people for theirs?

GW is treating its customers with contempt. I see people eating happily the aforementioned crap. I am not insulting anyone. I am not saying "you are dumb because you eat crap". I am saying "stop eating GW's crap, is time to send them a signal".
If we keep buying their stuff even if the quality is so low, they will keep treating us with contempt. And mind, I am a crap eater also. I realised it these days.

Maybe some people like it and don't feel like they're being treated with contempt.

In regard to the models, I think that the problems with the models are that they don't have a face. They are just walking armours that we don't know what lies underneath.

The problem with this however is if we remove that armour we get closer to the Empire's design. Losing armour in place for more personality is what made the Empire who they are in the first place.

So, the natural thing to say to that is "keep the armour, and remove the helmets." Now the problem has changed to it is no longer realistic, why would important soldiers, like the squad's Primes remove their helmets? People have this problem in 40k in regard to SM Sergeants, so you shouldn't bring this theme into the Stormcast ranks. It would also bring more ties in that Stormcast = Fantasy SM.

This is what lead me to the opinion that the massive amounts of armour and "facelessness" is actually a good design choice. Stormcast helmets are moulded in the shape of a face as we all know. This could be used in several ways:
- Hiding emotions of the face like pain or horror.
- Using it as a scare tactic, because if you can't see the face, you aren't able to see any emotion from them while fighting.

If you look at it from that stand point, the fact that the models have no character are because of actual tactics used in battle. If you don't know what your opponent even looks like, you can't give them human emotions when fighting them. Fighting someone without a face would just be as horrifying as fighting Daemons, because of their lack of emotion.

I see the Stormcast as GW getting back to their roots of stealing everything from Moorcock. Their concept of Chaos and mutation is directly stolen from there, and Moorcock had the forces of Order as big part of his cosmology.

The faceless, uniform Stormcast are a great stand in for the forces of Order. I wouldn't have minded them being integrated into the old setting at all really. I just find them a bit pricey for what you get, and since the Chaos Barbarians in the core set are outscaled compared to what I already own (Marauders and so on) I am not that interested in getting the set.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Au contraire mon frère. Storytelling has expectations, not rules. Taking fantasy as an example, you can read a bunch of fantasy written before Tolkien, and even Howard, and find examples like Flash Gordon, Wizard of Oz, Doc Savage, John Carter, the Lost World, From Earth to the Moon, and so on. Many of these works, such as Flash Gordon in which people have sword fights on the wings of their spaceship in deep space, are harder for modern audiences to accept due to increased cynicism, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. They didn't break any storytelling rules. 'Tis the audience that changed, not the nature of storytelling.

I think it is important to keep an open minded about these things. Putting things in boxes is a good way to end up trapped in one yourself.

I fear you are completely missing the point. The point is not how much weird is a given world for modern tastes, but how much this world is coherent with itself. If the writer gives or describes "rues" of this world, the reader keeps is immersion (but can or cannot enjoy it, in base of the tastes). But if such rules are dumb and contradictory, the immersion is broken. Sometimes this is played on, like in some kind of parodies (like the movie Spaceballs or the Space Wolves from 5th edition).

How much the universe described itself is well detailed, coherent, immersive, creates (or not) the same effect and this is due to the skill of the writer. Funny how you cite Tolkien: Tolkien created an universe well described (at least in the land focus of the story) up to the languages talked (the trigger was actually the language creation) and this world and its character a good example of something relatable.

So no, I will not lower my standards to be "open minded". Eat crap is not being "open minded".

Why are you so insecure in your tastes that you feel the need to insult other people for theirs?

GW is treating its customers with contempt. I see people eating happily the aforementioned crap. I am not insulting anyone. I am not saying "you are dumb because you eat crap". I am saying "stop eating GW's crap, is time to send them a signal".
If we keep buying their stuff even if the quality is so low, they will keep treating us with contempt. And mind, I am a crap eater also. I realised it these days.

I cant seem how the quality is low, you can argue the price is high but the models are good, the game and story are just not to your liking, if you feel GW treat you with contempt then you dont have to buy the stuff you dont have to post in a topic about liking storm casts telling people they eat crap and to stop buying said crap thats just not nice, this opinion is about you not about the people enjoying it, openly discussing the reason you dont like it and what can be done to improve it is fine, just saying it crap and by connection linking peoples choices to that is not kind. I hope you are as discerning about all the big companies that really are asses and really dont treat there customers, workforce or the world well, when you buy all the more important things like cloths and food.

On topic I really like the facelessness of SE and hope its a theme, i think they pigeon holed them selves a little by making them too fancy lol
and now they seem generic because you can only bling so much but the avatar of war angel type theme is cool imo. I personally wish they where even more the automatomatic war machines than they already are. I do worry that i cant forsee much future for evolution of the line with out just changing what is good about them tho.

I am a fan of AoS but I don't like Stormcast Eternals at all. They feel very different to Space Marines despite their similarities. I don't like the Stormcast models or fluff.

When playing AoS and thinking up stories of my soldiers I like to imagine the Stormcast to be cruel and cold in their justice and terrifying from a normal man to encounter - I also imagine them to be near mythical and so not involved in any of my stories except for far flung rumours - lastly I imagine Sigmar to be a petty and cruel God, prone to jealousies and ambition and soley focused on revenge while he leaves the ceslestial realm to rot and fracture under its own devices and internal rivalries.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

I fear you are completely missing the point. The point is not how much weird is a given world for modern tastes, but how much this world is coherent with itself. If the writer gives or describes "rues" of this world, the reader keeps is immersion (but can or cannot enjoy it, in base of the tastes). But if such rules are dumb and contradictory, the immersion is broken. Sometimes this is played on, like in some kind of parodies (like the movie Spaceballs or the Space Wolves from 5th edition).

Which was my point. The Wizard of Oz series has no rules, for example. There's a character in one of the books that has a hall of heads that she can remove and exchange at will. Why? Don't know. How? No idea. Is it awesome? You bet. It is fantasy after all. Nothing wrong with it being fantastic.

How much the universe described itself is well detailed, coherent, immersive, creates (or not) the same effect and this is due to the skill of the writer. Funny how you cite Tolkien: Tolkien created an universe well described (at least in the land focus of the story) up to the languages talked (the trigger was actually the language creation) and this world and its character a good example of something relatable.

I'm not going to go into all the flaws that Tolkien made in his world design, but suffice to say, if you really thought about it, you'd find that Tolkien's world is just about as realistic as Oz. It gets a pass largely because you don't really think about it. And that's fine. But it makes a poor argument for "grounded" fantasy.

So no, I will not lower my standards to be "open minded". Eat crap is not being "open minded".

Well, you know what they say. Opinions are like donkey-caves. Everybody's got one.

GW is treating its customers with contempt. I see people eating happily the aforementioned crap. I am not insulting anyone. I am not saying "you are dumb because you eat crap". I am saying "stop eating GW's crap, is time to send them a signal".

It's time to send a signal that they should stop making the kind of fantasy I like and instead make the kind of fantasy you like because somehow, that's more respectful towards me? Opinions and donkey-caves indeed.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:


I cant seem how the quality is low, you can argue the price is high but the models are good, the game and story are just not to your liking, if you feel GW treat you with contempt then you dont have to buy the stuff you dont have to post in a topic about liking storm casts telling people they eat crap and to stop buying said crap thats just not nice, this opinion is about you not about the people enjoying it, openly discussing the reason you dont like it and what can be done to improve it is fine, just saying it crap and by connection linking peoples choices to that is not kind. I hope you are as discerning about all the big companies that really are asses and really dont treat there customers, workforce or the world well, when you buy all the more important things like cloths and food.

The models? We should not go again on the "Fyreslayers" tiptoeing, shall we? And I stopped. Right now I buy lotr stuff on ebay. I rediscovered it with great pleasure. I just ignore MattWardian stuff like the shamans.
I am spiteful toward GW, sorry if you felt offended (and this is my problem, failure in communication is from my part).

On topic I really like the facelessness of SE and hope its a theme, i think they pigeon holed them selves a little by making them too fancy lol
and now they seem generic because you can only bling so much but the avatar of war angel type theme is cool imo. I personally wish they where even more the automatomatic war machines than they already are. I do worry that i cant forsee much future for evolution of the line with out just changing what is good about them tho.

I actually like this. Kinda like the Inevitables in DnD. But away from the old world. Whooops, too late.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

.
Which was my point. The Wizard of Oz series has no rules, for example. There's a character in one of the books that has a hall of heads that she can remove and exchange at will. Why? Don't know. How? No idea. Is it awesome? You bet. It is fantasy after all. Nothing wrong with it being fantastic.

Again, this is not the point. WoO is an universe in which beheading is not lethal for an individual. Or eggs are lethal for another. But if the same individual eats an egg and survives, the author must give us an explaination or the suspension of disbelief is broken. A good author cares about this. What I said is valid for good characters and what else.

I'm not going to go into all the flaws that Tolkien made in his world design, but suffice to say, if you really thought about it, you'd find that Tolkien's world is just about as realistic as Oz. It gets a pass largely because you don't really think about it. And that's fine. But it makes a poor argument for "grounded" fantasy.

Nothing is perfect. Even our reality can be weird at times. But there are differences in effort and detail from the part of an author. Some people see them.

Well, you know what they say. Opinions are like donkey-caves. Everybody's got one.

Witty comeback! Right to the point! But yes, quality do exist and AoS has none. No in models, "ruleset", nothing. And be upset at GW (and NOT at those who like it) is normal.

It's time to send a signal that they should stop making the kind of fantasy I like and instead make the kind of fantasy you like because somehow, that's more respectful towards me? Opinions and donkey-caves indeed.

You could have the same AoS I would like with a rule framework. In this way, I would play with and you without. But GW convinced you that the lack of a ruleset is not them being lazy/cheap/disregarding the customer. Is a new shining example of modern design! Not.
For you all of this is ok. This time. Next time? Who knows.

 Bottle wrote:
I am a fan of AoS but I don't like Stormcast Eternals at all. They feel very different to Space Marines despite their similarities. I don't like the Stormcast models or fluff.

When playing AoS and thinking up stories of my soldiers I like to imagine the Stormcast to be cruel and cold in their justice and terrifying from a normal man to encounter - I also imagine them to be near mythical and so not involved in any of my stories except for far flung rumours - lastly I imagine Sigmar to be a petty and cruel God, prone to jealousies and ambition and soley focused on revenge while he leaves the ceslestial realm to rot and fracture under its own devices and internal rivalries.

Now if GW started with that in the starter box set for Age of Sigmar, I would be more interested in them and maybe have bought some books to read more up on them. I like this very much, I think I will have to use this as my basis for when I finally get to putting together my Sigmarines.

Davor wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I am a fan of AoS but I don't like Stormcast Eternals at all. They feel very different to Space Marines despite their similarities. I don't like the Stormcast models or fluff.

When playing AoS and thinking up stories of my soldiers I like to imagine the Stormcast to be cruel and cold in their justice and terrifying from a normal man to encounter - I also imagine them to be near mythical and so not involved in any of my stories except for far flung rumours - lastly I imagine Sigmar to be a petty and cruel God, prone to jealousies and ambition and soley focused on revenge while he leaves the ceslestial realm to rot and fracture under its own devices and internal rivalries.

Now if GW started with that in the starter box set for Age of Sigmar, I would be more interested in them and maybe have bought some books to read more up on them. I like this very much, I think I will have to use this as my basis for when I finally get to putting together my Sigmarines.

But Stormcast have to be as ridiculously 'good' as Khorne are bloodcrazed, or Nurgle are diseased. They are paragons, flawless shining beacons of humanity. Saviours of the mortal realms, forged from their' own sons and daughters by a loving God.
Except...
They're untested. Until the attack on the Brimstone Peninsula, no Stormcast had ever wielded a weapon in anger against a genuine foe.
They're unsure. Sigmar has told them they're immortal, but dying still hurts. And those who have been re-reforged...? They're different, and remaining Stormcast can tell. But Sigmar wouldn't lie to them, surely?
They're still human enough to be jealous, to be proud, to be hateful.
And Sigmar.
Was handing Chaos' collective arse to it solo, until he lost Ghal Maraz.
Decided to do a runner, turned Azyrheim into a colossal refugee camp, and killed anyone who didn't play happy families, then let the mortal realms suffer while he built a big army of Ubermensch to fight the enemies that bested him. Even when he got Ghal Maraz back, he decided to give it to the Celestant Prime instead of picking up where he left off.

None of this is conjecture, it's all been written, and I'm not half way through the BL stuff yet.

Well, another point to be argued is that the Flandersization of the various chaos factions is also a problem with GW's recent fluff.

Still, your summary did pique my interest a little more- the idea of them as new, untested and unsure is pretty cool. But sadly, the models give none of that away. I'd like some way to access that background, which is more compelling, without having to purchase overpriced BL books.

I still think Gold was a *terrible* idea for the colour scheme primary colour scheme. Hallowed Knights (Silver) photograph and look better because the contrast is easier. But meh.

As for the models... I understand why people don't like them, but I kinda like them being 'faceless'. Like statues. They get reforged to a standard 'blueprint' I guess.

Now what *will* be interesting is... what happens when you get a mass of veteran Stormcast who haven't died at all? Chance to properly adjust to who/what they are, etc. without Sigmar hitting the reset button?

I like the faceless aspect of the models, though I think it makes them more like automatons than characters.

It can't be said that the minis have much in the way of "character" , y'know?

But that can work. There's a place in fiction for automatons. There's just a wee disconnect between what's being said in the fluff (apparently! I haven't read a lot) and the models.

Okay, I'm way too much in the deep end of the conjecture spectrum, but what you guys say about Stormcasts and Chaos... Maybe that's kind of the point

Let's take Stormcasts first. On the outside, the look orderly, neat and controlled, true exemplars of what Sigmar, a god of Order, believes to be the best for humanity. Only issue is, they're really not. Each of them are still human, or at least somewhat mortal, and they have fears and anger and lusts still. So, for them to be perfect, they have to permanently suppress their human sides, until it goes away through several martyr deaths. They never die, but slowly corode away, becoming what Sigmar wants them to be while losing individuality.

Meanwhile, each Chaos believer seems like he's a complete mess outwards, ruined and crazed; butthe thing is, Chaos does not have a problem with indulging in humanity's most base desires. So, to any Order-alligned person, Chaos like Bloodbound are maniacs... But really, they're not only allowed to act human, but rewarded for it. So it's the exact opposite; Chaos wants a horde of believers, each wierder than the next.

I'm reading too much into this, but if this fits, GW might unintentionally made something awesome; something they can't do with Marines, because really, Marines havemore options and personality than most Chaos models.

Also, Sigmar being a petty god? He kinda just took the body of an Emperor for himself and erased said Emperors personality just like that, while allowing a world to die while he was trying to get his favourite hammer back from his rival... So yeah, he's petty.

It would be nice to see some explanations of that sort of stuff from GW writers.

Petty and fickle gods are something that most real world religions have lots of, so its probably one of the more realistic things in AoS
I totally agree with gold being a poor choice for the main color. It looks good in person but really does not photo well.

Love stormcast, lol. Pumped for the order alliance book tmrw. Picked up chaos today, love having the stats on paper.

I don't have any pictures but I feel Stormcast Eternals with good original colours schemes look a lot better than gold scheme, which puts me off them completely.

Other color schemes are much better than the poster boys, the Hammers of Sigmar, imho. Hallowed Knights and some of the darker schemes look much better

NMM gold works well for the Stormcasts, I must admit my view on them changed when I saw this scheme. White and silver fit better than gold though- it feels too corny with all gold all the time

Haven't followed much of the AoS fluff, but I'd like to imagine units of stormcast come to fight when gaks gotten real. Outside of that you have to petition Sigmar to have him send a stormcast or two to assist your village, etc. - You need extra help stopping a chaos raid on your village? Better send a messenger to Sigmar asking for a Stormcast to come aide you. The idea of him sending 1 of his champions to small scale affairs feels better to me than sending 25-30+

Adding in some secrecy, they could thunderbolt down a few sigmeters? from said village,etc then walk in- so nobody outside of Azyr knows how the Stormcasts get around.

The generic gold/blue is just really boring. Any other color would make them more interesting.

The idea of a celestial lightning soldier is cool. The face-helmets are really great lets be honest. Are they chunky faceless statues? Yea but all fantasy armies have that and its remedied by just having a small contingency of Stormcast in your Empire army or something.

Its the same with the boring people who play mono-grey knights. Just boring terminator spam. Mix it up and its good.

The gold/blue scheme is appropriate for the Hammers of Sigmar. As the first Stormhost, their colours should match those of Sigmar, and somehow I don't see Sigmar wearing teal armour

 The Wise Dane wrote:
Let's take Stormcasts first. On the outside, the look orderly, neat and controlled, true exemplars of what Sigmar, a god of Order, believes to be the best for humanity. Only issue is, they're really not. Each of them are still human, or at least somewhat mortal, and they have fears and anger and lusts still. So, for them to be perfect, they have to permanently suppress their human sides, until it goes away through several martyr deaths. They never die, but slowly corode away, becoming what Sigmar wants them to be while losing individuality.

From the fluff thus far, this is basically how it works.

Meanwhile, each Chaos believer seems like he's a complete mess outwards, ruined and crazed; butthe thing is, Chaos does not have a problem with indulging in humanity's most base desires. So, to any Order-alligned person, Chaos like Bloodbound are maniacs... But really, they're not only allowed to act human, but rewarded for it. So it's the exact opposite; Chaos wants a horde of believers, each wierder than the next.

I see what you mean, but I think the reality is that these warriors are stripped of their humanity as much as Stormcast, only in the opposite direction. While Stormcast steadily lose their personality, chaos worshipers have certain aspects pushed to inhuman levels while others are diminished. In the end, all of them wind up becoming closer to their god of choice but further from the race/individual they once were.

Also, Sigmar being a petty god? He kinda just took the body of an Emperor for himself and erased said Emperors personality just like that, while allowing a world to die while he was trying to get his favourite hammer back from his rival... So yeah, he's petty.

In the fluff we are seeing some of this, but more so it has portrayed Sigmar with about as much subtlety as his hammer, which is to say next to none. He is a warrior-god and everything he does is seen through that lens for him, even when he is trying not to. His solution to any amount of opposition is more or less destruction, while he tolerates any amount of moral depravity as long as said people stand with him rather than against.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Personally, I think the Tolkien-esque fantasy tropes have been played out and then some.

AoS is fairly Tolkien-ish, all told, it's just zoomed in on a single element of Tolkien. Which is part of the problem - there's no range in AoS. It's a universe whose endless possibilites are talked up in the abstract, but ends up suffocated by the tiny little box of theme, tone and emotion that the actual published fiction operates in.

 Lexington wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Personally, I think the Tolkien-esque fantasy tropes have been played out and then some.

AoS is fairly Tolkien-ish, all told, it's just zoomed in on a single element of Tolkien. Which is part of the problem - there's no range in AoS. It's a universe whose endless possibilites are talked up in the abstract, but ends up suffocated by the tiny little box of theme, tone and emotion that the actual published fiction operates in.

[edit] Nevermind, opinions on the setting as a whole are off-topic; this is supposed to be about Stormcast specifically.

I fell in love with the Stormcast too!!!

I can't stand the lazy cad design of the stormcast and their background is just plain bad, I wouldn't of liked them if they'd been introduced in 8th either.

And that's before you even mention stupid prices £127 for seven models.

There is not much there to like they all got that confused look on their face and the put mold line in the center it makes it look like detail look to them.

 SpinCycleDreadnought wrote:
NMM gold works well for the Stormcasts, I must admit my view on them changed when I saw this scheme. White and silver fit better than gold though- it feels too corny with all gold all the time

That is how I feel. Nice to see maybe I could be on the right track here. Do you or anyone else know of any pics of White, silver or White/silver Stormcasts pics? I would like to see them to see if I can copy them or gives me inspiration to paint mine. I did one in all silver and didn't like it much and stopped there. Would be nice to finish of the rest and maybe buy more if I like what I am doing.

Like this scheme GW put up recently.

I like the look of the models, and could get the starter models for as low as $75 US. BUT looking at the cost of expanding beyond the starter box? Its way too much. Gdub just released a box set of 3 khorne champions for $90. Im sorry thats way too much.

I've been playing Gdub games since the late 90s, so built up a nice collection of models, and only had to suffer slight tweek purchases when a new codex or army book came out. AoS would be the first army purchase I made since maybe to editions ago? Its just way to expensive and I can't justify making a purchase. The starter box cost is good but If prices were like this when I starter the hobby I would have steered clear of it...and this comes from a guy playing for almost 20 years.

coldgaming wrote:
Like this scheme GW put up recently.

Spoiler:

I like the Tempest Lord colour scheme, but I just can't get my head around their shield boss. Looks.. Cartoony? Like a surprised hammer.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You have not read the novels.

Don't you hate it when you go see a film and someone tells you that you need to "read the book" to fully comprehend the story and fill in the plot holes?

Well same issue here. I've given the fluff that goes with the gaming material a look. It's blandness on paper, almost as bland as the models themselves.

 Korinov wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You have not read the novels.

Don't you hate it when you go see a film and someone tells you that you need to "read the book" to fully comprehend the story and fill in the plot holes?

Well same issue here. I've given the fluff that goes with the gaming material a look. It's blandness on paper, almost as bland as the models themselves.

Precisely. If the freely available fluff isn't enough to intrigue me, why should I spend my time and money on novels?

I have a "games backlog" as long as my arm of systems I want to get into someday, based solely on promo materials, website copy, individual model descriptions, etc. AoS is not one of them.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You have not read the novels.

Some how I missed this quote. Now that I have seen it, I have to ask you mean the novels with the great reviews praising how great the writing is? NOT! I think 50 Shades of Grey are better books from what Black Library is putting out.

Apparently Rey from the force awakens isn't Mary sue because of something in the book but that's irrelevant to me as its not in the movie.

If someone doesn't like space wolves you don't tell them to go read a long list of books so they get it.

Even if we did read the books we may come out hating them.

Let's face it if you want a great read you don't go to BL.

 Guildsman wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You have not read the novels.

Don't you hate it when you go see a film and someone tells you that you need to "read the book" to fully comprehend the story and fill in the plot holes?

Well same issue here. I've given the fluff that goes with the gaming material a look. It's blandness on paper, almost as bland as the models themselves.

Precisely. If the freely available fluff isn't enough to intrigue me, why should I spend my time and money on novels?

I have a "games backlog" as long as my arm of systems I want to get into someday, based solely on promo materials, website copy, individual model descriptions, etc. AoS is not one of them.

If you read what's readily available and decide you aren't interested that's fine. What you guys are doing is watching a trailer for a movie then saying the movie is bad. Your impression is perfectly valid but your opinion on the quality of the movie as a whole has no legitimacy because you have not actually viewed the content in question. If you made statements like "from what I saw they seem pretty bland, so I don't like them" then you would be on solid ground. You didn't. You made sweeping statements about the quality of the fluff in its entirety. I can understand people's opinions but if you don't have anything to back it up go start your own thread for unsubstantiated bashing.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Guildsman wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You have not read the novels.

Don't you hate it when you go see a film and someone tells you that you need to "read the book" to fully comprehend the story and fill in the plot holes?

Well same issue here. I've given the fluff that goes with the gaming material a look. It's blandness on paper, almost as bland as the models themselves.

Precisely. If the freely available fluff isn't enough to intrigue me, why should I spend my time and money on novels?

I have a "games backlog" as long as my arm of systems I want to get into someday, based solely on promo materials, website copy, individual model descriptions, etc. AoS is not one of them.

If you read what's readily available and decide you aren't interested that's fine. What you guys are doing is watching a trailer for a movie then saying the movie is bad. Your impression is perfectly valid but your opinion on the quality of the movie as a whole has no legitimacy because you have not actually viewed the content in question. If you made statements like "from what I saw they seem pretty bland, so I don't like them" then you would be on solid ground. You didn't. You made sweeping statements about the quality of the fluff in its entirety. I can understand people's opinions but if you don't have anything to back it up go start your own thread for unsubstantiated bashing.

If people need to go out of their way to find the lore that makes a faction interesting then that is a colossal failure on the company's part. Any good business should know that first impressions are everything.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If people need to go out of their way to find the lore that makes a faction interesting then that is a colossal failure on the company's part. Any good business should know that first impressions are everything.

A decent chunk of this lore is in the main realmgate wars rulebooks, which are the 'core' line of books so to speak. But I more or less agree with you; the price of these books is very high and the novels are out-of-the-way of the main product line; GW's pricing and structure has made even the basic lore difficult to access. However, that still doesn't justify drawing overall conclusions without any knowledge beyond the free previews. If Korinov, Guildsman, etc. Have actually read the fluff in the realmgate wars rulebooks then I will happily retract my statement.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What you guys are doing is watching a trailer for a movie then saying the movie is bad. Your impression is perfectly valid but your opinion on the quality of the movie as a whole has no legitimacy because you have not actually viewed the content in question. If you made statements like "from what I saw they seem pretty bland, so I don't like them" then you would be on solid ground. You didn't. You made sweeping statements about the quality of the fluff in its entirety. I can understand people's opinions but if you don't have anything to back it up go start your own thread for unsubstantiated bashing.

No, as someone already said, what you are saying is WE DID watch the movie, we didn't like the movie and now you are telling us to read the book. In other words I watched the movie or I bought the starter box set. Now I find it meh, and you are telling me now I need to read the book. I shouldn't HAVE to read the book. GW failed in getting me into their new lore. GW failed getting me excited. GW failed because I perceive that the SIGMARARINES, not Stormcast eternals are exciting and I should be excited for them.

No, it's not up to me or anyone else to like the Stormcast Eternals, it's up to GW. If GW thinks they can entice me to buy more of their products, books as you say, then GW has failed again.

So no, I haven't watched the trailer. I bought the fracking box set. What was in there, was garbage and didn't entice me at all, and because of that, I will not buy the books.

So please again, explain to us how we have watched the trailer. How about we have a different opinion than you and instead of telling us we are wrong, just state your opinion instead of trying to prove some of us wrong.

Anyone interested in the books' fluff but doesn't want to buy them should catch some of the AoS podcasts out there, namely Heelan Hammer, Garage Hammer and Mortal Realms. Others like Lost Lighthouse, The Black Sun, Face Hammer etc. go into the fluff sometimes but the first three all dedicate whole shows to each book.

I do wish there was some consequence to them dying. I don't mind that they get resurrected but I wish there was more fluff as to how difficult a process it is.

Like Space Marine initiation. Otherwise it seems like they just instantly respawn them.

Was at my not so Local Friendly Gaming Store today. They had some Stormcasts painted up in silver, with white shoulder pads and looked good.

So I will try one like that and see how it goes. Such a huge improvement over the gold in my opinion. If these were done like this from the beginning, I would have been more interested in them that is for sure.

Not sure if Gold is a Blood Angel thing or not and that could be why it was such a turn off, or maybe it was Blood Angel players saying they would make great BA marines.

 KiloFiX wrote:
I do wish there was some consequence to them dying. I don't mind that they get resurrected but I wish there was more fluff as to how difficult a process it is.

Like Space Marine initiation. Otherwise it seems like they just instantly respawn them.

Oh there is a price. It is more prevalent in the novels of course as it allows the fluff to focus on the personal level rather than campaign level events but it can be seen in Thostos Bladestorm after the events of the Quest for Ghal Maraz.

Essentially, each time the Stormcasts die they are literally losing part of their souls. For each one it is different, it could be memories of their first life or even their personality.

A good portion of the novels so far have focused on the Stormcast POVs coming to grips with their past lives and their new lives. Especially in cases like Vandus or Adamantine who face against foes they failed to stop as humans. Others such as Gardus it deals more with Chaos directly tormenting them with the ghosts of their past almost literally.

For me that is far more interesting and compelling than say the Space Marines who do not dwell on their "past lives" at all (except for Ragnar constantly).

Davor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What you guys are doing is watching a trailer for a movie then saying the movie is bad. Your impression is perfectly valid but your opinion on the quality of the movie as a whole has no legitimacy because you have not actually viewed the content in question. If you made statements like "from what I saw they seem pretty bland, so I don't like them" then you would be on solid ground. You didn't. You made sweeping statements about the quality of the fluff in its entirety. I can understand people's opinions but if you don't have anything to back it up go start your own thread for unsubstantiated bashing.

No, as someone already said, what you are saying is WE DID watch the movie, we didn't like the movie and now you are telling us to read the book. In other words I watched the movie or I bought the starter box set. Now I find it meh, and you are telling me now I need to read the book. I shouldn't HAVE to read the book. GW failed in getting me into their new lore. GW failed getting me excited. GW failed because I perceive that the SIGMARARINES, not Stormcast eternals are exciting and I should be excited for them.

No, it's not up to me or anyone else to like the Stormcast Eternals, it's up to GW. If GW thinks they can entice me to buy more of their products, books as you say, then GW has failed again.

So no, I haven't watched the trailer. I bought the fracking box set. What was in there, was garbage and didn't entice me at all, and because of that, I will not buy the books.

So please again, explain to us how we have watched the trailer. How about we have a different opinion than you and instead of telling us we are wrong, just state your opinion instead of trying to prove some of us wrong.

Its the starter set. I am not sure what else to say. If you think that the starter set alone constitutes anything more than a preview of the fluff then yeah, I'm going to say your opinion is unsubstantiated. At best it is like watching the first move of a trilogy then commenting on the whole thing, but I wouldn't even go that far. The Space Marine fluff solely from a starter set isn't any better. Unless you have actually experienced the content you are commenting on, then there is simply no way I can ever take such comments seriously. If you actually have experienced said content then again, I am happy to retract my statements and continue the discussion but otherwise I have no more response because it's nothing more than the same AoS-bashing that we've all heard before. Multiple times.

I'm liking them more from the personal attention a few get in the BL fic but I absolutely see how this has not be transferred to the GW campaign books on anywhere near such level and so I'm not surprised to hear so many say SE are boring. I admit, I kinda agreed and still do, but that chips away at every BL reading or podcast fluff discussion.

I should also share before I was into 40K the SM were always meh to me but BL, RPGs, awesome opponents, better models, pretty much everything turned that around right quick!

Gold was the main force color at release but there are so many schemes already put out in the support books. I liked the turquoise personally and even saw someone make pink work.
So, you can make them look as amazing as you want. Some conversions, like any army, would go along way to diversifying your force.

These are how mine are painted, I couldn't bring myself to paint them like the hammers of sigmar or hallowed Knights. I can see the appeal I just wanted to paint a purple army lol.

I personally like the uniformity the model line has to offer but that could just be my own strange opinion.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Davor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What you guys are doing is watching a trailer for a movie then saying the movie is bad. Your impression is perfectly valid but your opinion on the quality of the movie as a whole has no legitimacy because you have not actually viewed the content in question. If you made statements like "from what I saw they seem pretty bland, so I don't like them" then you would be on solid ground. You didn't. You made sweeping statements about the quality of the fluff in its entirety. I can understand people's opinions but if you don't have anything to back it up go start your own thread for unsubstantiated bashing.

No, as someone already said, what you are saying is WE DID watch the movie, we didn't like the movie and now you are telling us to read the book. In other words I watched the movie or I bought the starter box set. Now I find it meh, and you are telling me now I need to read the book. I shouldn't HAVE to read the book. GW failed in getting me into their new lore. GW failed getting me excited. GW failed because I perceive that the SIGMARARINES, not Stormcast eternals are exciting and I should be excited for them.

No, it's not up to me or anyone else to like the Stormcast Eternals, it's up to GW. If GW thinks they can entice me to buy more of their products, books as you say, then GW has failed again.

So no, I haven't watched the trailer. I bought the fracking box set. What was in there, was garbage and didn't entice me at all, and because of that, I will not buy the books.

So please again, explain to us how we have watched the trailer. How about we have a different opinion than you and instead of telling us we are wrong, just state your opinion instead of trying to prove some of us wrong.

Its the starter set. I am not sure what else to say. If you think that the starter set alone constitutes anything more than a preview of the fluff then yeah, I'm going to say your opinion is unsubstantiated. At best it is like watching the first move of a trilogy then commenting on the whole thing, but I wouldn't even go that far. The Space Marine fluff solely from a starter set isn't any better. Unless you have actually experienced the content you are commenting on, then there is simply no way I can ever take such comments seriously. If you actually have experienced said content then again, I am happy to retract my statements and continue the discussion but otherwise I have no more response because it's nothing more than the same AoS-bashing that we've all heard before. Multiple times.

Yes it is the Start Set. It is suppose to get me enticed and excited into this new universe. I don't buy the answer that it's a starter set and it should only wet my appetite. Wet my appetite it did not do and turned me off Age of Sigmar for the first 6 months or more. I guess GW didn't say it, but I assumed it that this would have been a great time and place to get into GW fantasy setting besides 40K. (Lord of the Rings is a different story and doesn't apply here so won't go on more about LotR.) Since the Old World is gone, GW needs to explain this new world. For me, GW failed to entice me into their new world and I expected more. I don't mind paying a lot of money if I am feeling I am getting quality product, but I am not getting any quality from their new world or universe or fluff what ever we shall call it. Why do I want to get invested into something that may not even last 6 months or a year since GW has shown us what it did with the End Times.

I don't want to spend that much time, money and emotion in which something may not last. So since I view the quality in story terms very poor and lacking, why would I want to buy and spend more money that I view and justly so in other people's reviews that GW new fluff is shallow, dull and boring? No way am I going to pay $100 for a book just to know more. GW should be giving me the story, I shouldn't go out of my way to know more. I ma here for my enjoyment. My enjoyment is not just buying GW product and that is it. So if I view the material lacking, shallow and dull, the starter set is all I need.

So in your analogy the first movie sucked big time, no way in hell am I going to see the next two sequels.

Again, I am saying is where GW has failed me. It may not be for you or anyone else, but that is why I don't like Stormcast Eternals.

Now that being said, with GW new leadership and changes they have made in management and policy, I have got back into AoS, but not into Stormcast Eternals. Just imagine if all this was done from the beginning, $40 books, great starter sets, I would have spent so much more into AoS. That would be like if the first movies was great, I would be there for the sequel.

I guess a good example would be the movie Divergence. I watched it because my son had interest in it. I didn't think it was that great so I never bothered with the other 2 sequels.

Or maybe better yet that something actually can apply to me. Star Trek movies. I love Star Trek, Last Star Trek movie I watched at a movie cinema was Star Trek:First Contact. I haven't watched Nemisis and not the reboots at the theater. Why? I found those movies not worth my time or money to go to a cinema. I waited for DVD to watch those movies, and Paramount wonders why not a lot of people go to the cinemas to watch Star Trek anymore.

So I saw the first movie, Divergence or Insurrection. In Divergence case, I haven't even bothered with DVDs yet, but for Star Trek I waited till they came on DVDs. So for Age of Sigmar I am buying the DVDs now or Start Box sets, but not really buying more. Why? Because the stories are lacking and the fluff is not getting me excited to buy the new stuff. Paramount wants me to go see a Star Trek movie at a cinema then they better make a REAL Star Trek movie that is not a 2 hour TV show, and if GW wants me to buy brand new kits, make me interested in buying their new stuff. This Star Dragon, I have no interest in it at all and I still waiting for the AoS DVDs now.

Again, my view. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to get interested and enticed. GW had their chance and blew it with me by making their fluff boring and dull in the Start Box Set. I am not saying Stormcasts are bad and crap, I am just saying they are boring and dull for me.

I agree that GW did an absolutely terrible job of the AoS launch. There is not much they could have done worse, and the starter set does a poor job of representing the fluff as a whole.


On an unrelated note, nice stormcasts Gorthor! Much better than the gold imo.

I think the mistake was the way they got released. AoS so far has a great narrative concept, where the world actually evolves month after month. We're less than a year in and already so much happen.

And.. that's where I think they missed out.

If they released AoS with Chaos vs The Free People, the second ones being an entirely new range of humans, plus one or two never seen before races like Kroots and Vespids for Tau, and then proceeded to hint at the Stormcast for a year long, to finally release them in a big event.. that would have been a hell of a storyline.

A grim world where Chaos is everywhere and the last of the free cities are falling one after the other. Where people pray to a distant god who disappeared centuries ago. The rare rumors of golden knights brought by lightning and saving villages...

Basically what Bottle said. That would have been a fantastic release.

Well this sucks. I read some nice comments and it gave me some inspiration. I was going to get my Stormcasts and trying to paint one or two of them and now I can't find my minis in my mess of miniatures. I can't find anything from my box set. Dang it.

Oh well, next pay day will buy another box set and hoping when I clean up the basement I will find it eventually.

What was the point of my post? Just wanted to say thanks to all for comments here. If it were not for them, I wouldn't want to be touching my Sigmar stuff.

Davor wrote:
Well this sucks. I read some nice comments and it gave me some inspiration. I was going to get my Stormcasts and trying to paint one or two of them and now I can't find my minis in my mess of miniatures. I can't find anything from my box set. Dang it.

Oh well, next pay day will buy another box set and hoping when I clean up the basement I will find it eventually.

What was the point of my post? Just wanted to say thanks to all for comments here. If it were not for them, I wouldn't want to be touching my Sigmar stuff.

That's good, that's what we're here for (well, most of us anyway).

As for painting Stormcast, mine are gold and red, because to me they just screamed Roman Legions. And anything that isn't one of those two colours gets brown. I decided against brown as the primary colour since I thought it wouldn't be very effective visually.

I've really come around on the whole thing, but not enough to buy anything new yet. So I probably haven't come around as much as GW would want.

I've browsed through or occasionally read most of the books, both from BL and from GW proper, and as the story goes on the world is actually getting fleshed out a bit. It's still thin on internal coherency, so stuff that's weird isn't really breaking any rules because the rules haven't been established yet, but it's getting there.

I do think the release was pretty poor, and I still think a lot of the names are really terrible; whether they're the kind of design-by-committee nonsense words that tech companies or coffee chains love or just bad writers, I'm not sure - and it doesn't really matter much.

There's also various things I find inexplicable - why are the paladins with different weapons different units entirely, while the prosecutors with different weapons remain one kind of unit with different options? It's minor, but that lack of systematisation of game presentation bugs me.

But laying all of that aside, I think that within the design choices made for the eternals, GW's done a good job of making nice looking models. If you accept that they respawn, as the books have gone on there has been some effort to represent them changing as they get respawned.

I definitely started off thoroughly despising everything about the setting, and while it's still not great (or, tbh, even something I think is that good) it's improving at a steady pace and I'm pretty interesting in seeing it develop. That same sentiment extends to the eternals - and the presence of more models without the gold and blue scheme really helps that along.

I have to say they've done a good of capturing some of the thematic elements of a space marine, but the actual details within the world the eternals inhabit are different enough to make them interesting on their own terms now. I no longer really think of them as fantasy Space Marines, though my appreciation hasn't gotten to the point where I WON'T introduce them as such to someone if they're unfamiliar with AoS but know 40k.

Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Especially as young kids are more likely to be atheist these days.

More proof of them being out of touch.

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Lol. - all of those things pre date christianity. They have borrowed themes from much older and classical mythic themes, to provide a more classic mythic style.

hobojebus wrote:

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Especially as young kids are more likely to be atheist these days.

More proof of them being out of touch.

Wow.
Just... wow. You really will twist anything to fit your view on GW, won't you?
It wouldn't be so bad if your argument even made sense!

People use halos and religious symbols because they have been integrated into every culture and history of our world. Sorry to say but superheroes, video games, many movies, board games, and wargames all have hints of the good vs evil, or good vs evil spirits/monsters, etc taken from religion. Lord of the rings? Star Wars? You betcha, they all got some ideas from portions of religion. A good Hero like the stormcast on the dragon and a halo? Perfect match in my opinion.

And wouldn't say most kids are atheists. Everyone believes something, and even atheist ideals is classified as a religion (take a college class on this, it will open your eyes). Don't like stormcast models? That's great, many don't and many do. To say folks don't believe In religion so demons or chaos shouldn't be in 40k or halos shouldn't be on stormcast models is ridiculous.

Ridiculous indeed.

Like it or not, religion and the bible have some great plot lines, symbols, and story ideas.

hobojebus wrote:

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Especially as young kids are more likely to be atheist these days.

More proof of them being out of touch.

I agree. Instead of the Stormcast being based around lightning and celestial themes they should instead be focused on reason, scepticism and critical examination. We could call them the "Scepticmade Questioners."
They should also get rid of Sigmar, Khorne and all the other imaginary deities and instead call the game "Age of Richard Dawkins."

motski wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Especially as young kids are more likely to be atheist these days.

More proof of them being out of touch.

I agree. Instead of the Stormcast being based around lightning and celestial themes they should instead be focused on reason, scepticism and critical examination. We could call them the "Scepticmade Questioners."
They should also get rid of Sigmar, Khorne and all the other imaginary deities and instead call the game "Age of Richard Dawkins."

Perhaps the gender fluidity of the Stormcast is GW keeping on top of today's trends.

coldgaming wrote:

motski wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Especially as young kids are more likely to be atheist these days.

More proof of them being out of touch.

I agree. Instead of the Stormcast being based around lightning and celestial themes they should instead be focused on reason, scepticism and critical examination. We could call them the "Scepticmade Questioners."
They should also get rid of Sigmar, Khorne and all the other imaginary deities and instead call the game "Age of Richard Dawkins."

Perhaps the gender fluidity of the Stormcast is GW keeping on top of today's trends.

They are already transgender sigmar turned female dwarves and elves and humans into human men right?

There's female dwarfs?! 0_0

Also, all elves are basically in their own class of female and less female anyway so that doesn't count.

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Because no fantasy setting ever has drawn from Christian imagery.

Love the models , but crazy prices. Only still buy cause I get a great discount.

@TheCustomLime, haha, too true!

There's actually a big debate in 9th whether angels and the like should be added to the Kingdom of Equitaine (Bretonnia). As you imagine, most point to that being too high fantasy and mimicking things like HoMM and thd Stormcasts.

hobojebus wrote:

Tailessine wrote:
Love their background, but annoyed at how they are so blatantly based on christian imagery: halos, lanterns, wings, gold armour etc. Seems oit of place, especially when there are other concepts e.g. griffons, comets etc to use.

Especially as young kids are more likely to be atheist these days.

More proof of them being out of touch.

Really? This… this really does not help guys. Who cares if GW are mining Christian mythology/imagery? It’s not like they’re the first to do it, it’s not like they’re the only company in the industry that does it, it’s not like it’s their only source material for AOS (or in general, for that matter) and it’s not like Christianity created those things in the first place.

And you claim it’s an issue that they are ‘mixing’ influences? Really? How small minded. You do realise armies based on a single ‘idea’ end up being a very homogenous, boring and uninteresting caricature lacking design space very quickly, right? I mean, there is a reason other companies base their factions around multiple ideas (Privateer Press’ faction always combine multiple design elements - Khador combined Russian, Prussian, Hunnic and Asian features and eastern folklore, the Viking/northern trope so often seen as a single ‘army’ like chaos or space wolves is instead sprinkled throughout multiple factions -everblight, the nyss, khador, the tharn and trolls. Corvus Belli’s do the same – for example Ariadna is a combination of kilt wearing scots, Russians, gun slinging americans, French, with a dose of added Werewolves and it still works as a faction). But its somehow wrong for GW to make a faction that draws on a number of sources? Really?

And who cares if kids are atheists? All that means is Christianity is a mythology, not a religion (semantics, I know,) and no different to any other mythology. Does that stop them appreciating pretty models, or appreciating what is still a fantasy setting? How does that invalidate the source material? It doesn’t have anything to do with them being out of touch at all. I mean, if drawing on Christian imagery is a bad thing because kids are atheists, privateer press and corvus belli must be evil incarnate with factions Menoth, the Pan-O Military orders and Haqqislam factions. What about drawing on the imagery from other extinct religions and mythology? I mean, none of us believe in the Nordic myths, roman or greek myths, but you have plenty IP’s that draw on them for inspiration too. Is that wrong too? Is a company that draws on other mythologies/religions ‘out of touch’ because that mythology won’t have its believers? But I bet you’ll both be quiet about that, because honestly, all of this is less about being a legitimate gripe about poor source material, and more hysterical theatrics about this is being source material that AOS draws on, and AOS is bad, m’kay, and we must have all the hate on AOS all of the time. because whatever AOS does is something that must be seen as being bad, and evil, and terrible. At the end of the day, the Christian religion, or even the imagery that is so often associated with it is just as legitimate as source material as Greek, Egyptian, Nordic mythology, or even things like Anime or 80s pop culture, if that’s your thing.

Let’s face it- there are a lot of legitimate reasons for not liking, or not being interested in Age of Sigmar.

For example, It’s OK to think the models are boring, clunky, chunky, uninspired, unappealing or even lazy ports of 40k’s Space Marines. I do.

It’s OK to dislike the lore. It is meant to be this epic, endless ‘landscape’ which ends up being a bit patchy, broad strokes approach aplenty, very little world building or the intricate little details that are required to bring a world to life, characters can be one-dimensional and all the ‘epic’all of the time very easily leads into ‘Epic-fatigue’ and ‘Epic-disinterest’ because it can very easily get to the point where you don’t care, because there is no point caring (whole armies don’t die or are just imaginations of a sorcerer…) and because the setting lacks any immediacy or intimacy.

It's ok to find the rules/mechanics lazy, uninspired and boring. I know I do, and I much prefer other games.

Its OK to be outraged by, and disheartened by some of the ridiculous price points the new AOS models have attached to them.

It’s OK to dislike the DIY/creative/narrative game approach that AOS embraces. It’s a shame to not like it – it really is, because this approach is a lot of fun and very enjoyable, but I’ll be honest and say that it’s not suitable, all the time – especially for pugs or tournaments. ’eyeballing’ balance is a learned skill that requires a bit of experience, a bit of cop-on, and good judgement to get right. The approach requires like-minded opponents, it requires time, pre-planning, organisation and co-operation. Lots of hoops. And while it’s worth it in the right circumstances and with the right people, sometimes you just don’t have time for that, or you don’t want to deal with all that fuss and you just want a bloody game to be over and done with in an hour or two without an extended ‘negotiation phase’ – very legitimate reason.

It’s OK to be bitter (still!) because you were a WFB player, and GW pooped on you from an extremely great height, nuked your world, killed your armies, cast you aside and said they weren’t interested, and didn’t want you any more and so on.

But really- hating on AOS because one of its factions draws on Christian imagery, along with other mythological imagery, and because kids are atheist – that’s just hating tor the sake of hating, and is the kind of hysterical nonsense that does nothing but undermine you and whatever arguments you are trying to make and undervalues everything else you say. At the end of the day, there are far better arguments to make if you want to say you don’t like AOS. Let's not take it to the level where Aos haters, dislikers and non interested-ers essentially become a parody of discussion.

I honestly think they are boring. I 've never played with or against them but seen soooooo many bat reps I'm just so bored of them now, same as Khorne.

I hate AoS guts, and I would feel the Stormcast as out of place in the old world, but come on.

Fantasy drags inspiration from many world religions. Even tolkien was a mix of nordic stuff and christianity, like AoS. How in Heavens and Asgard is that a problem, and why should kids care? In high school I was an atheist edgelord but I played DnD in which we had angels, demons and so and I thought were cool. They just belonged to that universe. A friend of mine, a believer, just thought that they were not an issue because they belonged to that universe, again, and had no connection with his faith, were just an inspiration for good/bad guys.

I mean look at Pathfinder. It has fiends from like.. how many religions? Devils are Christians, Demons are kind of universal, Divs are Persian (Zoroastrian I think), Asuras are Buddhist (they are not the Hindu ones, but there are Rakshasa too), Oni are Japanese (not sure if Shinto, folklore or whatever), and there are few more families made up (actually inspired by a movie and by lovercrafitan stuff). Throw in evil titans and Hekatonkheires too! I mean they rebelled Zeus and went into the hades is pretty Fiendish. The Paladin has the hands full! Just stay away from titans. Really, do not even think about it.

(if I made mistakes/misattribution please correct me and not be offended - is out of ignorance).

Sorry for causing an argument- really valid points brought up. I have no real problem with using real world or mythological influences for models- its impossible not to- i just think the stormcasts are overdone, thats all. The recent extremis release has helped somewhat, as the dracoths are fairly original and you can make a pretty flexible army from just that kit

Tailessine wrote:
Sorry for causing an argument

That's not on you, bud. It was a valid opinion/observation!

Tailessine wrote:
Sorry for causing an argument- really valid points brought up. I have no real problem with using real world or mythological influences for models- its impossible not to- i just think the stormcasts are overdone, thats all. The recent extremis release has helped somewhat, as the dracoths are fairly original and you can make a pretty flexible army from just that kit

No argument, just a discussion. And this is a forum. I suppose this is the right place to discuss

I find the "dracoths" (my gods the names - I will never be accustomed to these lawyer-friendly names) stiff. I really do not like them.

Tailessine wrote:
Sorry for causing an argument- really valid points brought up. I have no real problem with using real world or mythological influences for models- its impossible not to- i just think the stormcasts are overdone, thats all. The recent extremis release has helped somewhat, as the dracoths are fairly original and you can make a pretty flexible army from just that kit

Don't apologise! The whole point here is to discuss things. and yes, the stormcasts are certainly not my favourite models either. I prefer more practical and pragmatic designs myself (I love anvil industry's not-marines far more than gw's overly ornate and frequently impractical marines), and the basic stormcasts are fine from a pragmatic perspective (even if the proportions are bloated and too chunky for my liking), but some of the variations I too find to be a bit ott.

I too have grown to like the stormcast. I like the variety that is appearing between the different stormhosts. There is a line from the new book about the hallowed Knights weeping over the devestation of a battle, while the Knights excelsiors are satisfied. The Astral templars going native in the new audio drama is also a fun differentiator.

I like the models too though I feel a few tricks have been missed. The prosecutors would have looked better if they were a touch slimmer, maybe female. (not boobplate but a more elegant shape) The judicators dont work in the same armour as the liberators. If they had changed their armout to be more practical for weilding a bow, or even made them ordinary humans, it would have helped hugely to give the army a little more variety.

Here is my scheme. I am quite happy with it.

And once again you can see why Hallowed knights are my favorites.

Female prosecutors would've been ace, some heavenly valkyries to fell Sigmar's foes in a storm of javelins and arrows.

I get what you mean with the Judicators but I like that they remind me of Dark Soul's knight archers and the heavily armored bow users in "Monster Hunter". (My current build in the game even resembles one)

More focus on the auxiliaries would be cool, though. Nice color-scheme as well.

I despise the design of the basic sigmarine. The face helmet doesn't work in multiples and the body shaped armour makes them look like obese men in golden lycra. Golemish face with spacemariney pauldrons and metal calves, lame design to 11.

That's imo why even for example paladin retributors look 10 times better having a different head and some of the body armour additionaly covered. Head looks a bit like a face in helmet, the face is still part of the helmet which is slowed ofc but an improvement anyway.

 WarbossDakka wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't understand why anybody wouldn't like the Stormcasts? They're awesome!

I think the people who don't like them are the ones who don't like AOS. They go hand in hand really.

Not true in my case, I don't like AoS to say the least but still really dig at least two chaos minis, one from the starter and the other guy heh. Will probably buy some day, will despise myself probably but still.

If the sigmarine design was good, I would hate them conceptually but could love the look the same time. As it is now, even when I get the fix for AoS esque fantasy and try to let it grow on me, one look at sigmarines ruins it for me.

I think the Stormcast masks are pretty similar to the Persian Immortals from "300", and I quite like that aesthetic. I have about 40 in my army so far.

I have to say I absolutely love the look of Stormcasts. It's almost enough to make me consider AOS. The problem is they suffer from the same thing as Space marines: You have to handwave away Stormcast vs. Stormcast conflicts because they can't really occur in the fluff (the old "it was just a training exercise" excuse gets really lame IMHO). I wish they had put into the lore a reason for different groups of Stormcasts to want different things and as a result be at odds, instead of this Good vs. Evil stuff where it's basically assumed that if you're a Stormcast player, your opponent will be playing Chaos or some other non-good race that you wan fight.

In fact that's something, unless I'm missing it, that doesn't sit well about AOS at all with the alliances. How, exactly, does Order fight Order, if they're on the same side? Chaos vs. Chaos makes sense, Death vs. Death really doesn't, and Destruction vs. Destruction is okay because Orruks gonna Orruk, but it seems like there's no fluff reason other than ignoring it really happened to have Order vs. Order which for someone who cares about the fluff is always going to be an issue because it affects army choice.