Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have been a fan of Warhammer fantasy since early editions, but I turned my back on it when end times concluded and AoS hit (let's not get into why and what I don't like about AoS, I am sure nobody cares and that topic has been discussed a million times already), but I am curious about if the models released in AoS have gotten a size increase compared to the "older" models from 8th edition....similar to what is going on in 40k with the Primaris. Is there a noticable size difference between sigmarines and the like and 8th edition fantasy models?

Yes. The newer models are a few mm larger in scale.

There has not been a notable scale creep in AoS from 8th, but 8th and especially 7th had some definite scale creep which AoS is in line with. Models like Stormcast are larger but are also supposed to be larger; the normal-size miniatures we've gotten have been in pine with 8th versions. Fyreslayers, Kharadron, Deepkin, etc. A -bigger- trend has been putting stuff on mounts/monsters that are bigger. No one gets regular horses; they ride demi-dragons or giant eels. Gyrocopters? We got full sky ships! These aren't technically a change in scale but are bigger miniatures.

Thank you for the quick answer. So if you were to put an older army next to the sigmarines would it look goofy in your opinion? Like they don't belong in the same universe?

No. I use older models all the time. Hell I've used LOTR models in my warhammer armies which are 25mm and smaller.

Games like SAGA and Warlords of Erehwon this is also common. I don't notice it as bad.

Tiberias wrote:
Thank you for the quick answer. So if you were to put an older army next to the sigmarines would it look goofy in your opinion? Like they don't belong in the same universe?

They'd be fine. You'd have to dip waaay back in time (to like 3rd ed) to find models that'd look significantly different.

Plus, as others have said, the sigmarines are supposed to be somewhat larger. You know how Chaos warriors were always slightly larger/bulkier? Now they're matched by sigmarines.

I used my old 6th-8th edition High elves last night against Blades of Khorne. My Dagonlord (the plastic Elf Hero on foot) looked a little slender as he killed a Mighty Lord of Khorne with flesh hound in one hit, but no more than he did in 8th edition.

Tiberias wrote:
(let's not get into why and what I don't like about AoS, I am sure nobody cares and that topic has been discussed a million times already)

This was a smart idea as it would probably bring out the trolls, and it may have caused people to ignore this thread. But, I'm always very curious as to why people gave up on the Fantasy side of Warhammer when End Times ended and AoS dropped. Granted, I never played WFB 8th Edition as I started Warhammer (hobbying mainly, playing at times as well) in middle of 2015... maybe the week before AoS launched. But, I'm always interested to know why all these Fantasy players quit in AoS came out.

SG

Because the things that attracted people to the game that was whfb were removed and replaced with a game that attracted a totally other type of player.

 ServiceGames wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
(let's not get into why and what I don't like about AoS, I am sure nobody cares and that topic has been discussed a million times already)

This was a smart idea as it would probably bring out the trolls, and it may have caused people to ignore this thread. But, I'm always very curious as to why people gave up on the Fantasy side of Warhammer when End Times ended and AoS dropped. Granted, I never played WFB 8th Edition as I started Warhammer (hobbying mainly, playing at times as well) in middle of 2015... maybe the week before AoS launched. But, I'm always interested to know why all these Fantasy players quit in AoS came out.

SG

1) Many who got into Old World got into it because it was different to 40K. In Old World most units that were not monsters/artillery/leaders operated in rank and file. They moved with wheeling turns, they fought in a battle line. You had wedge formations for cavalry; you had facing angle as a key element - attack a formation on the side was going to give you a combat advantage to if you just charged head long at them. So planning how you moved, trying to lock an enemy unit in combat and then wheel another unit around behind to strike their flank was a valid approach. etc...
So the whole asthetic and design of the rules side of the game was totally different even to AoS of now.

2) Old World had an established lore. This lore was what 30ish years old in the making. It has heaps of books, short stories, dreams of gamers etc... all built up around it. A rich thick deep history with key named characters, heroes, places, plots, concepts. AoS at launch had a VERY weak lore in those terms, in fact GW was mostly going "its just infinite all everywhere" and even now there are few big named settlements of importance. Whole cities and even nations can rise and fall and it has no impact on the larger narrative at present. So it feels very loose and free, but also very shallow once you leave the stories of the gods and focus on the mortals within the mortal realms.
Note that doesn't mean there are bad stories, the lore and story crafting has improved a lot and many such as the new novella books, are really fantastic reads. It was worse in the opening days because many of the new books were Realmwar books which were totally focused on the Stormcast kicking butt and beating back chaos and were very war heavy with little world building downtime.

3) Old World was 30ish years old. It wasn't just that many gamers were used to it they had grown up with it. Throwing it all away in one big go was a huge shock, esp since the parent company wasn't falling apart and on its knees as such.

4) GW had ignored Old World for some years prior and had just done a huge amount of marketing, new models, new books and such all for the End Times campaign. So lots of people were fired up! A new edition of fantasy was around the corner; new models were looking really fantastic and huge (we were getting big bloodthirsters and verminlords in plastic!). Then suddenly without any real marketing build up without any warning or such GW ended it. They destroyed all the old game those fans were fired up about.

a) They also shattered several armies. Elves got broken into loads of tiny sub-armies many of which had only one or two models in them.

b) Several armies at launch or soon after, vanished - Bretonnia and Tomb Kings (which had had several newer sculpts in plastic released)

c) They didn't just change the rules away from Rank and File - the launch of AoS had no rules at all. What they did have was a jovial set of "fun" rules that were very forced feeling. Eg If you've got a beared you get +1 attacks with your dwarves kind of rules. All over the place. Yes very jovial, very fun; but at the same time really a hard slap in the face of anyone who wanted more serious rules.

d) No points costs. Yep it wasn't just jovial rules, but no points at all so any pretence at balancing or providing sensible looking armies was flat gone.

Remember all this was done without warning, in fact there was a period where most were almost in shock that GW had done such a thing. Turning their once core game into nothing more than a boutique model line with some casual forced funny rules tacked onto the side of it. Sure we got new armies and some really awesome sculpts, but the body of the "game" was gone. It's my observation that those who loved it at that time were either totally new to it (no prior attachments) or they were the kind of player who always wanted to make their own rules and now had a ripe market where with no rules, their local club would often welcome them playing around making up their own rules to play.


AoS was launched badly. It set old fans and old potential fans against it; it devalued prior purchases of many customers, it shattered dreams of many established gamers who had grown up with the original franchise. It's honestly no surprise that there was an extreme amount of bad feeling around at the time and that some has still persisted for some gamers. The sad part is that with proper marketing and a proper sensible approach with more of a very clear build up and a longer release window and more market research - GW could have made the transition not just painless but joyful. They could have made the only real loss being the shift away from rank and file; which at the scale of the game did act as a barrier of entry to many and some armies (eg skaven) had huge numbers of models that were "required" to get going with the game - even at only 1K points.

That didn't happen and it took a change of management (many think it was what likely forced/encouraged the change) and several years and a whole edition to start fixing many of the problems. Even now the game still has over half the armies to get equipped with an up to date Battletome and the Elves (Aelves) are still in a right mess army wise. My hope is that (trade issues asside) GW can get the bulk if not all the armies equipped and updated with a Battletome by early 2020. That alone will remove a bundle of confusion and annoyance for some armies that have still got this far with no formal Tome of rules or lore. Once that is done I think AoS will improve in strength in leaps and bounds like it has been doing already.



Edit - think of it like this:
Imagine Wizards of the Coast decided to run a grand campaign event up to the end of 5th edition DnD and then for the launch of 6th edition threw out all of the lore for their game and gave players a deck of Munchkin cards with a few cards named things like "Drizzler Drizzit" etc...

That's sort of like what happened between Old World and AoS at launch.

the launch of AoS had no rules at all.

AOS on release had the four pages of rules. Most of the core rules of AOS today are the same as those rules in 2015.

Other than moving from a game that was about battlefield management and maneuver, and turning it into a combo-centric MtG styled architecture thickly in the vein of warmahordes, they had no points on release.

The no points on release was their cardinal sin. The gamer-gamers dont care about lore, don't care about fluff, and many are happy to use wooden pogs for models, but not having points and being able to create a structure to min/max within was what drove a good number of people away. (the min/max of AOS 2015 was taking your entire collection since nothing stopped you from doing that, to include the mythical "9 nagashes lol") but with no structure to min/max in, even the most ardent of "that guy" felt how hollow that was since there was no game to game. That structure is the glue that keeps a lot of people around.

The rage was heavily skewed toward there being no legit army construction rules, followed by the rank and flank game being turned into a warmahordes-lite game. The complaints about fluff being killed off is legit, but I didn't find that to be anywhere near the level of the other two.

Fan comp became a thing and that brought SOME people back, but mainly people that loved games like warmahordes. Then GW in 2016 brought back "official points" and that opened the flood gates to people that loved that style of game to jump on board.

The people that loved rank and flank went to Kings of War or T9A. Some do both.

Overread gives a pretty decent summary, two other things that I really disliked were the literal joke rules for the old factions, that felt really tonedeaf of GW.

And the Stormcast Eternals. Obvious Space Marine clone, obviously going to dominate releases and background in the same way Space Marines do in 40K, and obviously gradually going to skew the game in the same way Marines do. One of the major attractions with fantasy for me was the feeling that there was no space marine equivalent.

And people who worried about that have absolutely been proven conclusively right. The background is primarily written from a Stormcast POV, all the stories involve them, nothing happens without them, and they get the absolute lions share of new releases and are in 100% of the starter sets. All other factions are foils to the Stormcast, nothing more than that. It is even in the name of the game.

 Da Boss wrote:
Overread gives a pretty decent summary, two other things that I really disliked were the literal joke rules for the old factions, that felt really tonedeaf of GW.

What, that they encouraged people to have some optional silly rules?

Christ. People complained for years about GW being "too serious" and then they go and add some silly stuff that really doesn't impact gameplay and get roasted on it.

And the Stormcast Eternals. Obvious Space Marine clone, obviously going to dominate releases and background in the same way Space Marines do in 40K, and obviously gradually going to skew the game in the same way Marines do. One of the major attractions with fantasy for me was the feeling that there was no space marine equivalent.

Ohmygod, the faction that didn't exist before and used nothing that existed before has dominated releases!
What a surprise!

It's also worth noting that Stormcast are a one trick pony. And pretending that Chaos Warriors or Bretonnia/Empire Knight lists didn't exist or have just as much of a "skew the game" effect is silly.

And people who worried about that have absolutely been proven conclusively right. The background is primarily written from a Stormcast POV, all the stories involve them, nothing happens without them

Everything concerning the Idoneth and Sylvaneth happened without them.

and they get the absolute lions share of new releases and are in 100% of the starter sets. All other factions are foils to the Stormcast, nothing more than that. It is even in the name of the game.

There's been exactly two starter sets(Soul Wars and Age of Sigmar).
There have been three other pseudo-Starter sets(Looncurse, Blight Wars, and Carrion Empire).
Out of the pseudo-starters, only Blight Wars contained Stormcast--and that stuff(Vanguard Chamber) was considered trash tier by most people.
We've seen three major releases for Stormcast since their inception: AoS, the revamped book with Extremis and Vanguard(when they first added Relics and stuff), and then post-Soul Wars.

We haven't seen much else, despite the insistence of some that they're getting "the absolute lions share of new releases". There's event exclusives(who cares, they're just normal Liberators) and then there's the warbands in Underworlds(again: who cares? We're not expecting to see them in S3, since there's not really anywhere else for them to go beyond Extremis Chambers or Paladins).

Heh heh heh. Hi Kan.

 Kanluwen wrote:

What, that they encouraged people to have some optional silly rules?

Christ. People complained for years about GW being "too serious" and then they go and add some silly stuff that really doesn't impact gameplay and get roasted on it.

GW got roasted not because they introduced silly rules, they got roasted because they introduced silly rules at the very same moment they took away the serious rules and did not replace them and did not, at the launch time, appear to have any intention of returning them. Don't forget this was also still the Kirby era so GW wasn't running its online interaction system at all. They weren't on Facebook, they didn't have community interaction much from the head office end of things to the gamers. It was random guys on telephones and store managers (both of which basically could only give company answers and didn't know anything of the future).

That was the key. It would be like if when Magic the Gathering did their Unhinged block, they stopped releasing their regular cards.



The Lore at launch was very if not totally stormcast focused and it did weaken the launching lore, esp since at launch there were no army books. So individual factions had very little flavour at all beyond whatever was on the store page for them (half a paragraph?). The lore now is vastly improved; though stormcast still feature strongly, they are side characters in many stories; or they don't feature at all. Or they feature only in a background detail such as characters mentioning about "The Realm Wars". There's a lot more going on now besides Stormcast and whilst they DID get a lions share of models at launch and following; that has eased off. GW has even teased us a few times with how "its not another stormcast" in their releases. Honestly I think Stormcast are now at the point hwere if they get new things its most likely going to be new heroes or limited edition models rather than new monsters or core troops. They might get something "new" if GW releases a wave of new model types (eg like how they gave most units a dedicated flying unit in 40K when they did the flying rules)

And, once again, so what if "the lore at launch" was focused on the two brand new factions?

Because it wasn't "just" Stormcast that were focused on. Bloodbound got focused on as well. And from there, it was whatever was coming out that week. Fyreslayers, Sylvaneth, Pestilens, etc all saw a similar time in the sun as Stormcast did.

Regardless of your view Kan, it obviously turned a lot of people off, and that was what is being asked about. So your arguments are pretty pointless. My perception of events is what drove my decision making about the game.

Now, it seems that a lot of people really like Stormcast and the choices GW has been making because the game is from all accounts doing alright. I am fine with that, I am happy for people who enjoy it. I would like to be able to enjoy it too.

But I was just answering the question of why long time WFB fans did not like the new release. I have seen a lot of discussion about how "toxic" we were as a group, but I do not agree with that.

"Toxic" is often a word used to describe a person that disagrees with us and/or does not like the same things we do.

"Toxic" is normally reserved for people who try to put down those who do enjoy something they do not themselves enjoy. I don't care if you don't like AoS. I do care if you immediately start calling me dumb or childish because I enjoy it. Or if you immediately jump to a strawman argument if I don't view the issues with the game to be as bad as you do. We don't even have to disagree for me to view your attitude as toxic. You don't have to like the same things I do, but don't be a jerk when we discuss them.

That would be a legit form of toxic yes. If someone is putting someone else down or calling names for something they don't enjoy that someone else does, that is a form of asshattery.

 ServiceGames wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
(let's not get into why and what I don't like about AoS, I am sure nobody cares and that topic has been discussed a million times already)

This was a smart idea as it would probably bring out the trolls, and it may have caused people to ignore this thread. But, I'm always very curious as to why people gave up on the Fantasy side of Warhammer when End Times ended and AoS dropped. Granted, I never played WFB 8th Edition as I started Warhammer (hobbying mainly, playing at times as well) in middle of 2015... maybe the week before AoS launched. But, I'm always interested to know why all these Fantasy players quit in AoS came out.

SG

Alright, the short version then. I have been a warhammer fantasy fan for a very long time. It has a very interesting, rich fantasy world full of interesting characters and what do they do? They give you overpriced ridiculously awfully written end times books, that kill all characters and blow up the planet.

But wait theres more! Sigmar somehow sits on the core of the planet and meets a space dragon who somehow shows him how to forge the sigmarines...oh and also, all the characters that died in the books didn't, except for some who actually did....

It is just absolutely and utterly stupid from a lore perspective how they handled the end times and the new AoS lore is utter garbage for the most part as far as I'm concerned.

They threw away a rich fantasy world they had built up for decades. They were not happy with how fantasy was played and neither were many players, but the best idea was to blow up the planet?! There were so many characters and story archs that were just brushed under the carpet.
I waited since 6th edition for them to properly bring back the blood lines for the vampire counts and finally get more backstory on abhorash or even a model.

So yeah that is the short version of why I do not like it. GW spat in the face of every warhammer fantasy fan who liked the lore with the abomination that were the end times novels and the ridiculous lore of AoS.

Also the old world had so much potential still! If they didn't like the ruleset because it was too complicated for new players to get into, they could have just changed it without blowing the world up! There was Cathay, Arabia, Nippon, CHAOS DWARVES for gods sake. All of which were left unexplored....

Edit: Just to be clear: if someone likes AoS and the new lore and finds enjoyment in it, thats great and I am happy for them. I just can't forgive them for how they butchered the lore for nothing basically and I will probably never spend another cent on anything AoS.
Edit2: Well sorry for ranting about that, but I was asked.....and I am myself surpised how frustrated I still am about this.

Its a hard pill to swallow when potentially thousands of dollars and hours painting get flushed.

I totally understand.

Tiberias wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:
There was Cathay, Arabia, Nippon, CHAOS DWARVES for gods sake. All of which were left unexplored.....

I'm reading Gotrek and Felix novels at present and its amazing how far back GW were dropping very clear and casual comments regarding Araby and Cathay and yet never explored them in models for Old World. Warmaster did get a full Araby army though, but sadly that game was rather niche and died a death long ago (I still seriously hope the rebirth of Adepticus Titanicus brings around a revival of epic and that GW might then revise Warmaster - granted it will likely be AoS edition).


But yeah they handled the world ending and marketing really badly. I get the feeling someone higher up wanted to shift fantasy from Old World to Epic scale; possibly because Lord of the Rings sort of stole Old World's thunder in that regard. But GW could have made the transition a LOT more positive than they did.

That said one bonus is they are now sticking most of the old world books into collected editions so its a great time to start buying them up to read!

 Overread wrote:
But yeah they handled the world ending and marketing really badly. I get the feeling someone higher up wanted to shift fantasy from Old World to Epic scale; possibly because Lord of the Rings sort of stole Old World's thunder in that regard. But GW could have made the transition a LOT more positive than they did.

I don't know. GW didn't blow up 40k, but in the last decade I have seen many things there that are in the same style as what Age of Sigmar provides. I think it's more of a generational difference between earlier writers that were brought up on historical battles and put a lot more thought into economy, logistics and politics, all that stuff that limits individual power and puts more emphasis on factors outside of actual battle, and newer writers brought up on superhero comics that are all about the actions and achievements of paragon characters with the rest of the world being a malleable backdrop to enable these to fight against each other.

It's not something I would readily place at the feet of higher ups. Strikes me more as a new generation taking over that simply likes different stuff.

End Times was rushed and badly presented, and not much in keeping with the established setting, but I don't think the current crew would have represented the old setting in a way satisfying to older fans the longer they were at the helm, even if old Fantasy hadn't been dropped. They're just the wrong people for the job.

I think it's more of a generational difference between earlier writers that were brought up on historical battles and put a lot more thought into economy, logistics and politics, all that stuff that limits individual power and puts more emphasis on factors outside of actual battle, and newer writers brought up on superhero comics that are all about the actions and achievements of paragon characters with the rest of the world being a malleable backdrop to enable these to fight against each other.

It was a paradigm shift that started happening in the late 90s. Game design started moving toward combination synergy platforms.

In the wargaming world, Warmachine was the first heavyweight game to do this, and it was a massive success. Since the early 2000s, other games started following suit.

And in the world of commercialized game design, you want to do what everyone else is doing if its making money.

I have been in the game design world since the late 90s, and have watched things change, and one of the things that I chaffe at is when I'm pulled into doing a game, we often have to do things that we don't like because thats what the masses expect. (only my field has been video game design but the same principals apply there as they do on tabletop in terms of follow the dollar)

Games that go back to that bygone era where there is no synergy and combo stacking are also the games that almost nobody plays these days because very few people are interested in that, which means no one can make money off of that, which means you will see only more of this style of game design.

And I think for the current generation that is exactly what is wanted.

The current game project I am working on is a port over of my tabletop game Primo Victoria. It is a very niche game, aimed at people that enjoyed logistics and battlefield maneuvering in a fantasy world (based on 80s era heavy metal). In doing marketing for it, the average demographic age of this game is 38 years old (which is very high for a video game).

That is an interesting point about Superheroes vs Military history. I would also say they are doing a lot of cod-mythology in AoS, but of course parallels between superheroes and myths are easily done.

I am a big comic book fan, but I also love military history and I definitely prefer a more grounded world for my fantasy stories.

Even the Old World was way OTT sometimes due to how Chaos was written. That is why the Beastmen were always may favourite chaos faction in Warhammer Fantasy.

 auticus wrote:

The current game project I am working on is a port over of my tabletop game Primo Victoria. It is a very niche game, aimed at people that enjoyed logistics and battlefield maneuvering in a fantasy world (based on 80s era heavy metal). In doing marketing for it, the average demographic age of this game is 38 years old (which is very high for a video game).

Was it wise to name your game after




cause that's all google shows as the results

So far

Tiberias wrote:
But wait theres more! Sigmar somehow sits on the core of the planet and meets a space dragon who somehow shows him how to forge the sigmarines...oh and also, all the characters that died in the books didn't, except for some who actually did....

The change in tone was as though there were eight editions of Game of Thrones, and then the narrative was replaced by a Gloryhammer album.