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.

coldgaming wrote:
....to the point the stalwart hate-it-never-play-it crowd are the awkward minority.

Or have given up and moved on.

OgreChubbs wrote:
AoS I think is a goner, just from my own experince.

I never bother visiting the website to view what models I may have missed released, except the odd 40k.

I never see anyone but 1 or 2 guys playing it, even then they do not buy new models.

A guy showed up for two weekeneds that I know of with the AoS starter fully painted and asked people to play either army and found no one to play with. i gave him a pitty game but it was like pulling teeth.

If they count on AoS sales my local GW will be closed in a month.

There is no direct correlation between people playing in a store and sales. For all you know they could be selling tons of it and most people are playing amongst friends.

Davor wrote:

As was said by Bottle, AoS was poorly executed, poorly marketed etc. Well the Kirby days are gone hopefully. So maybe AoS can become what we thought could happen.

There are things that I would've done differently, but I'm not sure that it would've made much of a difference. I mean, GW seems to have earned a lot of good will recently, but they were at rock bottom when AoS was released. That, coupled with the necessity of killing WHFB - there's just no easy way past that. And releasing a whole new game system in a whole new world? It was going to take time before it was built up enough for a lot of players. I think that releasing the game and putting heavy support behind it early on was the best they could do, so that after they built up the good will, there was a mature game waiting there when people were finally, finally willing to give it a chance.

I'd said it before but AoS has followed the early adopter curve pretty much exactly. I'd say we are in the early adopters phase now, possibly having hit the tipping point for early majority.

AoS is the "starter" version. You first buy AoS start your forces small, and once they get bigger and you want more complexity you go into Fantasy. Problem is, Fantasy needs to be, HAS to be perfectly balanced, clear and concise so people will want to and look forward to making their armies, bigger.

So depending on how this General Handbook goes, Fantasy can come back, just need to get rid of the Multiple planets, and GW makes them officially "shards" from one world instead of different planets, make it more Fantasy instead of Science Fiction Fantasy, and go back to ONE PLANET (don't know what it was called) and have different shards where we use "portals" to travel through.

Make the game fantasy setting again and I am sure Fantasy Battles can come back better than ever.

First, WHFB won't come back any time soon. It would be preposterous for GW to segment the market when it is trying to build a playerbase for a game. And there's rumors of a new edition of 40k around the bend. If WHFB does come back, it would be at a time when these two playerbases were mature and self sustaining. 40k is now, but not when a new edition is released, and AoS is not there yet. So, at a minimum, it would be three or four years before they could even consider WHFB coming back - and then, it would probably not be in the same formula. With how expensive GW miniatures are (and they are only getting more expensive), requiring hundreds of them is unsustainable in terms of getting new players or keeping them. It could come back in a more streamlined format, single mold figures, perhaps at a different scale, or maybe as a specialist game, but the idea that you'd have a third pillar game with a dozen factions with several dozen models each is probably one you should've give up on.

Second, lore-wise, I think GW has burned their bridges there. They ended the lore and moved forward. You could set a new game in the old world, but End Times and subsequent AoS storyline creates a fated storyline which has already ended. An alternate universe would be fine, like Blood Bowl, but I'd wager that GW wouldn't go that route for a long, long time given how confusing that would be to have multiple canons crisscrossing (you won't see Disney continuing the old Star Wars Extended Universe while currently contributing to a new one).

Third, AoS isn't science fiction. It is mythic fantasy - an older fantasy subgenre than Tolkien codified. It's probably closest to Norse mythology with the different realms (Asgard, Hel, Midgard, Jotunheim, etc all being realms flowing off Yggdrasil, the world tree), and Sigmar draws a lot from Odin. There's some Greek and Roman mythology in there, with the Stormcast drawing from that sort of iconography for their visual design. Age of Sigmar is going to draw far more from The Odyssey than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

AoS is the future whether someone likes it our not. It feels like that at times people think that these companies come out with their release schedule a month at a time. They do not, they are big companies and they have to plan. Age of Sigmar was most likely already planned well ahead of the End Times. They most likely have it's releases planned out some years in advance. Take for instance that the new Warmachine/Hordes rule sets have been roughly 2-3 years in the making, and Privateer Press is smaller than GW. If you indeed look at GW over the course of the past say 5 or 10 years it's clear the company has been slowly restructuring itself for some time. It's clear that many of the concepts in AoS were first tested in 40k. AoS will be around for awhile.

Deja-vu.

AoS is here. It's staying. End of.

Short term: General's Handbook is coming in summer (i.e. soon). Thankfully it isn't just points. But will be three core ways to play AoS.

Long term: Continue to support the game and community. Story line for the next several years is already planned.

No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time. AoS is not nearly as popular as that. I dont think it will go away, but it will stay a second or third tier game. GW is no longer the king of the hill and likely wont be for a while again. AoS certainly wont bring it back to the top. I see alot of
"its popular here, the greatest" all the way to "its extinct here, its the worst" that is not a healthy sign, considering 40k used to be either top dog or at least played pretty much everywhere. AoS does not have that and likely is not going to. If anything it reminds me of 4th edition D&D ( which in my opinion was replaced by a far inferior product), it had its vocal defenders, and it had a strong start and decent run, then it got dropped hard like an ugly baby. Companies don't make games with the intent for them to fail. But the new generals book for AoS is either a careful contingency for a general "rejection" of AoS or it was pre-planned to make AoS something it was not at release. I am not certain we have seen the entire spectrum of what they have planned. AoS as it was at launch is already going the way of the dodo, but the game is evolving with what looks to me to be the "last throw of the dice" mindset where it will constantly evolve and adjust to try to get the maximum number of folks on board. So overall after the long rambling wall of text. I think it will be around for a good long while in some form or another, but will likely sit atop the second tier of gaming, more of an "also ran" than champion...AoS is the "Bernie Sanders" of miniature games, a lovable loser who will hang in to the end. My son and I will continue to play it and hope it doesnt turn into a "Donald Trump"

 thekingofkings wrote:
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time. AoS is not nearly as popular as that. I dont think it will go away, but it will stay a second or third tier game. GW is no longer the king of the hill and likely wont be for a while again. AoS certainly wont bring it back to the top. I see alot of
"its popular here, the greatest" all the way to "its extinct here, its the worst" that is not a healthy sign, considering 40k used to be either top dog or at least played pretty much everywhere. AoS does not have that and likely is not going to. If anything it reminds me of 4th edition D&D ( which in my opinion was replaced by a far inferior product), it had its vocal defenders, and it had a strong start and decent run, then it got dropped hard like an ugly baby. Companies don't make games with the intent for them to fail. But the new generals book for AoS is either a careful contingency for a general "rejection" of AoS or it was pre-planned to make AoS something it was not at release. I am not certain we have seen the entire spectrum of what they have planned. AoS as it was at launch is already going the way of the dodo, but the game is evolving with what looks to me to be the "last throw of the dice" mindset where it will constantly evolve and adjust to try to get the maximum number of folks on board. So overall after the long rambling wall of text. I think it will be around for a good long while in some form or another, but will likely sit atop the second tier of gaming, more of an "also ran" than champion...AoS is the "Bernie Sanders" of miniature games, a lovable loser who will hang in to the end. My son and I will continue to play it and hope it doesnt turn into a "Donald Trump"

That all makes sense, except I'm not sure what you mean by GW no longer king of the hill. I would say they still have the greatest market share out of any traditional miniatures gaming company. Only time will tell how AoS will do, I'm just a little tired of these it'll be gone tomorrow folks. That's just not how things work. AoS has been a large investment, they aren't going to just drop it, I know that's not what you are saying but it is what some people are saying.

 thekingofkings wrote:
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.

BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time. AoS is not nearly as popular as that. I dont think it will go away, but it will stay a second or third tier game. GW is no longer the king of the hill and likely wont be for a while again. AoS certainly wont bring it back to the top. I see alot of
"its popular here, the greatest" all the way to "its extinct here, its the worst" that is not a healthy sign, considering 40k used to be either top dog or at least played pretty much everywhere. AoS does not have that and likely is not going to. If anything it reminds me of 4th edition D&D ( which in my opinion was replaced by a far inferior product), it had its vocal defenders, and it had a strong start and decent run, then it got dropped hard like an ugly baby. Companies don't make games with the intent for them to fail. But the new generals book for AoS is either a careful contingency for a general "rejection" of AoS or it was pre-planned to make AoS something it was not at release. I am not certain we have seen the entire spectrum of what they have planned. AoS as it was at launch is already going the way of the dodo, but the game is evolving with what looks to me to be the "last throw of the dice" mindset where it will constantly evolve and adjust to try to get the maximum number of folks on board. So overall after the long rambling wall of text. I think it will be around for a good long while in some form or another, but will likely sit atop the second tier of gaming, more of an "also ran" than champion...AoS is the "Bernie Sanders" of miniature games, a lovable loser who will hang in to the end. My son and I will continue to play it and hope it doesnt turn into a "Donald Trump"

That all makes sense, except I'm not sure what you mean by GW no longer king of the hill. I would say they still have the greatest market share out of any traditional miniatures gaming company. Only time will tell how AoS will do, I'm just a little tired of these it'll be gone tomorrow folks. That's just not how things work. AoS has been a large investment, they aren't going to just drop it, I know that's not what you are saying but it is what some people are saying.

What I mean by that is a combination of it not being the dominant game company being played in stores. As little as 4 years ago I could walk into any of my flgs (not including the GW) and play, purchase, or see being played at least 1 of GW's games (90% of that being 40K, to be honest, AoS didnt kill fantasy, poor management did) now, I cannot do that. It is minimally carried and some stores do not carry any GW products at all. Worse, if you want to play a game of 40k there are few places to do so, AoS, pretty much 1 maybe 2 places, and a couple flat out wont let us play it there. add that general animosity (which is primarily GWs fault) with the generally much better personal support by other games (PP and Wyrd) and the popularity (but lets be honest most people like star wars) of Xwing and games like it make GW far less than the titan it was. I think its good for gaming overall, but bad for GW in particular. There are a lot more games out there now and they are getting better. Kickstarter and in some cases 3d printing means GW has to be better, cheaper, and more accessable than it used to be. All of that combined still keeps GW on the hill, but not at the top. IT may not have any one super challenger, but the combination of all these games and a greater willingness by folks to play them makes it not necessary for there to be that one competitor. FFG and PP are the two most likely, and according to some sources Xwing already knocked 40k off of #1. hope that rambling answers what I was trying to say ( I hate typing, much prefer BS sessions over coffee and a tabletop game)

AoS sales are not doing good when they issue investor warnings, investors suggest not investing in them until the full year report comes out.

With really bad christmass sales thats really bad.

 CoreCommander wrote:


The setting is certainly not science fantasy - I've read almost everything that has been released as fiction for AoS and there is absolutely nothing out there to suggest a more advanced technological level than that of the old world.

I have not read much for Age of Sigmar. Then again, I am not going to be spending $100 for books. It is not up to me to see how or what the setting for Age of Sigmar is. It is up to Games-Workshop to show me the setting. GW failed to show me that.

All I see in AoS is Space Marines without bolters. I see a space station over a planet. The 9 worlds do not take on the same planet, so I have to believe they are on different planets. I have to force myself into thinking these are "shards" like the game Warlock 2 to think they are on a Fantasy world.

So to me, this is science fiction trying to be in a Fantasy setting. Again, this might not be true, but sadly that is how I see it. Again, not up to me, but GW to get me into the setting. Is it my fault that I few AoS as sci fi? Or is it GW fault for not doing enough to get me more involved in the setting.

This is where GW failed. First of making $100 books. Yes in Canada they are $90 then I have to add in tax so yeah over $100 for a book. Now it's not just one $100 book, but what 5 now if not more? So GW wants me to spend $500 so I get to know AoS setting? No thank you. I will not. So from what I read and see, AoS is a sci fi setting trying to be Fantasy. Now don't thing I am harping on it. I am spending lots of money (well lots of money to me) on AoS products so yes I am liking it. Still my view will not change until GW convinces me otherwise. And no, I am not going to be spending half a grand if not more just to "get or understand the fluff and setting."

Another place where GW has failed is the writing is HORRIBLE. I tried reading an expert on one of the books. Pretty sad I find 50 Shades of Grey a better read than AoS books and novels. I couldn't get past chapter 3 or 4 on 50 Shades of Grey, so that should tell you how bad I see AoS fluff is. Again not my problem. It's GW. They should get better writers and or make the the writing better and more interesting.

"OH the Sigmarines are so POWERFUL and put's out Sigmar's REVENGE onto the WORLD". Yeah horrible. That might not be exactly how they do it, but that is how I view it. Again GW needs to change my perspective. Hell not just mine but our perspective because I am not the only one who views this.

One more, I am not wrong. Also I am not correct either. This is my opinion, and the only way for it to be changed is GW needs to do it. How they do it, it's up to them. If they want me to fork over 1/2 a grand for me to understand, they are not going to get me to change their mind that AoS is basically Space Marines in a Fantasy setting.

And lastly. Bolt Stormers? GW can't do better than Bolt Stormers? Yeah these are not SPACE MARINES. I win. End of Story. (kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)

Davor wrote:

I have not read much for Age of Sigmar. Then again, I am not going to be spending $100 for books. It is not up to me to see how or what the setting for Age of Sigmar is. It is up to Games-Workshop to show me the setting. GW failed to show me that.

GW is showing you the setting in the books - whether you want to buy them and learn about it or make uninformed statements is up to yourself - I won't blame you for either. I get your point that the setting is a big plus for you and you want to know more about it, but the fact of reality is that GW considers its setting IP as valuable as its miniatures' one. If you want to know more about it you'll have to pay up. All other extrapolations in your posts about GW not involving you in the setting enough, the fact that you don't want to buy expensive books and ultimately your frustration about not knowing enough about the setting are answered with the above. Fortunately, in time, various wikis will be populated with enough information that the purchase of these products will no longer be required (if you think about it 40k's lore at the moment is a big blob of small facts, gathered from various books and organized in a couple of wikis).

All I see in AoS is Space Marines without bolters. I see a space station over a planet.
...And lastly. Bolt Stormers? GW can't do better than Bolt Stormers? Yeah these are not SPACE MARINES. I win. End of Story. (kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)

You know it has always puzzled me how people think of space marines when they see the stormcasts miniatures and not of these guys for example:
https://youtu.be/UYmUirZQNiY?t=34
, but I guess when the SM image is so deeply ingrained in one's consciousness he can't help but associate anything with it before any other options. Pauldrons are widespread in the game industry. Elevated, immortal warriors are not something unheard of in common lore. GW may have done a disservice to themselves with the image of the SM being so widely spread.

I was very dubious about the setting to begin with but I have really grown to like it (I've grown to like the Stormcasts too). I recommend the Grand Allaince books. I have two, Death and Order and while the fluff is sparse it is much much more than we had to begin with and it gives me lots of cool ideas about things in the realms (everything from the black market trade of exotic beasts in Azyrheim to Freeguilders setting up frontier towns in the newly liberated realms).

Edit: I recommend those books, if you don't want to buy into the Black Library fiction (like me). And if 'source book' material is your preference instead of narrative fiction (again like me).

Still wondering when GW is going to make a valkyrie like stormcast unit since they have stated in the lore and white dwarf that stormcast are male and female under the armor they just wear armor of the visage of sigmar so you can't tell. Now the future? Now that it seems GW is changing and their comments it looks a lot brighter I still think they got a bit more to go.

People in my GW are really getting into AOS we have a lot of seraphon collectors and death we also have a guy he decided to collect stormcast because of stardrakes. We also now have a gaming night for AOS and quite a few people turn up and there are actually gaps in the shelves for AOS before my GW before AOS came out(we are friends) said his paints and tactical marines box sold more than his whfb minatures. Now that price of entry is lower and the news of the general handbook more people are warming up to it.

I agree with the view that AoS is a repeat of the 4th edition D&D as mentioned earlier in the thread; They split their fan base and released a new product that wasn't an improvement over the current.
If you go to popular YouTube channels and blog sites look at how the fan base is now shattered. Some are okay and playing AoS. but there are more still playing 8th edition, plus there is also
9th age and Kings of War..

If AoS was a solid system on its release then everyone as a group would be preaching its word from the rooftops.
Instead we have a splintered fan-base with no clear future if it will survive or how many revisions it will take to repair.

Being successful with a game is easy.. Have cool models and good game system, but annexation of your current players and changing your models to meet certain
copyrights, issued by your legal department doesn't sound a normal creative route.

Woo Hoo friendly debate. I love it.

 CoreCommander wrote:

... but the fact of reality is that GW considers its setting IP as valuable as its miniatures' one. If you want to know more about it you'll have to pay up.

Ah the double edge sword. You are correct if I want to know more, I should have to pony up. Just like if I want to read the Star Wars books in the other reality now. Thing is, they are reasonably priced. The $100 books in my opinion are not reasonably priced or worth it. So yes I should pony up, I don't disagree with you at all, but GW did fail. Did I ever say those books should be free? No. GW failed in their pricing. I am sure a lot of us would have bought those $100 books if they were priced $40 or less. (will not go into worth right now, but we can if it helps the discussion.)

Also since GW priced me out from buying their books, they have kept me from caring from their fluff. Again, it's GW responsibility to get me interested to buy their products. All they are doing is keeping me away from it. Now I did buy thier Grand Alliance books. You would have thought this was the PERFECT time to get people hooked on the AoS fluff. Again another fail. Why? Because of same old GW philosophy squeeze as much money as you can from the people. Heaven forbid GW actually charged a fair price or HELL even a cheap price for their books so people would be interested in their fluff. You would think if people got interested in their fluff they would want to buy more just like what happened to 40K.

Yes, yes, I know. GW is a company to make money. Thing is you don't have to squeeze every penny from a person to do so. Again, it's GW own fault I think and many others would think GW would charge us the air we breath if they could when in their stores. GW could have broken that image. They choose not to do so.

GW wants to sell minis, then they need me to get interested into buying their product. I loved Battletech. one of the reasons why I loved the fluff was when I BOUGHT the books they were reasonably priced. So I got into their fluff, I bought more of their stuff. GW priced their books where people don't buy, so not as interested in their products. So who is to blame? Look I don't care if I get into AoS fluff. It's garbage in my opinion. Only GW can change it. If they don't want to change it, fine, but don't blame the people when they don't buy because they can't find interest in it.

All I see in AoS is Space Marines without bolters. I see a space station over a planet.
...And lastly. Bolt Stormers? GW can't do better than Bolt Stormers? Yeah these are not SPACE MARINES. I win. End of Story. (kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)

You know it has always puzzled me how people think of space marines when they see the stormcasts miniatures and not of these guys for example:
https://youtu.be/UYmUirZQNiY?t=34
, but I guess when the SM image is so deeply ingrained in one's consciousness he can't help but associate anything with it before any other options. Pauldrons are widespread in the game industry. Elevated, immortal warriors are not something unheard of in common lore. GW may have done a disservice to themselves with the image of the SM being so widely spread.

About the link. There is no giant shoulder pads. That is why we call them Fantasy Space Marines instead of just knights.

Thing is there is too much connection to Space Marines than the Stormcasts being unique. Especially the Bolt Stormers. That right there SCREAMS Space Marines. Was someone trying to be cute? Total fail, and that is why I and many other call them Sigmarines. Even the fluff acts out like 40K, The God Emperor made the Space Marines. Sigmar a God now made the Stormiest Eteranals. Both were made to fight off Chaos.

Only Difference is, Sigmar is a Coward and hid, and The Emperor is an Xenophoe and it's his way or the highway. I am sure in a few months or years from now, GW will make a Civil War in Azyr and 1/2 the Stormcasts will wake up and find out the False God Sigmar really is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.

BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.

I am sure you knew what he meant. Who would have thought Battletech would have disappeared. I preferred Battletech over 40K. Yes it was because of Fasa's decisions, but in the end Battletech did disappear. Nobody would have thought that. Just like how people got sick of Star Trek. Who would have thought that Star Trek would have sunk so low. Is that Star Treks fault or the people at CBS and Paramount? Same for D&D. Was it D&Ds fault or the people who ran the company.

No need to prove someone is wrong when you should have known what he meant.

Davor wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.

BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.

I am sure you knew what he meant. Who would have thought Battletech would have disappeared. I preferred Battletech over 40K. Yes it was because of Fasa's decisions, but in the end Battletech did disappear. Nobody would have thought that. Just like how people got sick of Star Trek. Who would have thought that Star Trek would have sunk so low. Is that Star Treks fault or the people at CBS and Paramount? Same for D&D. Was it D&Ds fault or the people who ran the company.

No need to prove someone is wrong when you should have known what he meant.

Why should I believe he meant something other than what he said? I have no idea if he knows the background of FASA and what happened.

 Ghaz wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.

BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.

Even under the control of Whizkids and Fanpro it did not recover, it did fail, FASA buried it for certain, but the game itself did not recover. Catalyst has brought it back and in a big way. But the point being is the popular big dog of its day died out.

 Sqorgar wrote:
There are things that I would've done differently, but I'm not sure that it would've made much of a difference. I mean, GW seems to have earned a lot of good will recently, but they were at rock bottom when AoS was released. That, coupled with the necessity of killing WHFB - there's just no easy way past that. And releasing a whole new game system in a whole new world? It was going to take time before it was built up enough for a lot of players. I think that releasing the game and putting heavy support behind it early on was the best they could do, so that after they built up the good will, there was a mature game waiting there when people were finally, finally willing to give it a chance.

I don't mean to bring back Fantasy Battles back right away. GW will have to flesh out AoS now. What's done is done now. I was thinking in 2 or 3 years from now. Still make AoS the get into Fantasy. Once your AoS is big enough and a person wants more, they will have Fantasy Battles (what ever it becomes then) so people who want to play like Fantasy Battles was, can play it. Yes there will no be going back to the old fluff. Then again, this could be someones dream of dos and End Times never happened. It's Dallas all over again. So anything is possible in bringing back the old fluff.

Hell I find it funny that 1000s of years have passed and the tech setting is still what it was thousands of years ago. It's almost like nothing has changed that way. It should really be easy to bring back the old fluff for the people who want that.

Then again, I see this as Dallas all over again. It's someone's dream and it was never real.

Davor wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
There are things that I would've done differently, but I'm not sure that it would've made much of a difference. I mean, GW seems to have earned a lot of good will recently, but they were at rock bottom when AoS was released. That, coupled with the necessity of killing WHFB - there's just no easy way past that. And releasing a whole new game system in a whole new world? It was going to take time before it was built up enough for a lot of players. I think that releasing the game and putting heavy support behind it early on was the best they could do, so that after they built up the good will, there was a mature game waiting there when people were finally, finally willing to give it a chance.

I don't mean to bring back Fantasy Battles back right away. GW will have to flesh out AoS now. What's done is done now. I was thinking in 2 or 3 years from now. Still make AoS the get into Fantasy. Once your AoS is big enough and a person wants more, they will have Fantasy Battles (what ever it becomes then) so people who want to play like Fantasy Battles was, can play it. Yes there will no be going back to the old fluff. Then again, this could be someones dream of dos and End Times never happened. It's Dallas all over again. So anything is possible in bringing back the old fluff.

Hell I find it funny that 1000s of years have passed and the tech setting is still what it was thousands of years ago. It's almost like nothing has changed that way. It should really be easy to bring back the old fluff for the people who want that.

Then again, I see this as Dallas all over again. It's someone's dream and it was never real.

The fluff was just lazy thats all. It kept too much of the old and took no steps to really make it new and creative. They really should have just let fantasy go, completely. Just make AoS its own new thing. But that would have taken effort and I am not sure they were willing to really do that. There was no way that AoS would keep the majority of the WHFB fans so they should not have tried. Now we have a patchwork,. round vs square, AoS vs WHFB etc..I think that stays as my biggest negative about AoS, what it could have been (should have been) compared to what it is.

 Ghaz wrote:
If Mordheim comes back, I believe it will be updated to AoS since they just discontinued the key plastic kit from the boxed set (the Empire Free Company) when they redid Order.

Warmaster I can easily see keeping the Olde World setting.

I certainly wouldn't mind a AoS updated Mordheim. They can have a whole thing of exploring lost cities and ruins throughout the mortal realms with each city having different functions like the a city in the life realm having shifting areas that are blessed by life or Nurgle so you never know where you're safe and a death city having banshee attacks, spreading Flesh-Eater madness and dead explorers rise up as zombies.

They could even update the oop militia with a new Free Guild explorers set.

Hell I find it funny that 1000s of years have passed and the tech setting is still what it was thousands of years ago. It's almost like nothing has changed that way. It should really be easy to bring back the old fluff for the people who want that.

What happened to it being a sci-fi setting?

I get what you mean earlier though, Sigmar's city does give off a sci-fi vibe. Though with a realm that based on the winds of the heavens and thus things like stars, planets and comets, it would be a bit difficult to make it look otherwise.

 CoreCommander wrote:

, but I guess when the SM image is so deeply ingrained in one's consciousness he can't help but associate anything with it before any other options. Pauldrons are widespread in the game industry. Elevated, immortal warriors are not something unheard of in common lore. GW may have done a disservice to themselves with the image of the SM being so widely spread.

Oh this is very true. I remember Dragon's Dogma(mix of Dark Souls and Shadows of Colossus) having a dlc armor with huge shoulder pauldrons, many a comment there was that it looked like medieval space marine armor. . (Quite baffled why that's such a turn off, really)

Also, not sure why one planet is better than several. To me, it gives tons of possibilities of what's possible and I don't see how a castle with innocents in it while under siege on a single world evokes more empathy than a castle with innocents in it that's among several worlds. Multiple worlds can easily give those small precious moments such as a line of militia holding the line while the civilians escape.

To each his own I guess.

 thekingofkings wrote:

The fluff was just lazy thats all. It kept too much of the old and took no steps to really make it new and creative. They really should have just let fantasy go, completely. Just make AoS its own new thing. But that would have taken effort and I am not sure they were willing to really do that. There was no way that AoS would keep the majority of the WHFB fans so they should not have tried. Now we have a patchwork,. round vs square, AoS vs WHFB etc..I think that stays as my biggest negative about AoS, what it could have been (should have been) compared to what it is.

Now that you say that, you are correct. That could be a reason why I am having a hard time getting into the fluff of AoS. No effort seems to be taken just like how I view the art work. Computer being used, the easy way out. But this is all under Kirbys direction. Hopefully now with Mr Roundtree it will be different. Thing is that will take time, we have already seen some of his changes (if they are his changes indeed), hopefully now we will see changes in the artwork and how the fluff is written as well.

 thekingofkings wrote:
The biggest issue with age of sigmar isnt the poorly written rules (they are at least playable, can be entertaining but they are no work of art or brilliance and certainly deserve no praise) is the absolutely garbage attempt at setting. If they could do something with it, work to make it less cookie cutter junk and perhaps make is something you can care about, then it has a chance. I think warhammer quest was a great start, but it needs more. the fluff is too spread out, and doesnt matter anyway. Infinite space makes caring hard and just tossing stuff out is meh. The flesh eater courts would be alot more interesting in a setting with some manner of boundary. as it is, the setting took old concepts and made it something lazy.

AoS is probably GWs most unique setting to date.

Looking at some of the fluff makes me think they had all these nuggets of ideas they thought were neat, but knew they couldnt shoe horn or retcon them into the old worlde and could not figure out how to make them a cohesive setting in their own right so took the cop out of the winds of magic being realms. Maybe they and us would have been better served had they taken more time and flushed it out more. There are golden nuggets hidden in the giant turd pile.

@chaosOxomega,

I don't know, alternate fantasy Europe with Tolkien and Lovecraftian forces playing football to resolve their conflicts is a pretty tough contender.

Baron Klatz wrote:
@chaosOxomega,

I don't know, alternate fantasy Europe with Tolkien and Lovecraftian forces playing football to resolve their conflicts is a pretty tough contender.

Leaving out the Blood Bowl stuff as that was always an alternate reality, I do think that the Old World definitely suffered from being highly generic, or at the very least a mishmash of too many different existing ideas and tropes. Some elements were more unique; Skaven and Lizards I always thought were rather different, but the Elves/Men/Dwarfs/Orcs/Ogres basically function as you'd expect them to in any other Fantasy setting. Now this may still be the case in AoS, but the setting they're existing within is brilliantly unique, and what's more, has a much, much wider scope than the Old World in terms of unique and distinct background. Things like the Realms themselves, the Godbeasts, the very distinct geography in a lot of the maps, very hard to call that generic! What's more, having the 'blank spaces' among the fluff is a gift, you can create whatever narrative you want for your army and fit it in somehow! There is a lot more scope for the weird and wacky than in the Old World, a lot more scope to put your own stamp on things.


For those bemoaning the lack of fluff, behold:
http://ageofsigmar.wikia.com/wiki/Age_of_Sigmar_Wikia

Not as much there as you might find on a similar 40k page, but there should easily be enough to get an overview of the setting.

(I mentioned bloodbowl for the fact it was quite original, just north of bizarre and south of awesome)

That wiki page is sweet!

I want to state, at this point, that whether you have the financials to buy gw stuff or not as well as the reason behind the pricing of AoS books are of no interest to me whatsoever. You made some broad statements concerning a setting that you admitted you have no knowledge of. Your displeasure of the pricing of gw books and your lack of desire to know more about the setting removes the points over I'm willing to have a discussion. You are ofcourse free to post your initial impressions of the setting, to not exhibit any interest in it and I will certainly not blame you for that as it is your time and you decide what to do with it. I won't waste my time however trying to fill you in a setting that you despise. I won't derail the thread any more into this direction and for the sake of fairness expect no more answers from me.

 Ghaz wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.

BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.

Which makes it a perfect analogy. GW is following on FASA's footsteps.

I loved Battletech. one of the reasons why I loved the fluff was when I BOUGHT the books they were reasonably priced. So I got into their fluff, I bought more of their stuff.

I get the 2nd sentence. Price means you don't buy, ergo you literally can't get into it. I bought the first 2 novels for AoS early on (I have never bought any other GW novels) when people were complaining about the setting a lot and about the stormcasts, I bought them as it is poor form to make statements about the fluff if you haven't read it. Having bought them I was able to see that many people were making unjustifiable complaints about (factual) stuff they clearly hadn't read, because they hadn't got into it. However, the price of the books is too high for me, so I have not got into it any further.


But the first sentence is one of the more head scratching arguments I have heard. What has the price of the books got to do with how good the fluff is? You love the fluff in battletech, but would have not liked it if the books were a lot more expensive? Which part of the fluff would have been awful at twice the price, was there some stuff that was good at twice the price but would have been awful at thrice? I'm feeling there is a logical fallacy in that argument! Surely the fluff is the fluff and is good or bad on its own merit. That you can't afford it, or don't think it is worth buying due to price, and therefore can't get into it is a wholly separate argument.

Also since GW priced me out from buying their books, they have kept me from caring from their fluff.

I have not read much for Age of Sigmar.

Look I don't care if I get into AoS fluff. It's garbage in my opinion.

Indeed, having bought it (battletech) and got into it you can say what your opinion of it is, good or bad. But if it was priced at a point (AoS) that you couldn't buy it or get into it then doesn't that mean you are not in a position to say whether that it is garbage? At that price you can certainly say you don't care, but saying you don't care is not the same as saying it is garbage - as you haven't been able to get into to be able to make such an opinion presumably?

Unless of course you are arriving at your conclusion of it being garbage based on the titbits you get in the few books you have bought, but that would again be saying the fluff is crap on its own merit. I can understand not liking it even if you have only seen a few small parts, we all have things that will turn us off certain styles of background without going to much into detail, e.g. any thing that is 'weird wild west' style is a turn off to me straight away. But that argument would be distinct from price again, whether it is free or premium priced I'm not 'wasting' my time looking at weird west stuff.

Heaven forbid GW actually charged a fair price or HELL even a cheap price for their books so people would be interested in their fluff.

GW priced their books where people don't buy, so not as interested in their products.

What is a fair price? Do they not charge a fair price? Is there an objective definition of fair price?

Except people do buy the books. Equally it is demonstrably true that even at free there will be people who will not acquire a book, nor get interested in it.


I find what you are arguing bizarre, on the one hand you are clearly angry at the prices of the books. But given the fluff is 'garbage' in your opinion does it matter? Are you saying that you would buy what you think is garbage if it was cheaper rather than spend the money on something you find good?

Who would have thought Battletech would have disappeared. I preferred Battletech over 40K. Yes it was because of Fasa's decisions, but in the end Battletech did disappear. Nobody would have thought that. Just like how people got sick of Star Trek. Who would have thought that Star Trek would have sunk so low. Is that Star Treks fault or the people at CBS and Paramount? Same for D&D. Was it D&Ds fault or the people who ran the company.

Really? Most things have their time and then disappear, that is the nature of these things. What was considered the hight of gaming in the 80s is not nowadays. What was originally just a very 60s show is not going to retain interest in today's generation. That battletech or star trek disappeared for long periods should surprise no one. It takes a lot of effort to maintain such things over decades, and a single error in understanding changing interests in society etc (which may not be immediately obvious) can rapidly lose loyalty/customers, until sometime later someone tries to resurrect the brand/franchise more aimed at a contemporary/different audience (or an audience that is more into 'retro' than the last one).