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.

Nerm86 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
... with everything being centred around war...

You ever played a wargame or read their fluff before?

Yes. Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes, hell even Fantasy and 40k go into (in great depth in some of them) the world, the cultures, the people's, the politics etc.

 Bottle wrote:
Lore is THE most important thing after models, for me, and I think most others.

AoS has lots of potential but nothing substantial right now making it quite frustrating.

I understand why they went for the vast infinite mortal realms and the similarities it has with space, and I am quite excited by the possibilities it opens up, but as of yet there is nothing in those mortal realms I would want to defend from bad guys.

It's like 40k if the imperium was limited to earth and all the planets were nothing but primordial and barren landscapes.

Age of Sigmar needs some places, not to limit our imagination but to structure it. Just like we know about the different types of planets in the imperium we need some example towns/cities/empires to work with.

People say that the BL fiction has much more world building contained but unfortunately I can't stand BL fiction and won't be reading any more of it any time soon. I need source books that aren't focused on Stormcast Eternals.

I know they're coming... I am just getting impatient waiting.

Want some pills for the incoming and inevitable disappointment?

I guess i need to rephrase my post. It seems AoS is aimed at TEENs and latch key children. Being both at one time in my life I am confident in that statement. The problem is my tastes have matured past Iron Maiden, DnD and such. Not that there is anything wrong with those things its just that they are more or less male teen friendly. Regardless, my views on this mean little and are not meant to insult so ill digress to something factual.

Sigmarites are meant to mirror space marines and their inclusion to the setting was sales based.

The next book will have the following words in its title.
Blood, Realm, Gate and War/s. Kinda like how GW has been shoving Hobbyist (spelling) and The Narrative down our throats with a sprinkling of Forge for flavor.

Table wrote:
I guess i need to rephrase my post. It seems AoS is aimed at TEENs and latch key children. Being both at one time in my life I am confident in that statement. The problem is my tastes have matured past Iron Maiden, DnD and such. Not that there is anything wrong with those things its just that they are more or less male teen friendly. Regardless, my views on this mean little and are not meant to insult so ill digress to something factual.

I don't know. I have a lot of nostalgia for that kind of fantasy style. I feel like scifi/fantasy had a one-two punch of Tolkien and Herbert in the 50s and 60s, and it hasn't really grown out of that phase. The 80s grimdark phase didn't really move past it, but it had its own style (which also extends to stuff like Mad Max) that sort of brought back the swords and sorcery era of Howard and Burroughs with this really unique oppressive feel. I love it, man. Tolkien can suck it.

Thing is, I'm not sure how much that sort of style would resonate with children today who don't have nostalgia for it. I'm sure that they look at a Boris Vajello painting and think, this is just another example of the patriarchal oppression of women by using the male gaze to turn women into objects. And where are the minorities? Aren't ogres just another example of an oppressed minority that have been systematically marginalized to the point where they become racist caricatures? That's why I like retrofuturism, like Steampunk, where I can take the stylistic aspects I enjoy without being constrained by the sexism and racism of that era. #TrollLivesMatter #LovecraftWasARacist

I'm a Gen Xer, man. Nihilism is my life blood.

Sigmarites are meant to mirror space marines and their inclusion to the setting was sales based.

Eh... maybe... I think they stand alone pretty well. Love the vaguely art deco Grecian style.

The next book will have the following words in its title.
Blood, Realm, Gate and War/s. Kinda like how GW has been shoving Hobbyist (spelling) and The Narrative down our throats with a sprinkling of Forge for flavor.

That's a safe assumption given that the previous book was "The Realmgate Wars, Part 1". So, good job on that prophecy, Cassandra. They're just words, man. Who cares?

Yeah, clearly the Stormcasts aren't Space Marines in AoS... *Rolls eyes*

 Sqorgar wrote:

The next book will have the following words in its title.
Blood, Realm, Gate and War/s. Kinda like how GW has been shoving Hobbyist (spelling) and The Narrative down our throats with a sprinkling of Forge for flavor.

That's a safe assumption given that the previous book was "The Realmgate Wars, Part 1". So, good job on that prophecy, Cassandra. They're just words, man. Who cares?

People who like to see more than the same four words over and over, mostly. Oh! Don't forget Storm!



I honestly don't get a Conan vibe from the Age of Sigmar stuff I've seen. It feels more like an 80s toy-based cartoon with cannibalism, and perhaps that's intentional. You don't need to know how He-Man gets his food or what life is like for the average Eternian peasant, you just need to know that he kicks Skeletor's ass every week. Maybe that's what GW was going for.

The Stormcast visuals might be excusable on their own...maaaaaaaaybe...if the 40k crowd hadn't been telling Fantasy players that their game would draw so much more interest with space marine equivalents for years...but when you get into their background? Nah. They're very clearly fantasy space marines.

Exactly this. A good way to figure out if a setting is fleshed out enough is ask yourself: can you make a RPG game for a group set in this setting without a massive amount of rewriting or making stuff up for the areas or people without it being a game of out murder the murserhobos. In 40k there are several tabletop games with fluff explanations on what you can do. There are hive worlds to meet characters, feral worlds to explore, space hulk's to traverse, and plenty of named characters to add to a game who aren't insane monsters or souless robots. In fantasy there are whole sections of the world that had sections of peace, with many characters with established personalities. For AoS? We have some abstract maps of a few realms, and one or two characters that are beyond a name and one action for the whole new world. That's...bare bones, barely even the bones. More like a skull and a femur, with a lump of meat being the little BL books we have.

Deadnight wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

I don't think the fluff is a major part of the hobby for many gamers, so I'm not even convinced poor fluff is all that destructive.

You'd be wrong then.

The lore is the one thing frequently mentioned as the reason so many people stay with games like 40k. Without it, battles are just abstract geometry and nameless and pointless dice rolling.

Fluff is important to me for everything but straight up fantasy. For fantasy stuff, I can substitute Tolkien or half a dozen other fantasy worlds to decide what exactly my Dwarf army is all about. It'll be interesting to see what kind of changes are made to the AoS versions of Dwarfs, elves, etc and how that affects my feeling toward the game.

But outside of that fluff is definitely important. Not liking the the 40k fluff is what has kept me out of that game, despite its larger user base that would make games much easier to schedule. The fluff is what keeps me with Warmachine.

 Spinner wrote:

People who like to see more than the same four words over and over, mostly. Oh! Don't forget Storm!

Since you brought up the 80s toy vibe, look at the names of the He-Man figures. Skeletor. Stinkor. Mosquitor. Rattlor. Stridor. Pathor. Rokkar. Tung Lashor. Tuskor. Dragstar. Extendor. It's literally what they do/are + or. It's corny, but it's part of the style.

I honestly don't get a Conan vibe from the Age of Sigmar stuff I've seen. It feels more like an 80s toy-based cartoon with cannibalism, and perhaps that's intentional. You don't need to know how He-Man gets his food or what life is like for the average Eternian peasant, you just need to know that he kicks Skeletor's ass every week. Maybe that's what GW was going for.

Not Conan, but the aesthetic based on Frazetta and Vajello. Fire and Ice. Death Dealer. But seeing as how He-Man was a Conan rip off using a kiddified version of that style:



That's basically the AoS starter set.

I think AoS exists somewhere between He-Man and Deathdealer, in that it takes the grimdark aesthetic of Frazetta's Death Dealer, but has sort of the marketable toy aspect of He-Man. So I guess describing AoS as He-Man for a new generation isn't an absurd comparison. And as someone who loved He-Man to death, I am not put off by this at all.

The Stormcast visuals might be excusable on their own...maaaaaaaaybe...if the 40k crowd hadn't been telling Fantasy players that their game would draw so much more interest with space marine equivalents for years...but when you get into their background? Nah. They're very clearly fantasy space marines.

I was referring to the "their inclusion to the setting was sales based". I think it is equally likely that it was an aesthetic choice. I think GW just likes their heavily armored dudes.

autumnlotus wrote:
Exactly this. A good way to figure out if a setting is fleshed out enough is ask yourself: can you make a RPG game for a group set in this setting without a massive amount of rewriting or making stuff up for the areas or people without it being a game of out murder the murserhobos. In 40k there are several tabletop games with fluff explanations on what you can do. There are hive worlds to meet characters, feral worlds to explore, space hulk's to traverse, and plenty of named characters to add to a game who aren't insane monsters or souless robots. In fantasy there are whole sections of the world that had sections of peace, with many characters with established personalities. For AoS? We have some abstract maps of a few realms, and one or two characters that are beyond a name and one action for the whole new world. That's...bare bones, barely even the bones. More like a skull and a femur, with a lump of meat being the little BL books we have.

I find as a great rule of thumb a setting is good for RPGs if, without creating anything yourself and using only established fluff, you can come up with a full session of material that doesn't involve a single fight.
Most groups will want a fight every session, but they don't NEED to be there, and if you can't build a session without it you're not running a good setting.

40k has this, hell Dark Heresy works best imo if combat is reserved for only very important scenes since it is so lethal. WHFB had this, it was a well thought out setting. D&D isn't great for this imo, but you can run more political sessions, or investigation, or exploration. IK is the same (though better setting imo). WoD is amazing for this too. Even the Infinity setting had a massively successful KS for their RPG book because while we don't have it yet people can see that same potential for corporate espionage and the like.

AoS is just... empty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Spoiler:

That's basically the AoS starter set.

I would have totally bought that if it were

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Lore is THE most important thing after models, for me, and I think most others.

AoS has lots of potential but nothing substantial right now making it quite frustrating.

I understand why they went for the vast infinite mortal realms and the similarities it has with space, and I am quite excited by the possibilities it opens up, but as of yet there is nothing in those mortal realms I would want to defend from bad guys.

It's like 40k if the imperium was limited to earth and all the planets were nothing but primordial and barren landscapes.

Age of Sigmar needs some places, not to limit our imagination but to structure it. Just like we know about the different types of planets in the imperium we need some example towns/cities/empires to work with.

People say that the BL fiction has much more world building contained but unfortunately I can't stand BL fiction and won't be reading any more of it any time soon. I need source books that aren't focused on Stormcast Eternals.

I know they're coming... I am just getting impatient waiting.

Want some pills for the incoming and inevitable disappointment?

Give me your strongest!

Actually the snippets of fluff on the Fyah Sleighyahz has been pretty cool. Gold hungry pirates basically! I'm looking forward to them. And I'm gonna wash it down with the sweet cannonade of the Duardin.

AoS has been out for less than 6 months. Most of the comparisons in fluff have been made about games that have been about for 7-8+ years... enough said really

Nerm86 wrote:
AoS has been out for less than 6 months. Most of the comparisons in fluff have been made about games that have been about for 7-8+ years... enough said really

And yet I can't think of any one of those games that had such an empty world as AoS on release. Even the likes of say Dystopian Wars, there was very little fluff for that but the framework was much more solid, even if it was significantly smaller.

Lets just take a minute to stop and consider how many factions we even know survived from the Old World.

Beastmen survived, but we haven't really seen anything from them have we?
Bretonnia seemed to be gone even before the world blew up and we have not seen a hint of them since.
Daemons of chaos are of course there, except for the part with Slaanesh and no one can say for sure (s)he is returning right?
Dark Elves, my pet gripe with the setting. They seem to be folded into aelfs from what I can tell but there hasn't been any mention of them other than Maelkith (and are sold as 'order' now!)
Dwarfs we know are in the setting. I don't believe we know where they life (meaning cities, not which realm). We know the slayers now are on fire and fight for something called ur-gold. Do we know what that is or if they are now just mercenaries instead of proud warriors?
High Elves do seem to be the primary surviving elf faction, but have we seen anything of them at all?
Lizardmen got a damn army book and it didn't seem to answer everyone's questions, and I'm not sure the answers it did give were very well received.
Ogre Kingdoms obviously don't exist as kingdoms anymore, but I guess they still are around? I honestly think in all this no one has mentioned them so I have completely forgotten them.
Orcs and Goblins or course remain, but seem to be, like beastmen, a vague 'yeah they overrun the realm of beasts' rather than have any actual fleshing out so we are just assuming they are the same.
Skaven are good, here we seem to actually have a reasonable amount of fluff. We know they have been brought into chaos properly now, nothing wrong with that at all. We know they have their little realm thing that tunnels into various realities, so that's something.
The Empire, now we are back to not knowing if a faction survived at all. Do we know if there is a human empire out there, or is everyone just camped out in Sigmar's yard, hiding behind his walls with no reason to venture out? I'm guessing when it comes around the empire will get a name change and no longer be an empire but just considered 'humans' or some such.
Tomb Kings hey we know what's up with these guys, Nagash rules the realm of death with all his old skeleton buddies.
Vampire Counts I think are a little less sure, it seems like they lost a ton of what made them different from the genera 'undead' and are folded into Nagash's forces and loose a bit of their free will and independence. Also a thought just occurred, how the hell do they feed in a realm entirely populated by undead? This is another one I played so am a little bitter about, but if an Empire does turn out to exist then the Vampires should be there, not the realm of death. Hell even sneaking into Sigmarheim to live and feed there would make more sense to me.
Warriors of Chaos are lucky in that they are one of three whole factions to get the spotlight so far, but that has really only been Khorn and a little of Nurgle. Do we know what Tzeechy boy is up to?
Wood Elves are one I am genuinely unsure on, we saw the realm of life but it appeared to be primarily Sylvaneth, which to my understanding is just the trees, no elves other than the queen right?

Please feel free to correct me, I am sure I have missed some stuff, but that to me is not a case of comparing something new to something established, AoS is just plain lacking on details right now.

And yet I can't think of any one of those games that had such an empty world as AoS on release.

AoS beats WFB by miles in terms of fluff on release. On release there was naff all fluff for Warhammer. Talk about an empty world for the game that went on to become the biggest fantasy wargame. There were 3 books in 1st edition box, rules for the battle, magic and another I can't remember but I'm sure it wasn't background.

[edit] just googled it as it was bugging me, the 3rd book was characters, a sort of rpg style of rules for heros.

Nerm86 wrote:
AoS has been out for less than 6 months. Most of the comparisons in fluff have been made about games that have been about for 7-8+ years... enough said really

There's enough of the M.O behind AoS's fluff installation and management already peeking to cause some serious concern. When even an AoS enthusiast like Bottle can get concerned... things are not looking good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
High Elves do seem to be the primary surviving elf faction, but have we seen anything of them at all?

If by primary faction you mean "They have three named survivors". Sure xD

Because apart from that all that we know can be condensed to "Yeah, they're around too."

 jonolikespie wrote:

Please feel free to correct me,

I'll give it a whirl!

Beastmen: These have cropped up in the Realm of Life and were a component of the Rotbringers - they had got hold of a big magical dirge of a horn which was really hassling the Stormcasts, and they were one of the forces present on the assault on Alarielle's secret glade (not a euphemism). They have popped up elsewhere but, as things stand, fulfil the 'minions of Chaos' role.

Bretonnia/Empire: Yeah, I think these are gone, to be replaced by... we'll have to see. That said, I would not be surprised to see Sigmar-centric models sticking around. However, no real info as yet.

Daemons of Chaos: Very much around, named Greater Daemons are in, along with some old favourites (such as Valkia the Bloody). Information on them varies from a short mention to a fair bit of background on what they are up to now. Smaller daemons are very much a thing in all Realms. As for Slaanesh - the daemons are present (and have popped up in a Battleplan already, looking for the god), but Slaanesh itself is currently AWOL. A pure guess, but I think this is a) not an oversight, b) very much plot-related and c) will reappear around the same time as the elves.

Elves (all flavours): Yeah, these guys are getting a big redesign, I would say, possibly tied into Slaanesh. I think the old elves will go entirely, but we'll have to see. Same with the Dwarfs.

Lizardmen: Still on the fence on these guys after the book, but I have got at least one leg over. Slowly warming up to them, let's see how the impact the setting/storyline now they have been introduced. As for not telling everything... that was fairly inevitable. Ity is always how GW does things.

Ogres/Orcs: Not really featuring in the storyline at the moment, so their presence is certainly muted. They have both popped up here and there in the fiction and a Battleplan (Ogors), but this is a wait and see. Though I think an Orc will always be an Orc, even if he is an Orruk.

Skaven: Split into two now (sort of), with Pestilens being very much their own thing. Fair bit of material on them. The 'regular' Skaven have popped up, albeit briefly, though there are references to them having strongholds in lots of places. Don't foresee a big change to their actual armies, and I think they will be getting a big part in the plot lines.

Undead: I think we are about to see big things here Mannfred has returned and the Stormcasts are currently tracking down Nagash (the nutters). There is also a big plot device with regards Stormcast reforging and Nagash's claim on their souls, so development is in progress. I am guessing we will see something every soon for these guys - it is already coming out in the BL fiction and Battleplans.

Warriors of Chaos: Khorne and Nurgle you know about but yes, Tzeentch gets a big look-in, as much as Nurgle does in terms of background. He has the Realm of Metal under his wing and his followers have some blinkign great fortresses. It was these guys who nicked Sigmar's Hammer. Oh, and Archaon is about to be released - he is going to be a Thing in terms of background, I would be sure...

The story line is moving forward. It is going to cover the rest soon enough.

The Aelf Nobleborn (High Elves) are mostly concentrated in Azyrheim as are the Duardin (non-slayer dwarfs). I actually think Slaneesh's absence is bringing Slaneesh MORE into the story as the demons look high and low for her. I like the idea that something will happen with the Aelf Exiles there too.

C'mon GW. Give us more of the good stuff! Humans, Elves and Dwarfs!!

 Sqorgar wrote:




That's basically the AoS starter set.

The fact that you don't see this as a problem is one of the major points where we disagree

I could probably get behind a Conan or even tongue-in-cheek He-Man style game, but Age of Sigmar has way too many other problems weighing it down (replacing Warhammer Fantasy being chief among them). Honestly, if someone were to do a completely over the top and corny Conan pastiche wargame, I'd probably love it. The problem is that Age of Sigmar takes itself seriously while it talks about the Bloodsecrators and the Bloodbound and the blood geysers in the Igneus Delta of the Realm of Fire (presumably next to Obsidia Isle and the Vulcanus Mountains, but we don't really know because maps aren't important) as they fight the Stormcast Eternals who are formed up in Stormhosts and wield boltstormers (except for the ones with warhammers), who are clad in purest sigmarite and descend from Sigmaron to bring the word of Sigmar to sigmar Sigmar SIGMAR -

Ahem. Sorry. Something stuck in my throat.

AoS beats WFB by miles in terms of fluff on release. On release there was naff all fluff for Warhammer. Talk about an empty world for the game that went on to become the biggest fantasy wargame. There were 3 books in 1st edition box, rules for the battle, magic and another I can't remember but I'm sure it wasn't background.

[edit] just googled it as it was bugging me, the 3rd book was characters, a sort of rpg style of rules for heros.

I could be wrong, but wasn't it intended to be more generic than anything else? I've got the idea in my head, but I don't know for sure.

Regardless, first edition WFB didn't have the monetary resources modern-day GW has, and also wasn't attempting to replace a wargame with 30 years of background to its name. I'm absolutely going to hold Age of Sigmar to a different standard.

 Spinner wrote:
The problem is that Age of Sigmar takes itself seriously

I think GW as a whole has a problem right now where they don't remember if they were serious or not when they released a lot of the old fluff.
So much of it, moreso for 40k than fantasy I think, it was super gritty, over the top, and really dark. But there was always an aspect of satire to it, it was TOO over the top and treating it super seriously was the joke.

These days it seems to have the over the top, but with none of the satire to it and when you take it at face value it is just dumb.

AoS is suffering from the same imo.

 Spinner wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Spoiler:

That's basically the AoS starter set.

The fact that you don't see this as a problem is one of the major points where we disagree

At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.

I could probably get behind a Conan or even tongue-in-cheek He-Man style game, but Age of Sigmar has way too many other problems weighing it down (replacing Warhammer Fantasy being chief among them). Honestly, if someone were to do a completely over the top and corny Conan pastiche wargame, I'd probably love it. The problem is that Age of Sigmar takes itself seriously while it talks about the Bloodsecrators and the Bloodbound and the blood geysers in the Igneus Delta of the Realm of Fire (presumably next to Obsidia Isle and the Vulcanus Mountains, but we don't really know because maps aren't important) as they fight the Stormcast Eternals who are formed up in Stormhosts and wield boltstormers (except for the ones with warhammers), who are clad in purest sigmarite and descend from Sigmaron to bring the word of Sigmar to sigmar Sigmar SIGMAR -

I was a writer on a comedic video games that was well regarded for the writing. Even still, there were people who just didn't think it was funny. One joke in particular, regarding a poop hammer, was singled out often as being unfunny and vulgar. Reading through the various reviews and user comments, I came to the realization that if someone thinks a joke is beneath them, they won't laugh, no matter how funny the joke is. And at the point that they think one joke is beneath them, you've lost them for every joke that comes afterwards. In short, someone who doesn't want to laugh, can't be made to laugh, and each additional attempt just makes them that much less interested in laughing next time.

My guess is that you had your poop hammer moment with Age of Sigmar - I'm guessing the death of WHFB - and you just haven't been willing to laugh since.

If you truly feel that the names in Age of Sigmar are too corny and beneath you, you must likewise criticize things like Star Wars (Darth Sideous? Darth Tyrannus? Darth Maul? I mean, come on! X-Wings,Y-Wings, A-Wings that look like Xs, Ys, As?) and Batman (The Riddler's name is E. Nigma? Poison Ivy is Pamela Isley? Mr. Freeze is Victor Fries?). Just like with Star Wars, with its sound and explosions in space, and Batman, with its bat shark repellent, I decided that I would enjoy them for what they were rather than wishing they were something else, and I've made the same decision with Age of Sigmar. Yeah, the names are corny, but so what? It's never stopped me before.

I'm absolutely going to hold Age of Sigmar to a different standard.

Exactly my point.

 Sqorgar wrote:
At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.

I would absolutely disagree here. I won't call it insulting, but this kind of statement I definitely think is... disingenuous.

You can play tabletop games at a competitive level and be ranked as one of the best players in the world.

The painting is a form of art, even if you don't take it seriously. If you do take it seriously you can again compete in international events or you can make a career of painting.

Building models requires a lot more patients and (for some kits) skill than most toys you're likely to find in a kids store.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
At the end of the day, no matter how we like to dress the hobby up, it's playing with toys. I have absolutely no problem with that at all, so I don't feel the need to dress it up and feel important about it.

I would absolutely disagree here. I won't call it insulting, but this kind of statement I definitely think is... disingenuous.

You can play tabletop games at a competitive level and be ranked as one of the best players in the world.

The painting is a form of art, even if you don't take it seriously. If you do take it seriously you can again compete in international events or you can make a career of painting.

Building models requires a lot more patients and (for some kits) skill than most toys you're likely to find in a kids store.

This hobby is literally descended from playing with toy soldiers on the living room floor. Just because you take it seriously, doesn't mean it isn't just playing with toys. Just like this...


...is just playing with model trains. Just like this is:


And by that same stretch, how different, really, is this...

... from this?


Hell, there's at least three colors in that last picture, which makes it more colorful than most games of Warmachine.

This is NOT a value judgment on the character or maturity of the person who engages in such a hobby. George RR Martin loves collecting metal miniatures, and a large number of the coat of arms and divisions in Song of Ice and Fire are actually based on figures he painted himself. Linked above is one of the earliest rulesets for miniature games, written by none other than HG Wells. One of the biggest and most impressive model train tables ever made was made by Rod Stewart. Here's freaking Grand Moff Tarkin painting and playing with toy soldiers. Robin Williams collected multiple 40k armies (but didn't play). I hear Napoleon was a fan of toy soldiers himself.

I think gaming is a fundamental part of the human condition - it is how we learn and understand - and anyone who dismisses gaming as childish is doing themselves and everyone they know a disservice. But play is play, and there's no shame at all in calling a game a game and a toy a toy. One of the great things about being an adult is the fervor and intensity one can put into play, elevating it beyond mere entertainment and distraction into an art form all to itself. There's nothing I respect more.

So no, that statement was never intended to be insulting, and it certainly wasn't disingenuous. When I call something a toy, I am not calling it childish. I'm saying it is something that you play with. And play, as I've just described, is awesome.

Nope. Wrong. Not connected to playing with toys. wargamming actually has a long and somewhat serious history.
http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page1a.htm

 MWHistorian wrote:

Nope. Wrong. Not connected to playing with toys. wargamming actually has a long and somewhat serious history.
http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page1a.htm

Your link literally talks about how wargaming was more a simulationist experience, until HG Wells' Little Wars popularized the more abstract gaming part, and that the historical line of wargamings is best seen as two lines, the Kriegspiel "professional" wargame and the Little Wars "hobby" wargame - Warhammer is directly descended from Little Wars, a game in which you play with toy soldiers on the floor, the full text and illustrations (of toy soldiers on the floor) were linked in my previous post.

MOST sources consider Little Wars to be one of the earliest and strongest influences on the wargaming hobby as we know it today. Like, that's not even a controversial statement. You guys will not give an inch on anything, ever, will you? No statement, no matter how obvious or universally regarded, is above challenge, huh? "The sky is blue!" "Not at night, donkey-cave!" Oh my god, it's exhausting.

Wargaming and pushing around little painted plastic men around are not the same thing. The sort of painted men used in the wargames we play existed before wargames used them, generally for the purpose of childrens toys. The story as I remember was that HG Wells was playing with some children (whose relationship I don't remember) and their tin soldiers when he started to develop what became the war game that further developed into what we know and play today.

i have to agree with Sqorgar...
at the end of the day, it is toy soldiers, and i think that is awesome, too...
what is wrong with play???
people have accused me of being way too serious on here, but i don't feel that way at all...
i get paid to play with toy soldiers, and i am so thankful for that...
i have no desire to be adult, and even less desire to pretend that my Space marines are not toys...

i paint at an internationally competitive level, and make a living off of my painting...
i take my practice very seriously, painting 6 hours a day, seven days a week, like clockwork...
it is still the most fun i can have with my clothes on...
a spirit of play keeps you young and healthy...

i love the fact that AoS has a He-Man vibe, and thought Battle Cat the first time i say the mounted Lord in the starter...
just because i'm not flooding the front yard, and playing with my He-Man toys anymore, doesn't mean i don't feel the same sense of fun every night when i sit down at the painting table to try and paint up a potential Crystal Brush winning mini...

i can totally respect your perspective, jono & MW, but when Sqorgar is saying that these are toy soldiers he isn't wrong, or insulting your view, he is saying how he feels, and he isn't alone in that opinion...
he made some very insightful comments in that last post, and to just dismiss it as wrong, or insulting, is doing the idea of playfulness a disservice...

cheers
jah

Jah you are clearly a painter, how do you not see the artistic merit of the hobby as something more than 'playing with toy soldiers'?

It is a legitimate art form, and even those who never paint beyond three colours and a wash are still producing art.


Given that Kirby has in the past spoken about how GW markets toys to kids I daresay they think like you and Sqorgar, but given the reception AoS received I'm not sure the wider community agrees with you.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Jah you are clearly a painter, how do you not see the artistic merit of the hobby as something more than 'playing with toy soldiers'?

It is a legitimate art form, and even those who never paint beyond three colours and a wash are still producing art.

How can you not see the merit in "playing with toy soldiers"? When someone tells me that a game is art, I think to myself, well then, the game must be slumming.

Given that Kirby has in the past spoken about how GW markets toys to kids I daresay they think like you and Sqorgar, but given the reception AoS received I'm not sure the wider community agrees with you.

I daresay you are insecure about your own hobbies, hoping to elevate its status so you don't feel so dirty doing it. They are just toys, and there is absolutely no shame in that. Sorry to whip out that old CS Lewis quote, but "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

 jonolikespie wrote:
Jah you are clearly a painter, how do you not see the artistic merit of the hobby as something more than 'playing with toy soldiers'?

It is a legitimate art form, and even those who never paint beyond three colours and a wash are still producing art.


Given that Kirby has in the past spoken about how GW markets toys to kids I daresay they think like you and Sqorgar, but given the reception AoS received I'm not sure the wider community agrees with you.

i can see the artistic merit of the hobby, but calling them toy soldiers doesn't take away any of that merit, as i see it...
while i am a painter, i wouldn't call myself an artist...
what i do is glorified paint-by-numbers...
i give all credit to the sculptors...

when i sit down every noght, with the goal of being the best glorified paint-by-numbers painter in the world, i am struck by how awesome it is to have a beautifully sculpted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles minis, in a cool sewer display (sculpted by one of our own forum members no less) sitting in front of me, and i get to paint them!!!
i love that i still get to live in the realm of the imagination that was such a big part of my childhood, but now i can paint better than i could back in the day, when the first TMNT graphic novels came out...
as a kid, i never felt that i was being childish by reading those graphic novels, i just thought they were awesome...
then the cartoon changed everything, and did go for the real kiddie angle, which is why i say that i understand your perspective...
as a kid, i really liked the gritty stuff (my comic was The 'Nam instead of Spider-Man), and that is what i love about the miniature hobby, there are so many gritty settings to choose from...
i happen to think AoS is one of those, too...

cheers
jah

You're completely missing my point, I'd be the last guy to claim there is anything wrong with playing with toys or 'childish' things, but if you're calling this hobby 'playing with toys' you're doing it a disservice.