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.

For me it always feels like GW are scared of making anything you can't by now exciting, leaving players in the dust far to long though mismanagement and failed marketing.

On a more personal lvl I really don't think there is enough story and world built up to hold interest for a lot of players, if you don't like the storm cast or khorne then your stuffed Is how the casual players here felt and didn't bother looking into it passed that.

GW needs to start talking about what's going on, give all the races and army's some story and lore in a place in the world.
It shouldn't be hard, RPGs seem to get way more info into books.
GW just needs to start hyping up the world(universe) rather than going at it a faction at a time. There is plenty of time to expand when the game is not dead.

 Sqorgar wrote:

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

The problem for me isn't that AoS feels too gonzo. I love gonzo! It actually feels the opposite of that, a setting built around cynical money-making and IP-protection decisions, to the point where there isn't actually much else to it.

Heck, there are Fantasy Space Marines who are organised into "Chambers" distinguished by different coloured armour, created in "strikings", who fight with "boltstormers". What are the odds that they're an original and inspired idea, vs someone in a meeting saying "Space Marines sell well, stick them into this new game, okay?" Elfs are now Aelfs, Lizardmen are now Seraphon, Ogres are now Ogors, dwarves now have burning faces. Gotta make that IP stronger, find something to change!

 Elemental wrote:
The problem for me isn't that AoS feels too gonzo. I love gonzo! It actually feels the opposite of that, a setting built around cynical money-making and IP-protection decisions, to the point where there isn't actually much else to it.

But that's just your impression of what is going on. Nobody but GW knows the actual truth of it. Sure, it could by a cynical IP protection thing... except that changing the names won't actually protect their IP from stuff like Chapter House. Since all the names are pronounced the same, but spelled slightly differently, they aren't getting as strong a protection as if they chose completely different name (like Seraphon). It's weird. If it was about IP protection alone, they would've gone with something much stronger and unique.

I think IP protection is part of it, but I think the move from high fantasy to cosmic fantasy may also be part of it. The Aelfs aren't exactly the same as the Elfs, and changing the name slightly but not completely communicates that these new Aelfs are the same, but slightly different. It's like, these aren't your father's Dwarves.... I mean, they are, but the also aren't. *wink* It's impossible to say. While I doubt it was (completely) an IP protection thing, I do believe it was a branding thing.

As for the Stormcast being space marines - one of the things that was a turn off for me for the original WHFB is that it didn't have a heavy platemail orientated faction. I love that aesthetic, and when I play RPGs or MMOs, I always go for the characters who can wear heavy armor. I'm probably one of the few people who played through Demons' Souls in full plate. I love that. I want an entire army built around it. The human armies in WHFB have heavily armored characters, but the are uncommon within the faction, and honestly lack the kind of heavy presence that I prefer. Probably the closest to what I like was the Warriors of Chaos, the Chaos Knights, Chosen, Crom the Conqueror. (I do also like monster factions, so the Lizardmen and Tomb Kings were somewhat appealing as well).

So maybe GW made a cynical decision to put space marines in their fantasy, but you know what? That's EXACTLY what I wanted. Not just the Stormcast, but also the new Blood Warriors and Mighty Lord of Khorne. I think the Prosecutors are some of the most amazing miniatures I've ever seen, and if the Celestant Prime wasn't 90% natto, I'd be all over him. I want big beefy dudes in heavy plate, and WHFB didn't really have that as a theme you could build an army around before. So even if it was a cynical decision, I think it was the right one to make. It was something that WHFB was missing, and it was a pretty significant hole in the line, in my opinion. And I love the Greek god motif of the Stormcast - they don't look like stormtroopers, so even within the same idea of heavily armored units, I find them to be aesthetically unique.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

In fairness, I'm appreciating the chance to examine why I can let Star Wars get away with Darth Maul but Age of Sigmar loses me when it brings up Bloodbound Bloodsecrators (maybe the repetition has an effect?)

It's the poop hammer:

Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa. Where did I say that? I've got no problem with people playing He-Man. Just because I don't like the game or the backstory or a good chunk of the models or the corporate choices doesn't mean I'm judging the players.

You are right. That was my bad. I apologize.

You're hitting the 'people who don't like Age of Sigmar think AoS players are childish' angle pretty hard. I haven't seen a whole lot of that around since the initial uproar died down; was that, perhaps, your poop hammer moment when it came to criticism of the game?

It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"

"Death Dealer", by the way, is a much cooler name than anything I've seen in Age of Sigmar. Bet you wouldn't catch that guy fighting an Ogor.

You don't find that to be just as corny as Bloodstoker? I feel like they both belong in the same heightened sense of identity, where one's characterization is their visual appearance (and name).

Again, I didn't exclude the original trilogy from what I said; it also gave us Greedo the bounty hunter. I just thought it was amusing that all the names you pulled were from the prequels.

Been watching the prequels with my daughter recently. I think Revenge of the Sith is my favorite Star Wars movie (except for the last 10 minutes of so - apparently, "High Ground" means you get to reroll 1s)

You've obviously got broader taste than I do; I can't go near Batman and Robin without a hefty dose of alcohol and a quality drinking game, and All-Star Batman...no thanks. I do see that blu ray set; it's a limited edition with all the episodes, plus an episode guide, trading cards, a Batmobile...in other words, a collector's item that you don't need to enjoy Adam West hopping around while sound effects pop out of the screen. Not saying they aren't all Batman, but I am saying that I don't enjoy all sorts of Batman, and if they stopped making the ones I like to focus on ones I didn't like - say, by having The Goddamn Batman blow up various Bat-Caves - I would probably stop enjoying Batman stuff.

Everything moves in waves. Things that are popular today won't be popular tomorrow. I thought corny Batman was gone after the Dark Knight, but then they made Batman: The Brave and the Bold. I believe they even have a Batman '66 comic series now. Tastes change, but they never fully disappear. Tolkien has come and gone like four separate times since the 60s. Same with Lovecraft or Conan. Waves, man.

And it's not that my tastes are broader, it's that I make a particular effort to see the positives in the works I enjoy. There was a time, a long time ago, when I was every bit the bitter fanboy that half the internet is today, and I decided that it didn't make me happy. So what if the Star Wars prequels weren't everything I wanted them to be? I mean, what did I, personally, lose from this fact? It wasn't making me bitter. I was making me bitter. So I decided that it was better to enjoy something terrible than to cut myself off from something that could make me happy out of spite. And I've found so many awesome things this way that I never would've give a second chance to. Now when I see people crap on the Star Wars prequels, I can only think of how their bitterness made them miss out on legitimately amazing things like The Clone Wars.

Since then, "hatewatching" has become a thing, and I've lost my ability to understand what the hell that is all about. If I don't enjoy something, I'll move on. I can't comprehend the idea that one would purposefully grow bitter and hateful towards something you watch out of... what? Obligation? Or is it the feeling of superiority one gets from feeling better that something? I don't know. Just change the channel man. Life's too short to live through in bitter irony.

 CoreCommander wrote:

There's the "they're just space marines" argument again. What makes you think that "Space Marines" (talking about silly names right?) was an original and not overused concept at the time 40k was introduced? Even if the new stormcast are SM clones, what makes one more possible iteration of the "big dudes in armour" concept so worthy of complain? I've seen enough attempts of doing something "original" that I've liked a lot less than some executions of a well established stereotype.

On second thought, forget it... I don't want to spin the SM wheel again.

So you're going to spin the wheel, then claim you don't want to spin the wheel? Either argue or don't, but I'm not twisting your arm here. For me, the Sigmarines just feel lazy--there were a lot of ways the basic concept could have gone that would have distanced them from Marines, but once you're giving them "boltstormers", you can't clap your hands to your face in surprise when people assume they're low-effort knockoffs designed to cash in on Marines being popular in 40K.

 Sqorgar wrote:
But that's just your impression of what is going on. Nobody but GW knows the actual truth of it. Sure, it could by a cynical IP protection thing... except that changing the names won't actually protect their IP from stuff like Chapter House. Since all the names are pronounced the same, but spelled slightly differently, they aren't getting as strong a protection as if they chose completely different name (like Seraphon). It's weird. If it was about IP protection alone, they would've gone with something much stronger and unique.

Yeah, it's my impression, just as this is your impression. Not once did I claim different. Also, I never claimed GW actually understood copyright and trademarks. The way the case progressed showed that clearly.

I think IP protection is part of it, but I think the move from high fantasy to cosmic fantasy may also be part of it. The Aelfs aren't exactly the same as the Elfs, and changing the name slightly but not completely communicates that these new Aelfs are the same, but slightly different. It's like, these aren't your father's Dwarves.... I mean, they are, but the also aren't. *wink* It's impossible to say. While I doubt it was (completely) an IP protection thing, I do believe it was a branding thing.

Well, technically, they are my father's dwarves, if my dad had played D&D. That's because they're D&D Azers.

As for the Stormcast being space marines - one of the things that was a turn off for me for the original WHFB is that it didn't have a heavy platemail orientated faction.

Chaos Warriors say hi.

And it's not that my tastes are broader, it's that I make a particular effort to see the positives in the works I enjoy. There was a time, a long time ago, when I was every bit the bitter fanboy that half the internet is today, and I decided that it didn't make me happy. So what if the Star Wars prequels weren't everything I wanted them to be? I mean, what did I, personally, lose from this fact? It wasn't making me bitter. I was making me bitter. So I decided that it was better to enjoy something terrible than to cut myself off from something that could make me happy out of spite. And I've found so many awesome things this way that I never would've give a second chance to. Now when I see people crap on the Star Wars prequels, I can only think of how their bitterness made them miss out on legitimately amazing things like The Clone Wars.

Since then, "hatewatching" has become a thing, and I've lost my ability to understand what the hell that is all about. If I don't enjoy something, I'll move on. I can't comprehend the idea that one would purposefully grow bitter and hateful towards something you watch out of... what? Obligation? Or is it the feeling of superiority one gets from feeling better that something? I don't know. Just change the channel man. Life's too short to live through in bitter irony.

I agree, it's very annoying when someone pays close attention to something they dislike, just so they can smugly declare themselves better than that thing.

 Elemental wrote:


So you're going to spin the wheel, then claim you don't want to spin the wheel? Either argue or don't, but I'm not twisting your arm here. For me, the Sigmarines just feel lazy--there were a lot of ways the basic concept could have gone that would have distanced them from Marines, but once you're giving them "boltstormers", you can't clap your hands to your face in surprise when people assume they're low-effort knockoffs designed to cash in on Marines being popular in 40K.

I don't want to spin it. If I could I would delete the post, but the option is not there and the bell rung a little bit late. I couldn't think of anything else I wanted to say regarding your post so I just edited it and left it that way.

I think its the lazy "they're just space marines in fantasy" that causes the most issue. No thought or imagination was put into them. They're just space marines.

 Sqorgar wrote:


As for the Stormcast being space marines - one of the things that was a turn off for me for the original WHFB is that it didn't have a heavy platemail orientated faction. I love that aesthetic, and when I play RPGs or MMOs, I always go for the characters who can wear heavy armor. I'm probably one of the few people who played through Demons' Souls in full plate. I love that. I want an entire army built around it. The human armies in WHFB have heavily armored characters, but the are uncommon within the faction, and honestly lack the kind of heavy presence that I prefer. Probably the closest to what I like was the Warriors of Chaos, the Chaos Knights, Chosen, Crom the Conqueror. (I do also like monster factions, so the Lizardmen and Tomb Kings were somewhat appealing as well).

I'm not sure how you can argue that there was no heavy platemail faction in WHFB (don't know what you mean by original WHFB, even GW says that Age of Sigmar isn't WHFB! _ when in the next few sentences you mention Warriors of Chaos. You could absolutely make an army entirely built around Chaos Warriors with that (although you'd probably want a few units of disposable warhounds or something, but hey. Even Space Marines need scouts.) If bad guys aren't your thing, you could play Bretonnians. If cavalry isn't your thing, then you could play Dwarfs. Or if you loved conversions and looking for alternate miniatures, you could play Chaos Dwarfs.

It would be odd to have a mass fantasy battle game without a heavy armor-themed faction, wouldn't it?

 Sqorgar wrote:

It's the poop hammer:

No, I really actually think it's the repetition. I can see Death Dealer as a sort of Man With No Name/Conan hybrid badass. Like, he walks into the Dancing Pony Inn and everyone's all 'Oh, crap, it's Death Dealer, don't spill his drink!" He'd fit right in with Korgoth of Barbaria. Whereas with the Stormcast, almost literally everything is Storm, Sigmar, Storm, Sigmar, Thunder, Lightning, Sigmar, SIGMAAAAAAR, and the Bloodbound are even worse. It feels like they're compensating for something. Like maybe most of the Bloodbound aren't really into that whole blood thing, and so they're trying to make it seem like they're the best blood-lovers EVER while they've got knitting projects and tiny kittens stashed away under their skull collections.

It's fine if it shows up once or twice, which is why Warhammer could get away with Strollaz's Rune being the rune that made your Dwarfs walk forward before the battle and Kroq-Gar the dinosaur. They showed up every once in a while and you either laughed or rolled your eyes, but it was clearly a goofy wink to the audience. The Stormcast and Bloodbound aren't meant as goofy winks, they're supposed to be the awesome new factions. It'd be different if you had the occasional Blood-Guy thrown in with Knights of Khorne and Wasteland Cannibals or whatever, but as it is, you can practically see the committee behind each of the names going "Can we trademark that? Can we put a big TM on it? Is it in line with our IP, which can be reduced to a few words for easy defense?"

 Sqorgar wrote:

You are right. That was my bad. I apologize.

Cheers. Happy Turkey Day.

 Sqorgar wrote:

It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"

He did say that, and I didn't say it was gone entirely, but...if you change the tone, isn't that a legitimate critique of the game? A lot of the things I've heard from people who enjoy it - including you! - are 'it's faster', 'it doesn't have all that background I could never get into weighing it down', 'you don't have to dig through the rulebook, it's all on the cards', 'you can play whatever you like', 'it's more cinematic', stuff like that. Now, I would have phrased it differently, but still.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Everything moves in waves. Things that are popular today won't be popular tomorrow. I thought corny Batman was gone after the Dark Knight, but then they made Batman: The Brave and the Bold. I believe they even have a Batman '66 comic series now. Tastes change, but they never fully disappear. Tolkien has come and gone like four separate times since the 60s. Same with Lovecraft or Conan. Waves, man.

And it's not that my tastes are broader, it's that I make a particular effort to see the positives in the works I enjoy. There was a time, a long time ago, when I was every bit the bitter fanboy that half the internet is today, and I decided that it didn't make me happy. So what if the Star Wars prequels weren't everything I wanted them to be? I mean, what did I, personally, lose from this fact? It wasn't making me bitter. I was making me bitter. So I decided that it was better to enjoy something terrible than to cut myself off from something that could make me happy out of spite. And I've found so many awesome things this way that I never would've give a second chance to. Now when I see people crap on the Star Wars prequels, I can only think of how their bitterness made them miss out on legitimately amazing things like The Clone Wars.

Since then, "hatewatching" has become a thing, and I've lost my ability to understand what the hell that is all about. If I don't enjoy something, I'll move on. I can't comprehend the idea that one would purposefully grow bitter and hateful towards something you watch out of... what? Obligation? Or is it the feeling of superiority one gets from feeling better that something? I don't know. Just change the channel man. Life's too short to live through in bitter irony.

No, but see, this is what I mean. You do have broader tastes, because you simply like more things than most people do. Maybe you have to make yourself find the bits you like, but you're still saying 'I like this' and other people are saying 'I don't'. Which is totally okay. The world has a lot of things to like and dislike. Heck, I find things that I like even in things I dislike. Stormcast Eternals make pretty good statues. Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Christopher Lee did awesome jobs in the Star Wars prequels (actually, I think there was some pretty good acting in those from most of the cast). That doesn't mean I like the product as a whole.

And no, I'm not 'hatewatching' Games Workshop, although the sheer number of bad decisions they're making IS pretty fascinating. It's a great case study in inward-facing corporate attitude. In another thread, I made a comparison between GW fans and Harley Quinn, and I honestly think it's pretty apt. I'm not sticking around to watch them crash and burn. I just want Mistah GW to do something fun again.

(And then I won't buy it because by the time it happens, whatever it is is likely to cost the GDP of a small European nation, but whatever.)

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think its the lazy "they're just space marines in fantasy" that causes the most issue. No thought or imagination was put into them. They're just space marines.

Absolutely this. I remember a lot of people defending them with "No, they're really different, you guys!" until their book came out with all those flow charts looted from Codex: Space Marines to demonstrate how Warrior Chambers worked.

It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"

In all fairness, I was paraphrasing what Jah was saying and he didn't deny that.
But I do think it's accurate to say that AOS lacks substance to its fluff.

 Spinner wrote:

I'm not sure how you can argue that there was no heavy platemail faction in WHFB (don't know what you mean by original WHFB, even GW says that Age of Sigmar isn't WHFB! _ when in the next few sentences you mention Warriors of Chaos.

As someone who didn't play WHFB, I knew there were restrictions on what I could field, but I didn't know what those restrictions were. I was afraid I'd have to field the models I didn't like (which I REALLY didn't like). Of course, I loved pretty much all of the Lizardmen, but never convinced myself to buy in, so yeah.

No, I really actually think it's the repetition. I can see Death Dealer as a sort of Man With No Name/Conan hybrid badass. Like, he walks into the Dancing Pony Inn and everyone's all 'Oh, crap, it's Death Dealer, don't spill his drink!" He'd fit right in with Korgoth of Barbaria. Whereas with the Stormcast, almost literally everything is Storm, Sigmar, Storm, Sigmar, Thunder, Lightning, Sigmar, SIGMAAAAAAR, and the Bloodbound are even worse. It feels like they're compensating for something. Like maybe most of the Bloodbound aren't really into that whole blood thing, and so they're trying to make it seem like they're the best blood-lovers EVER while they've got knitting projects and tiny kittens stashed away under their skull collections.

I get it. I don't see it, but I get it. I mean, when I was a kid, my favorite toy, like, ever was the DnD playset Fortress of Fangs. Castle Greyskull. Snake Mountain. It's all corny as hell, and I guess I kind of like that sort of corny. Always have.

I think the repetition thing with the Stormcast/Bloodbound will go away as more factions are introduced. Right now, it's just those two factions filling up every novel and campaign book, but as they add more factions and their own silly names (Rotbringers, Putrid Blightkings, Plague Monks), it'll even itself out a bit. I like that the names reflect the army's theme. It really sort of makes it obvious what the conflict is. Once there's a dozen armies, you'll be able to tell at a glance what each unit belongs to. Oh, this guy has "Putrid" in the name. Must be a Nurgle follower - bet he does poison damage of some sort. Blood Reavers? Khorne. Bet they are all about the melee violence. The amount of fluff you need to memorize becomes basically zero - it's optional. Everything you need to know about the conflict is right there on the table, written explicitly in the warscroll.

He did say that, and I didn't say it was gone entirely, but...if you change the tone, isn't that a legitimate critique of the game? A lot of the things I've heard from people who enjoy it - including you! - are 'it's faster', 'it doesn't have all that background I could never get into weighing it down', 'you don't have to dig through the rulebook, it's all on the cards', 'you can play whatever you like', 'it's more cinematic', stuff like that. Now, I would have phrased it differently, but still.

But do any of those things indicate that there isn't any substance to the game?

I mean, it really depends on what you define as substance. As an avid video and board gamer, to me, the things that miniature games do that these other types of games don't do is its substance. I can play any kind of super complicated game with untold depth, or shiny glitzy games with minimum skill (I'm a FFG fan), but what miniature games do that these games don't do is the hobby element, that sense of space, a particular social group to interact with, and a way to interact with the game above and beyond the act of playing it. To me, that's the substance of the miniature gaming genre - and I feel like AoS makes the decision to put those elements first. I don't think AoS is a shallow game at all (if it was too simple, I wouldn't play it), but the substance comes from the bunch different small modules that you have the freedom to put together in any form you'd like.

No, but see, this is what I mean. You do have broader tastes, because you simply like more things than most people do.

It's not that I like more things. I dislike a lot of things. I hated the ending to Breaking Bad. I think Lost was a crime against humanity. But in both those cases, I made an attempt to like them first, and when I didn't, I moved on. I try not to let the things I dislike define me.

Like, I'm coming to the end of my enjoyment of Warmachine. I love the models, but I hate how important the synergies are, how they define list building so completely as to dominate them. I hate how unfun the game can be when those synergies become unfair. There's some Warmachine units that I would love to get and paint, but I know they wouldn't last 30 seconds against an opponent. Like, I LOVE the warjacks. There's only two or three warcasters in the entire game that can run a jack heavy army, and they are very susceptible to certain counter builds.

In MtG parlance, Warmachine is built for the Timmys. It's all about big, explosive combos that decimate the opponent in a spectacular shower of raining doom. I imagine that for Timmy players, Warmachine is pretty much the perfect game. I'm not a Timmy player. I'm more of a Johnny, where playing the game is a form of creative expression. I want to pick the units I want to pick and play on beautiful tables with all sorts of (non-flat) terrain. I want a variety of scenarios and goals, where each game is uniquely memorable. And that's not Warmachine.

So, I've ultimately decided that the direction that Warmachine wants to go is incompatible with the direction I wish the game would go. There's a lot about it that I like, and I'll probably still get models, but the gameplay itself is incompatible. I don't hate the game, nor even blame the game. It's simply not the game I want, and that's okay. I think I have a pretty good handle on what the game is, what it is trying to do, and why the people who like it play. It's just not for me. I'm moving on to something else - I've got a box of Deadzone to assemble, and my Infinity starter set will show up on Monday. They probably won't be for me either, but it will be fun finding out.

And no, I'm not 'hatewatching' Games Workshop, although the sheer number of bad decisions they're making IS pretty fascinating. It's a great case study in inward-facing corporate attitude. In another thread, I made a comparison between GW fans and Harley Quinn, and I honestly think it's pretty apt. I'm not sticking around to watch them crash and burn. I just want Mistah GW to do something fun again.

I don't have a history with GW, and it's possible that they are turning over a new leaf with the new CEO right as I'm paying attention, but I think what GW is doing now is pretty fun. I have a problem with the cost - GW is only Black Friday sale where the minimum buy in is $250 - and I wish there was a large online marketplace to comparison shop. But I don't feel like I'm in anything resembling an abusive relationship with GW. And if you feel you are, maybe it's worth packing up the kids in the dead of night and fleeing to the Mantic Battered GW Fan Shelter...

Absolutely this. I remember a lot of people defending them with "No, they're really different, you guys!" until their book came out with all those flow charts looted from Codex: Space Marines to demonstrate how Warrior Chambers worked.

Meh. They are what they are. I like 'em.

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's still going on. Just a few posts after this one, MWHistorian said, "So, pro AOS people like flash and sparkles and anti AOS people like substance?"

In all fairness, I was paraphrasing what Jah was saying and he didn't deny that.
But I do think it's accurate to say that AOS lacks substance to its fluff.

"it is possible to like both" was me saying that i do thing that there is some substance to the AoS fluff, without trying to argue over different perspectives and tastes...
so, your "accurate" is not my "accurate", since i disagree...
i totally get why people feel that there is not enough substance yet, though...

i think Apple fox put it very well at the end of that post, "There is plenty of time to expand when the game is not dead."....
that is a very level-headed, observant, and neutral observation, which i can really appreciate...
i do agree that GW could have had much more development done before launch day...
a lot less people would feel left out...

i still don't agree that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines"...
i certainly don't thing that the SE are a lazy move by GW...
lazy would have been opening some kind of time warp, or dimensional rift, and having Kaldor Draigo or Marneus Calgar step out into the Realms...
instead we have the question of who is Ionus Cryptborn...
is he Arkhan???
we have Stormhosts and Warrior Chambers...
if they were truly lazy at HQ, they wouldn't have come up with their own names, or even written fiction...
i don't expect anyone to agree with me, but i like them...

cheers
jah

I wouldn't call GW naming policy a good representation of not being lazy. And as far as the not fantasy space marines fluff goes, I have read a few parts of the AoS novels, they sound and feel like w40k books about marines.

@Makumba: where did i say that GW's naming policy was a good representation of anything???
i simply said i don't think that the Stormcast Eternals are a lazy move...
they are a very valid, mythic Asgardian style warrior faction, which i think is cool...
i totally understand why some people wouldn't like them, though...

as for AoS reading like 40K, not enough guns, and a distinct lack of power in the power armor, but to each their own...
i like Marines way more than i like Eternals, so if they actually are meant to hit the same note with Marine Fanatics like me, then they failed miserably...

i am much more excited to see what is going to happen with the Fyre-Slayers...
Slayers have been my favorite WFB characters since the first print of the WF Roleplay book came out...
the Slayer jumped out of the original cover, even among a drawing of 5 or 6 characters, and i knew those were my dudes even before i read anything about them...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:


i still don't agree that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines"...
i certainly don't thing that the SE are a lazy move by GW...

we have Stormhosts and Warrior Chambers...
if they were truly lazy at HQ, they wouldn't have come up with their own names, or even written fiction...
i don't expect anyone to agree with me, but i like them...

Having the same organization with different names isn't exactly stretching the ole' imagination muscles there.

Let's check out the shoulder pads. (Pauldrons, if you will)

Here's a Space Marine


Here's a Stormcast Eternal


The pauldron style isn't found anywhere in history that I could find. Medieval pauldrons looked like this...


The pauldrons aren't similar to anything except 40k space marines.
The helmets, while similar to late Roman cavalry helmets, still have a striking similarity to something else from 40k.

Late Roman cav helmet.


Stormcast Eternal helmet


And now...oh, dear. This does look familiar.


Basically, they're far more like space marines in 40k than anything else in terms of aesthetics, theme and functionality. (especially when all three are combined) To say they're not fantasy versions of space marines is being disingenuous. You can still like them and think they're the coolest things ever created, but they are fantasy space marines.

The original rumours all ststed that the GW studio (or possibly accountants) wanted to put space marines into fantasy.

That combined with the pictures above, the whole part about being broken down into things bery similar to chapters that are colour coded, and the whole near immortal superhuman deep striking into battle at the behest of an all mighty god king....

Yeah there is far too much pegging them as fantasy space marines to ignore.

Okay, I have to ask. Who cares if the Stormcast are Space Marines or not? I mean, what difference does it make to anything?

Now, if you just want to get technical about medieval armor, then I'm game. Personally, I feel like the Space Marine pauldrons (or are the spaulders - never understood the difference) are probably a variation on the Galerus - a shoulder guard used by a Retiarius (a type of gladiator that used a net). The pauldron goes up a bit at the end, to protect the neck, but I think they are similar because the Galerus would have symbols etched into the side, not unlike the Space Marine chapter. The Stormcast have more flared out pauldrons/spaulders which seem more typical of the scalloped stuff - maybe the comically oversized pauldrons from Italy in the 15th century.

As for the helmets, the Liberators have helmets that remind me of the guy in the gold mask from Kingdom of Heaven, though I also get a Greek theater mask vibe from them. The Prosecutors and Retributors definitely have more Spartan-type masks, with the big side burn protectors and push broom mohawks. Space Marines, of course, have Stormtrooper helmets. The Stormcast, with their pleated skirts and tower shields, definitely feel more roman inspired than Space Marines. The spiked halos are from ancient greek art as well, and the Prosecutor wings put me in the mind of Icarus, with a bit of an art deco feel to the wings being rays of light. If you were to tell someone to design a heavily armored guy using inspiration from Greek mythology, the Stormcast is what you'd end up with.

It's been fun looking up various ancient armor on Google, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The Stormcast are what they are and if you like them, fine, and if you don't, that's fine too. Even if they are cynical cash grabs, they're easily some of the best cynical cash grabs I've ever seen.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Okay, I have to ask. Who cares if the Stormcast are Space Marines or not? I mean, what difference does it make to anything?

Because they're obviously fantasy space marines and denying it is ridiculous.
That said, them being fantasy space marines isn't good or bad. It just depends on personal tastes. (though they could have made it less obvious) Its the idea that people say "no, they're not at all like space marines" that is the problem.

And it's a bit of a stretch to say this looks like stormcast pauldrons.

@OP

I just don't agree with your thesis. I find the story very interesting and engaging. When my son and I play with/against the Stormcast we put thunder background noise and have a blast. We both love reading the books and playing games. Each game has a story and has been nothing short of exceptional fun.

After reading three of the novels and the various books that have come out, I found myself liking the "official" setting less and less myself. And, it's largely because of what the OP is talking about.

The setting is vast and open to endless possibility. But, that also means the stories and outcomes there are meaningless. If Altdorf fell or Ulthuan burned, it meant something because they just didn't have an infinite supply of these locations. But, if Mount SkullBrass or Blood Canyon or The Endless Swamp or wherever falls to Chaos or is taken back, does it matter?

Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.

If there were ordinary mortals to be protected that would be a noble goal for the "good" factions, but so far mortals have taken a narrative back seat to the burly battles of magically pumped up warriors and the occasional moving tree or dream lizard.

I still enjoy it - the game, and the fluff. But, for me, the Old World was better, and AoS would be better if set in the Chaos dominated ruins of the old world.

Oggthrok wrote:
Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.

It's kind of amazing how GW managed to take 40ks 'there is only war' slogan and apply it literally, isn't it?

@MWH: is it any less disingenuous to say that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines", when the writers and sculptors have worked to give them an identity of their own???
i'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, so i don't see how my opinion is "disingenuous" or "ridiculous", simply because it is the opposite of yours...
if these guys hit the same note for me that Marine models and fiction does, i wouldn't even be having this debate...
the Stormcast Eternals are patently fantasy knights, while Marines are sci-fi knights, of course there are similarities...
unfortunately, they lack the visual sci-fi elements that i like so much...

you can call them whatever you like, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with you, especially when i'm not feeling any sci-fi vibes from the SE...
did you look at the Guards in the Thor movies and say, "lazy Marvel, those are just fantasy Space Marines"???
i just thought they were awesome armor designs, and am happy that the SE minis and fiction have a similar vibe to Marvel's Asgard...

again, i am not going to call you insincere for having your opinion, and can respect your view even when i don't agree with it...
it would be nice if that kind of understanding would be reciprocated, but i guess that is asking too much when "someone is wrong on the internet"...

cheers
jah

Stormcast have an identity of their own?

Oggthrok wrote:
After reading three of the novels and the various books that have come out, I found myself liking the "official" setting less and less myself. And, it's largely because of what the OP is talking about.

The setting is vast and open to endless possibility. But, that also means the stories and outcomes there are meaningless. If Altdorf fell or Ulthuan burned, it meant something because they just didn't have an infinite supply of these locations. But, if Mount SkullBrass or Blood Canyon or The Endless Swamp or wherever falls to Chaos or is taken back, does it matter?

Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.

If there were ordinary mortals to be protected that would be a noble goal for the "good" factions, but so far mortals have taken a narrative back seat to the burly battles of magically pumped up warriors and the occasional moving tree or dream lizard.

I still enjoy it - the game, and the fluff. But, for me, the Old World was better, and AoS would be better if set in the Chaos dominated ruins of the old world.

That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.

 pox wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
After reading three of the novels and the various books that have come out, I found myself liking the "official" setting less and less myself. And, it's largely because of what the OP is talking about.

The setting is vast and open to endless possibility. But, that also means the stories and outcomes there are meaningless. If Altdorf fell or Ulthuan burned, it meant something because they just didn't have an infinite supply of these locations. But, if Mount SkullBrass or Blood Canyon or The Endless Swamp or wherever falls to Chaos or is taken back, does it matter?

Wars are generally fought over territory or resources, but all of the players in Age of Sigmar war because they war, because their gods will it, while simultaneously providing what ever they need to achieve it. So, territory is so infinite as to be meaningless, resources are of no concern, and the gods can just keep resurrecting their followers forever, leaving little at stake.

If there were ordinary mortals to be protected that would be a noble goal for the "good" factions, but so far mortals have taken a narrative back seat to the burly battles of magically pumped up warriors and the occasional moving tree or dream lizard.

I still enjoy it - the game, and the fluff. But, for me, the Old World was better, and AoS would be better if set in the Chaos dominated ruins of the old world.

That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.

Sounds alright, if you like chaos. I wouldn't want to be playing a race where there isn't enough left to muster a decent scrap. That sounds too far past post apocalyptic and into 'why bother'.

What I dont get is why does the Official GW fluff stops anyone from forming its own narrative... this is what this hobby is and was all about.

When you read a book does your imaginary stop after you finish it or its just more fuel for your thought? When you see a movie do your ideas all of a sudden vanish after the movie credits? When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.

THe Idea I get with AOS is that GW throws you some basic ideas and lets you run with it your own way... thats why there are different factions etc. Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.

 NAVARRO wrote:
What I dont get is why does the Official GW fluff stops anyone from forming its own narrative... this is what this hobby is and was all about.

When you read a book does your imaginary stop after you finish it or its just more fuel for your thought? When you see a movie do your ideas all of a sudden vanish after the movie credits? When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.

THe Idea I get with AOS is that GW throws you some basic ideas and lets you run with it your own way... thats why there are different factions etc. Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.

Because I liked the world they created, and want to play in that. Like most of the sittings I play in, it's the setting itself that's interesting, it's ideas and rules that drive imagination.
If i don't like an eliment of the world, then it is a part of the whole that I don't like.
If I play my chaos and have to face downcast eternal, then any story I have created for my own army is null. The game loses context, I play lots of difernt settings for difernt reasons. But I don't want to push them all together.
GWs new setting hinders my imagination by its openness, it's bland and offers little that another setting doesn't for me.
It's fun to create story's and charecter within a setting that has rules and context.
People enjoy in RPGs I run when they can tell information on a charecter based on the rules and context, ex This charecter is a paladin of this god, very rare in this part of the world!
Not everything is to everyone's own interest within settings they like equally. But how certen parts interact within the setting can also be a issue, for context we have a player that desperately wants to get 30k going. But with half the players playing mostly army's not in that era, they cut off half the interest. And other marine players want to play In 40k anyway, so 30k isn't really starting due to a lack of interest In the setting from the whole.
This won't be everywhere, but it's a issue that has come up here.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@MWH: is it any less disingenuous to say that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines", when the writers and sculptors have worked to give them an identity of their own???
i'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, so i don't see how my opinion is "disingenuous" or "ridiculous", simply because it is the opposite of yours...
if these guys hit the same note for me that Marine models and fiction does, i wouldn't even be having this debate...
the Stormcast Eternals are patently fantasy knights, while Marines are sci-fi knights, of course there are similarities...
unfortunately, they lack the visual sci-fi elements that i like so much...

you can call them whatever you like, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with you, especially when i'm not feeling any sci-fi vibes from the SE...
did you look at the Guards in the Thor movies and say, "lazy Marvel, those are just fantasy Space Marines"???
i just thought they were awesome armor designs, and am happy that the SE minis and fiction have a similar vibe to Marvel's Asgard...

again, i am not going to call you insincere for having your opinion, and can respect your view even when i don't agree with it...
it would be nice if that kind of understanding would be reciprocated, but i guess that is asking too much when "someone is wrong on the internet"...

cheers
jah

I never said anything about them having sci-fi elements. You do know what theme, aesthetics and purpose mean, right? Because they're all the same as Space Marines. You're looking at it too literally.
And SE aren't knights. They're armored dudes, but that doesn't make one a knight.

 NAVARRO wrote:
THe Idea I get with AOS is that GW throws you some basic ideas and lets you run with it your own way... thats why there are different factions etc. Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.

I get what you're saying, but I (and I think many others) need something to connect to, something we enjoy, to begin with otherwise if we are just imagining our own stuff why not do it in any other setting, or make up our own settings? What appeal does AoS then hold?

Apple fox wrote:


Because I liked the world they created, and want to play in that. Like most of the sittings I play in, it's the setting itself that's interesting, it's ideas and rules that drive imagination.
If i don't like an eliment of the world, then it is a part of the whole that I don't like.
If I play my chaos and have to face downcast eternal, then any story I have created for my own army is null. The game loses context, I play lots of difernt settings for difernt reasons. But I don't want to push them all together.
GWs new setting hinders my imagination by its openness, it's bland and offers little that another setting doesn't for me.
It's fun to create story's and charecter within a setting that has rules and context.
People enjoy in RPGs I run when they can tell information on a charecter based on the rules and context, ex This charecter is a paladin of this god, very rare in this part of the world!
Not everything is to everyone's own interest within settings they like equally. But how certen parts interact within the setting can also be a issue, for context we have a player that desperately wants to get 30k going. But with half the players playing mostly army's not in that era, they cut off half the interest. And other marine players want to play In 40k anyway, so 30k isn't really starting due to a lack of interest In the setting from the whole.
This won't be everywhere, but it's a issue that has come up here.

I get that context is crucial but in the context of the Oldworld that you prefer is there no space for some skirmishes in the future? I mean you don't like the future as it is presented to you but you can still grab say your Lizzies and ignore the bit that they are errr memories of former selfs and do a battle with them still as reptilian in a jungle pocket forgotten in time... Yes its more effort and you may just prefer to ignore all together I'm just suggesting alternatives.

@jonolikespie AoS has lots of things going on that makes it worth it for me personally. Why would I go and walk Thousands of kilometers creating all from scratch if I can walk a few meters and fine tune a formula. What im trying to say here is that the miniatures are there, the game is there( need some tweaks) the universe does need a bigger dose of readjustment but I can do that by ignoring the bits I do not agree with and go back to Oldhammer stories and backgrounds to patch up the nonsense.
Its like I have the ability to sculpt miniatures from scratch but it takes much more time and effort than Im willing to give to the Hobby so if I want a full army I just convert some minis and sculpt the odd special one.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 pox wrote:


That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.

Sounds alright, if you like chaos. I wouldn't want to be playing a race where there isn't enough left to muster a decent scrap. That sounds too far past post apocalyptic and into 'why bother'.

I agree with both of you - I love the idea of a post-apocalyptic version of the Old World, but there's no need for there to be too few people left for a good scrap.

In theory, AOS has reduced the over-all size of a Warhammer army. This means you could easily setup the existing armies as surviving remnants who are in hiding, marshaling their forces, without altering them from how they appear in AOS. Imagine a surviving regiment of Empire soldiers using abandoned Skaven tunnels and the ruins of dwarven holds to move unseen and strike at Chaos through guerrilla raids. Or, imagine tribes of forest Goblins who had to flee the forests when Chaos burned them, riding their spiders on a long journey south, away from the North Men, into the burning wastes of what was once Araby. There, they hide from the hated sun by building spider-web suspended villages in the shadows of canyons, venturing out at night to look for water, and fight Chaos scouts who are moving in to take even this refuge from them.

Forces like that would be inclined to band together, allowing a lot of alliances to be played out. (Empire and Goblins in the same army?) Combine it with a more human-seeming Sigmar, one who remembers his life as Karl Franz as well as he does his time as a man founding the Empire. That Sigmar's stormcast would be the preserved souls of warriors of the before-times, Empire soldiers who wear iron masks of Sigmar's face to protect their identity from the gods of Chaos and Death who would try to claim their souls from Sigmar if their identities were discovered. I think it all would leed to a more exciting quest to free the enslaved and rebuild that which was taken.

As it is... motivations are hard to define, the stakes are low, and the only upside is that you can easily make up your own fluff.

(Of course, I do like the game and the setting, to be clear. It could just be a whole heck of a lot better)