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.
Zwan1One wrote: Why would a race made of fire be interested in gold? What use would they have for it?
They obviously don't. They only care for Ur-Gold !!
That said, the whole bubbleverse overrun by Chaos for thousands of years doesn't strike me as a place with any kind of functioning economy where you can spend anything on markets, inns or whatever.
Sigmarshammer wrote: Who cares if someone else has done it before? Let them take it and run with it. I do not remember D&D Azers being slayers for hire. This excuse, "Simpsons did it", mentality is quite lame.
GW probably gets so much flak on this for what they said in the CHS court case, that their designers come up with everything in a vacuum with no outside inspiration. It's not the borrowing of designs that makes people made, it's that GW likes to (nowadays) pretend that they're super clever and original.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/17 15:59:09
Zwan1One wrote: Why would a race made of fire be interested in gold? What use would they have for it?
They obviously don't. They only care for Ur-Gold !!
That said, the whole bubbleverse overrun by Chaos for thousands of years doesn't strike me as a place with any kind of functioning economy where you can spend anything on markets, inns or whatever.
ROFL true that doesn't seem the sort of place you would find a tavern for a beer
A grudge never too old to settle with metal and ire on the funeral pyre of vanquished foe
Agree but the FWHH books are nearly twice the price of the Campaign book?
I am annoyed that they have not spereated the rules and fluffas they did with 40K campaign and End Times book sets :(
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/17 16:07:12
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
TrapdoorResident wrote:Yet, fire breathing, flying lizards are the stuff of pure logic?????
Who said anything about that?
angelofvengeance wrote:
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.
You're looking for reason and logic in a fantasy setting? Good luck with that.
Who said anything about that, either? But yeah, a little internal reason and logic helps in a fantasy setting. I'm sick to the back teeth of the "it's fantasy, anything goes!" argument because it's a lazy-arse handwave by thoughtless people, ignorant of the kind of thought and effort that can go into creating a consistent, structured setting and story, whether it has dragons and magic in it or not. If logic and reason mean nothing in fantasy, then hell, forget eagles, why didn't Frodo just click his heels, spin on the spot three times and call out "watchu talkin' about, Willis?" to get to Mount Doom? Why didn't Ned Stark leap up from the chopping block and say "Woops! Hahaha! The thing you didn't realise, of course, is that my neck is akshullee made entirely out of titanium." Why don't GW have paperslayers or dandelionslayers or jellyncustardslayers, rather than fireslayers?
Dwarves in particular have always been somewhat magical, somewhat superhuman creatures, since the days of norse myth, but still relateable, still somewhat human. Yes, you can have a race of dwarfs burned black by the flame that somehow issues from their faces instead of hair. You might even be able to work it into your setting's history, somehow. But that doesn't mean it's not a bad idea that makes your dwarfs even less human, less relateable, and yeah, even lacks sense. (How does the dwarf interact with anything if it's got flames constantly spouting out of it's head? How does it eat? Can it sit at a wooden table? How does it kiss it's sweetheart? What happens if it goes for a dip? How does it shave, if the old slayer oath is still around? What happens if it gets an itchy chin? Even dragons can hold it in until the right time.)
Fireslayers are another example of that flanderisation of Warhammer. GW, terrified of having something they know they can't legally own (or bully people away from), takes a strange, magical race and rather than make it deeper or better (better designed, better quality, better price), makes it... stranger. They're pushing this superficial effect in the hope of making teenagers think "this guy's on fire, that's so khewl and badass and metal!", while others think "pfft, really?"
Have an exalt sir. Fantasy works when it is extrapolated from reality. When it gets too far, it just stops being interesting to anything other than very small children. GW hasn't hit that line yet, but it seems like they are pushing that direction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/17 16:09:01
Have an exalt sir. Fantasy works when it is extrapolated from reality. When it gets too far, it just stops being interesting to anything other than very small children. GW hasn't hit that line yet, but it seems like they are pushing that direction.
Not sure I'm with you there, Michael Moorcock's multiverse is a long bus ride from reality but I find it endlessly fascinating!
Sigmarshammer wrote: Who cares if someone else has done it before? Let them take it and run with it. I do not remember D&D Azers being slayers for hire. This excuse, "Simpsons did it", mentality is quite lame.
I, for one, am a strong advocate for taking extremely common concepts and introducing them to proper HIPS plastic wargaming. That people came up with centaurs thousands of years ago is a strength and not a weakness in my mind. The reason GW gets a ribbing about is is because of their xenophobia. We are not the ones who threw away the "Imperial Guard" and "Stormtroopers" because they were public domain names. We are not the ones who tried to steal "Space Marine" for our own exclusive use. These are things Games Workshop did, which is why we mock them for their transparent attempts to pretend that their dwarves are their own exclusive intellectual property.
Wow, AoS is [really] growing on me. I guess I am pretty close to target demo, at a tender 17, but I was pretty annoyed to see the Old World go just as I was really getting into Fantasy, there comes a point in everyone's life that they realize that guys with halberds and quartered hose throwing down with psuedo-Arthurians and devil vikings are cooler than Tau sometimes. The Sigmarines looked kinda dumb at a first glance, but I'm in love now, headed to the ol' ebay.
I was really hoping that the Red Slayers would be the "normal" remnants of the Empire and Bretonnia, with a bit of extra AoS styling. Oh well. Any rumors on normal, non-Chaos worshipping humans as a supported army in the new setting?
As to where to draw the line for fantasy, it depends a lot on the logic, IMO. If the fyreslayers have burning beards because "derp-a-derp, FANTASY! RANDOM!" then yeah, that's silly. But if it plays into their culture, and there's some sort of explanation, or some sort of great mystery, that has potential to actually be cool. It's sort of like the yellow weakness Green Lantern had. In the Silver Age, it was a plot device to make it easier to give Hal Jordan a real challenge, and it worked, but it was pretty goofy, like when the Flash stopped GL with a yellow umbrella. However, when Geoff Johns did his well regarded run, and linked Yellow with Fear, which weakened the Willpower that powered GL rings, it actually made sense, and I could take it seriously. The weakness was basically the same, but how they handled it and justified it changed everything. So for now, I'm on the edge about the fyreslayers, we'll see how GW handels them. In any case, I'm not buying dwarf models. Dwarves are cool companions, but Humans=Elves>Hobbits>Dwarves>Dirt>Monsters, for me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/17 16:52:41
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the pictures show Slayers not on fire? Its possible that they only light on fire when they go into a berserk rage or somesuch. Or are those the Red Slayers and the Fyreslayers are a different race? Also, to be fair, the Azer-like qualities would make a lot of sense if they were from the Realm of Fire but I'm not sure they are.
That said, I agree with those giving GW a hard time, and with those saying Fantasy settings work because they have internal logic. GW is particularly bad about that, though I'm not yet sure if the Fyreslayers fall into that category.
Shandara wrote: Impossible, GW's designers design everything in a vacuum!
Hush you, it's just convergent evolution in action!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Have an exalt sir. Fantasy works when it is extrapolated from reality. When it gets too far, it just stops being interesting to anything other than very small children. GW hasn't hit that line yet, but it seems like they are pushing that direction.
Not sure I'm with you there, Michael Moorcock's multiverse is a long bus ride from reality but I find it endlessly fascinating!
I can't comment on Moorcock as I am not too familiar with his work, but extrapolation from is not the same as being very close to. Usually the key point is having limits and "rules" that explain why the universe works why it does and not the actual crazy implications of a new feature of world. For instance, if the dwarves have beards that burn because they made a pact with a fire elemental from another plane that bonds with their bodies, preventing them from eating normal food/wearing cloths etc. and makes them an outcast in normal dwarf society, that's good. It explains why not every dwarf has a burning beard (if they don't) and shows some of the pros and cons of the issue and how it fits in the larger world. If they just say "because it is cool!" or similar hand wave, and then proceed to make many little errors in writing with the seemingly obvious limitations in mind ("No fire beards allowed in my store. You burned it, you bought it") then the world doesn't seem real and filled with consequences.
Basically, if your audience reads your work and thinks "Wait, so why doesn't X just use ubiquitous things Y and Z to solve their problem right now?" and there isn't a fairly clear answer, that audience is going to be unhappy and dislike the work. Younger audiences with less experience in how things work (less feel for complications and implications) tend not to be bothered by that as much.
Actually, the Wizard of Oz (movie) always did that for me. Even though it is pretty crazy and up front about being a dream land sort of deal, they weave some pretty good reasons for why things work the way they do. Why doesn't Dorothy use the slippers right away? Because the "good" witch wants her to deal with the "wicked" witch, and so she misleads her. However, the move is still pretty simplistic and flat, with no real feel of "this world actually works in interesting ways" and so isn't as interesting to me now as it was 25 years ago. I get the references to Great Depression USA better, but metaphor is not as fun as actual coherent world building for me.
Wehrkind wrote: Basically, if your audience reads your work and thinks "Wait, so why doesn't X just use ubiquitous things Y and Z to solve their problem right now?" and there isn't a fairly clear answer, that audience is going to be unhappy and dislike the work. Younger audiences with less experience in how things work (less feel for complications and implications) tend not to be bothered by that as much.
Motograter wrote: Dwarves on fire. Who cares where they got it from, who cares how silly it is. Its cool and fun and that is what matters
Some people, obviously. I do, because I prefer my world to be (at least passingly) internally consistent. A setting should have a sense of "reality" (that is, the reality of that world, not my actual reality) that makes things work. If you tell me that the Fire Dwarves want gold because they drink it for sustenance, fine. But if you tell me that they want to make pretty jewelry out of it while completely ignoring the fact that almost any amount of fire would melt all their shinies, it breaks the feeling and immersion of the world.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/17 17:13:36
Am I loosing my mind? I remember posting about how I was sad I could only get shields with comets on them from the $200 Liberator bundle, and now I no longer see those models with the comets on their shields.. does anyone else remember seeing comets??
His Master's Voice wrote:I see people still cannot distinguish between "bad" and "I don't like it".
I see people still think that because someone likes an idea, that it can't be a bad idea.
There are two different ideas at work here. The first is that a given thing is objectively good or bad. The second is that someone might like a given thing. These two concepts are not the same. For a start, 'Good' and 'Bad' are ultimately moral judgements, even if they have lost much of that flavour these days. Furthermore, I can say that I enjoyed Jupiter Ascending
Looks like GW are pushing their PR stuff a bit more aggressively now. They probably invited the Guardian guys over to do a quick filler piece.
Yeah you beat me to it. When I read the article some of the parts may as well have been pulled from a GW PR release!
Really? I didn't get that impression at all. If anything I found the article to be raising more than a few of the issues concerning AoS, albeit not in as a confrontational and blunt manner as we regular forum commentators can afford.
the names of some forces have been changed, presumably so that they can be registered as trademarks
Troops in Age of Sigmar fight as loose units, much more akin to Warhammer 40,000, and the game seems streamlined for faster play – long-time players may disagree as to whether this is a positive development
. After a long period of success, the firm’s sales and profits slumped in 2014, as players soured on the company’s price increases and perceived heavy-handedness in shutting down people it claimed had infringed on its intellectual property.
Several of the conversion guides take quite a tongue-in-cheek tone, however. The rules include bonuses for players who sport impressive moustaches or who pretend to ride on horseback during play, and this suggests that they aren’t taking the whole thing entirely seriously.
If the Warhammer universe doesn’t interest you, there are lots of other fantasy and science fiction wargames that you might find more appealing..//.. X-wing, Starwars: Armada, Kings of War, Warpath, WarmaHordes, Gates of Antartes
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/17 17:22:35
YouKnowsIt wrote: And I highly doubt many of the current design studio were around and gaming in 1983.
That was just their first appearance. They've been seen in the Spelljammer and Al-Qadim campaign settings and the Monster Manuals for v3, v3.5 and v4 which was published in 2008.
Don't forget GW's design team lives in the UK, where D&D really hasn't been popular since the 80s.
Motograter wrote: Well F- me someone hates AoS by going to their local gw and smashing the window out with their car lol
So, Inspector Motograter, you know this to be because of AoS why exactly?
Its a joke. Calm your panties. Guy accidently crashed through the window but with all these whiners going on about AoS being rubbish and what not its rather funny
