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.
Also, I've never read Moorcock, but I was under the impression that Elric and the like were closer to heroic fantasy/swords and sorcery like Conan - more swashbuckling than the trials and tribulations of gods.
I have not read any of the books about Elric, but have read about prince Corum and there are a lot of similarities there - Moorcock has always been an inspiration for GW. Prince Corum battles against hordes of marauding armies, alongside the drowned sailors coming to aid on their rotting, ghost ships, strikes a deal with a mighty sorcerer for his loved one, gets imbued with godly artifacts and goes on a quest through different realms before finally arriving in the court of a god and slaying him by finding his Achilles' heel before meeting a being of order that has been aiding him (that's basically the first book). AoS has similar stories to the above, but also includes stories about the trials and questing of the gods, their relationships with each other and with mortals, their plans and workings through their servants and by themselves etc. The gods are given human qualities like greed, pride and spite along with the more mystical ones like prescience, power over reality etc. - this is a very common motif in Greek mythology and the ancient tragedies and is somewhat required so the spectator/reader can associate himself more with the mythical protagonist, be more emotionally attached to him or just get a better insight into the story at hand.
On a side note, concerning the similarities to already existing writings, It is better to explain the setting like this to an interested person than to point him to the works in question:
"Dude, read the Odyssey, the Illiad, some of the eddas, something from Moorcock, Howard and Leiber to get an idea of AoS and then get back here for more details."
This is the same reason why 40k players don't automatically redirect newcomers to Dune for example.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/25 17:10:37
Kilkrazy wrote: It impossible to believe that GW will simply dump AoS and restore 8th edition WHFB.
I've got to agree. AoS is all or nothing for GW. If it fails I imagine they will drop fantasy altogether to focus on their 40K cash cow.
I find it unlikely that they will bring back Warmaster, as in many ways it is the opposite of the kind of games they clearly want to sell.
I'd love to see WM make a return. It was a beautiful, elegant rule system and much better at doing "mass battles" than WFB ever was. I do agree though that it might not fit into GW's current marketing plans.
IMO the promise of a points system is a massive bone thrown to the old-style WHFB competition players after GW found that AoS sales were suffering badly from lack of a points system. Clearly an after-thought, or it would have been there much earlier.
Not just "competition" players. The lack of points is one of the main reasons I never picked up AOS and I hate tournaments. On the other hand, most of my WFB gaming was pick up games at the FLGS and without a points system that's just too much trouble to bother with for me. Indeed, the points system in the upcoming General's Compendium is actually making me think I may give the game a chance now.
IDK how much more stuff like that GW can add to the game rules. If they add something major, like a C3 and morale system, it starts to make it too complicated and moves away from the simple core 4-page concept.
In a lot of ways, WFB was too complicated so I'm not generally opposed to the simplified rules of AoS. Add points and do something to fix summoning, and I'd be probably be happy.
Bosch, Corum and Illiad, sure. I'd be all over that in a second, sadly GW somehow managed to hide it from me, despite me checking majority of AoS artwork so far. Yes there were few good pictures showing sth along those lines and I remember being suprised, what is this inspiring little pic doing here drowned in the sea of crap.
I'd say it's Corum, Illiad and Bosch done bad. Or Masters of the Universe done good (yeah it's better. A bit). I'd also say, you guys are more concerned about selling me this angle on the setting than GW because if they cared, the vast majority of the artwork would never make it into the books.
The AoS setting was just an excuse, they wanted to repeat space marines sales in fantasy. I doubt that whfb was doing that bad, and for sure it was able to sustain itself. GW just wanted better returns and didn't care at all for their legacy, sending a universe developed for years off with a few cringeworthy jokes.
richstrach wrote: I really like the over-the-top setting of the Mortal Realms - it has more in common with Hiernonymus Bosch or Goya than it does with the standard Tolkienesque fantasy setting. I understand that it's not quite everyone's cup of tea, but my only complaint about it is that it's quite difficult to recreate those more surrealistic elements of the geography on the tabletop (although the battleplans try to reflect it I suppose).
I think that's it exactly. It's a different type of fantasy, and maybe not one that people who grew up with a half century of Tolkien clones is familiar with. It makes people uneasy because the tropes they rely on to keep point them in the right direction may no longer be applicable.
Not really, no. Videogames cover all types of fantasy nowadays, low, high, grim, happy, mythological, celestial, space, you name it. Tolkien clones are actualy a minority and unfamiliarity is not a reason for dislike towards AoS.
AoS is Clichea and no less generic nowadays than whfb was, and maybe more.
So, the setting is really only over-the-top with respect to Tolkienesque fantasy. Its peers are Norse and Greek mythology. It's more Clash of the Titans than Wheel of Time. It's contemporaries are comic books. It's Flash Gordon or a grimdark Masters of the Universe. It's the cover of an 80s heavy metal record. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that it is basically a new genre, and requires new signpost tropes to guide our understanding of it.
There's a lot wrong with that because there was a consumer base for something different, all the people who were coming to GW for grimdark and gritty fantasy got rejected. I love my mythology based fantasy or silly fantasy but I was getting it somewhere else. That's why I find all the "finaly" reactions from some AoS fans and all the cheering for anti consumer crap weird, if one wasn't into whfb anyway then why ever expect them to kill it to bring you something different and why does it have to be GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coldgaming wrote: The momentum for AoS has clearly been gaining after a rough launch. It's got a lot of people buzzing now, to the point the stalwart hate-it-never-play-it crowd are the awkward minority.
Lol that must be why they dropped all their (misguided) pride soon after it released and are bringing points now, because of all the AoS buzz. Or maybe you mean the buzz about points coming, because that's more a buzz about the company changing ways than the game itself. Other than that, there's a Silver Tower buzz sure, again not really AoS though as that rather harms than helps WQ, Old World based one would it eat alive buzz wise.
Awkward minority, you mean on Facebook. Surely not reality.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/25 22:40:59
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Plumbumbarum wrote: I doubt that whfb was doing that bad, and for sure it was able to sustain itself.
All the most credible sources out there were pretty universal in agreeing WFB was a money sink for GW.
We'll never know the true figures, but come on...
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe it's new to you youngsters. To me it's a lot more reminiscent of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books than Tolkien.
It's not that it is new. It's just fallen out of fashion. After Tolkien sort of codified high fantasy as the standard for fantasy, all the other stuff became too unrealistic compared to the grounded seminal works and ended up largely becoming the domain of young adult fiction (comic books, cartoons, and the like) - and I think part of the problem AoS faces is that it reminds people more of cartoons than the more serious, grounded stuff. It's a problem of respect, not necessarily exposure.
Also, I've never read Moorcock, but I was under the impression that Elric and the like were closer to heroic fantasy/swords and sorcery like Conan - more swashbuckling than the trials and tribulations of gods.
At least some element of Tolkien fantasy is everywhere because he is one of those that paved the way. Nonetheless, his fantasy is not high magic. Not even the Old World one. Tolkien is different from the "usual" gritty fantasy because is superficially more optimistic, is more heroic, even if is actually full of sadness for the world that was that is fading etc... The power level in Tolkien is the one of Gritty Fanatasy, the tone is High Fantasy. But Tolkien is just ONE author.
AoS, with its planes/worlds, and big scope, remembers me more of a DnD setting. Think about Planescape*, the great wheel. Stuff like that. The concept behind AoS is not revolutionary but doesn't matter. I can be very interesting and could be executed very well if not written by underpaid interns.
I agree with the poster above - is just built around Sigmarines without any love for creating something - does not matter unique, but coherent or well made.
* So ultimately Moorcock, DnD owes a lot to him
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 07:57:27
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
Plumbumbarum wrote: I doubt that whfb was doing that bad, and for sure it was able to sustain itself.
All the most credible sources out there were pretty universal in agreeing WFB was a money sink for GW.
We'll never know the true figures, but come on...
Nah, Hastings reported that whfb was profitable right before it was destroyed and before End Times as well. That whfb was losing money was a made up Chinese whispers argument from people who wanted to justify AoS existence and GW disgusting behaviour around it's release.
Not to mention that GW could have fixed whfb but that would mean a lot of work and they didn't give a gak about it. The reason for whfb death is greed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 08:48:35
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
In your world, sure.
You think GW is evil, we get it.
Just let it go dude, you are a broken record of bitterness.
Spend your time on something you like, instead of lingering on things you clearly hate and have no control over. It would be better for all parties.
Also, I've never read Moorcock, but I was under the impression that Elric and the like were closer to heroic fantasy/swords and sorcery like Conan - more swashbuckling than the trials and tribulations of gods.
I have not read any of the books about Elric, but have read about prince Corum and there are a lot of similarities there - Moorcock has always been an inspiration for GW.
I have read and re-read each and everyone of them. They were my first introduction to fantasy back when I was a 14-year old boy.
The concept of GW chaos gods is clearly inspired from Moorcock's own chaos gods. The way they interact with mortals, Chaos as ever-changing and mutating, inner rivalries and infighting between chaos factions, daemons as creatures of pure chaos that manifest in the mortal realm.... just about everything short of actual names is there. Even the 8-pointed star as its symbol)
The law and chaos conflict (and in later novels, the Balance also as a third player on its own, above the two others) is central to Moorcock's work. In the end all characters recognize being pawns in the big game.
While I played WHFB for two decades, and I enjoyed the old world... I was glad to see us progress past the old world and into something new.
I know where I am, no one bought whfb retail pretty much ever. We had a stream of new players regularly and they all except for the odd divergent once in a blue moon bought their armies 2nd hand.
This was also commentary that I had heard from many people over many locations so I can definitely agree with WHFB wasn't selling and being a money sink. Our GW store manager concurs that in almost three years he barely was able to sell ANY fantasy, and fantasy hasn't really been stocked in any of our five local FLGS in years because it never sold (caveat - one store had the same inventory for years, the tournament store had a small offering but stock did not really have any justifiable velocity, it often just sat there as well)
Thats as close to the real numbers as I will get.
AOS now makes up a good sized chunk of our local GW's sales, and our local GW has a plaque that states that our city lead north american sales last year.
We have a campaign starting in two months at the store that has twenty people registered as attending. Last summer we had 24 people signed up for end times, so we are only four players less than we were last year.
From where I am, AOS is growing and growing and will surpass our former active fantasy playerbase next year.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 13:50:58
No I like them and they seem to get better lately. I am not deluded though.
Just let it go dude, you are a broken record of bitterness.
I'm not bitter, I'm happy. If whfb 9th from GW had some of the illustrators that AoS has, it would be spoiled for me forever. I already had trouble looking at some of the FFG stuff for warhams. Now, if sigmarines got introduced to the Old World... i don't want to even think about it.
I am eternally grateful to GW for killing the Old World, believe me. Also, I was never bitter, at first I was actualy eager to see the new game, expected something really good. Then I saw the ruleset and sigmarines and has been laughing my ass off ever since. It's only the dryness of Internet communication that makes me look bitter.
Spend your time on something you like, instead of lingering on things you clearly hate and have no control over. It would be better for all parties.
What if I like discussing AoS? It's quite fascinating actualy, not the game ofc but the story of it's release.
Btw I don't hate AoS, I don't even root for it too fail anymore. I only reacted to claims that it's something oh so new and original that it makes people uneasy, please. It's one thing to like it but making up ridiculous theories to move the blame for it's initial failure from GW onto the playerbase is another.
In a vacuum, it's a standard fantasy world with awful space marine wannabes shoehorned in and if it wasn't for them and the context of its release, I could actualy like it a bit, it surely isn't anything special or fresh though.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Just patiently waiting for the bretonnia and tomk kings replacement.
Because they will come have no doubt.
But instead of worshipping a lake lady it will be Sigmar.
And TK will have a different look to be the new main army of tje dead. Dattebayo.
Davor wrote: 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.
Those guys from Diablo look much more fantasyish than sigmarines, including pauldrons. Not to mention, it is be hard to say what would be worse, space marines in fantasy or ripping off Blizzard for whfb succesor heh.
They really are fantasy Space Marines, reforged for their chambers heh. I think GW actualy tries to emphasize this fact, with naming, structure and all the similarities. Not sure why fight it, it's obvious and obvious by design.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Great I like space marines.
Now liking space marines and saying you dont like stormcast because they look like space marines... now thats weird. Its as if someone was grasping at straws for some reason.
Fantasy was something entirely different in a way that it was standard humans vs horrors of the world. Sigmarines being omph powerful spoil it.
Also space mariney guys don't fit fantasy visualy, it's just lame imo.
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
I'll assume you mean GW's motives, and the answer is - so what? Or, even if there is some shady machiavellian scheme in play here, what would you suggest?
They're a business, so thinking ill of them for trying to improve profitability is insane. If things don't work out, they either go bust or try doing something else. That's kind of how businesses work.
You either like and/or buy their product, or you don't.
Case in point, Mantic.
I don't buy their stuff because frankly the quality of their output is highly variable and their business model appears to be something akin to a Ponzi scheme.
If I did like their stuff, then the fact I think they are riding on GW's coat tails intentionally wouldn't bother me. I'd buy it.
We're not talking blood diamonds or sweat-shop clothing here.
Ah is this Fantasy? With the talk of Space marines, space stations and power armouredd orks all around I tought it was another sci fi setting.
You know whats funny? It's that the Stormcast despite their oomph aren't that powerfull at all in the fluff. You should read one of the novels. Loved the fury of gork. Warbeast was pretty good aswell.
They fit pretty well this new setting. Its some of the old stuff that does not fit properly like the Empire or free people if you prefer.
I do prefer the regular humans. I have Imperial Guard aswell. I like the average joe going against the horrors of the setting. Now why do you think brets were discontinued? Their theme would be very similar to the new humans that are coming im sure. Same with Tomb Kings on death faction.
But this "universe" is just starting. Its not meant to be WHFB. Its something different. If you dont like it, alright. You have 9th age and KoW.
I also didn't like file and rank. But loved the old lore tho. Shame that I never saw Estalia.
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
I'll assume you mean GW's motives, and the answer is - so what? Or, even if there is some shady machiavellian scheme in play here, what would you suggest?
They're a business, so thinking ill of them for trying to improve profitability is insane. If things don't work out, they either go bust or try doing something else. That's kind of how businesses work.
You either like and/or buy their product, or you don't.
Case in point, Mantic.
I don't buy their stuff because frankly the quality of their output is highly variable and their business model appears to be something akin to a Ponzi scheme.
If I did like their stuff, then the fact I think they are riding on GW's coat tails intentionally wouldn't bother me. I'd buy it.
We're not talking blood diamonds or sweat-shop clothing here.
No I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sete wrote: Ah is this Fantasy? With the talk of Space marines, space stations and power armouredd orks all around I tought it was another sci fi setting.
You know whats funny? It's that the Stormcast despite their oomph aren't that powerfull at all in the fluff. You should read one of the novels. Loved the fury of gork. Warbeast was pretty good aswell.
They fit pretty well this new setting. Its some of the old stuff that does not fit properly like the Empire or free people if you prefer.
I do prefer the regular humans. I have Imperial Guard aswell. I like the average joe going against the horrors of the setting. Now why do you think brets were discontinued? Their theme would be very similar to the new humans that are coming im sure. Same with Tomb Kings on death faction.
But this "universe" is just starting. Its not meant to be WHFB. Its something different. If you dont like it, alright. You have 9th age and KoW.
I also didn't like file and rank. But loved the old lore tho. Shame that I never saw Estalia.
Yes if you like it as scifi then it makes sense.
For me, 40k is already space fantasy, not sure what's the point of introducing a spaceish fantasy with low tech space marines, other than pushing more space marines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 16:01:50
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
I usually don't listen to these things, but thought if it improved my view on the fluff of AoS, so be it. It did nothing to it. It didn't deter my view on AoS or make it more positive.
Saying "I'm going to leave this here." I was expecting something Grandiose. That right there made this a total fail for me. Went on too long trying to explain what a fantasy setting can be, that there is lots of versions on it, and I got lost on how this applies to AoS. Guess my attention span wondered.
So what is the point of it? Not being negative, just wondering I didn't get it.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
I'll assume you mean GW's motives, and the answer is - so what? Or, even if there is some shady machiavellian scheme in play here, what would you suggest?
They're a business, so thinking ill of them for trying to improve profitability is insane. If things don't work out, they either go bust or try doing something else. That's kind of how businesses work.
You either like and/or buy their product, or you don't.
I love "the question of motives." Are these people seriously trying to create a product that appeals to people and sells? Are they trying to make money by making things people want? This is some nefarious business.
Speaking from someone that is heavily in the software industry, gaming industry, and music industry since the 90s (I am a software architect, i work in gaming, and am a musician that works on original music to include the selling of said music) - people want things for free and expect things for free or next to no cost.
Entertainment items should be free or next to no cost and is expected to be free or next to no cost.
Artists, musicians, and software people should be paid in good will and a pat on the back and maybe a bag of cheetohs and six pack of mountain dew.
Entities that sell entertainment items that pull a profit are largely considered the devil and are only in it to pull a profit from their players.
Some people will be more reasonable and say that entities that pull *excessive* profit are the devil, but no one will really define what excessive profit is though some will say plastic figures should not cost more than $1 a model, but 99% of us don't know what it costs to produce miniatures in the first place, let alone where to begin costing the product to where you can pull a profit and pay your rent, employees, artists, etc (and in GW's case stockholders) - we just say "a plastic model costs I think 5 cents or so to produce in material so should not cost more than $1 a figure or else that is excessive - totally ignoring the many other costs of production.
I know my attempt at a miniature game had four factions, each with 10 or so individual models and the initial cost not counting actually producing the figure, just the moulds and art was $50,000. This is largely why I have not moved into producing models for my game and have left it on the digital screen for now (and even then, it costs a good chunk of money for decent artists to make 3d meshes of your models for four factions as well)
So it shall be written.
So it shall be done.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 19:09:19
I usually don't listen to these things, but thought if it improved my view on the fluff of AoS, so be it. It did nothing to it. It didn't deter my view on AoS or make it more positive.
Saying "I'm going to leave this here." I was expecting something Grandiose. That right there made this a total fail for me. Went on too long trying to explain what a fantasy setting can be, that there is lots of versions on it, and I got lost on how this applies to AoS. Guess my attention span wondered.
So what is the point of it? Not being negative, just wondering I didn't get it.
That Age of Sigmar is a different type of fantasy, which allows it to do different things that the Old World doesn't have.
It's always been my pet hate with digital content; I have no problem paying for it, but what annoys me is I've never figured a justification for when it costs *more* than the physical, excepting (for example) a retailer selling off DVDs to clear stock.
As for the contention " I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen."
You do know what happens to creative businesses that don't sell, right?
Suggesting the sales and creative process should be totally separate in any business is either mad or naive.
RoperPG wrote: As for the contention " I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen."
You do know what happens to creative businesses that don't sell, right?
Suggesting the sales and creative process should be totally separate in any business is either mad or naive.
You can safely ignore any post Plumbumbarum makes in the AoS forums. He's always hated the game and GW, and he'll say pretty much whatever he can to make them look bad, regardless of how irrational or hypocritical it may be. So treat his AoS comments more as a manifestation of his disgust rather than as an invitation for reasoned discussion.
On a side note, I've been reading the campaign books recently and I'm starting to get into the setting. I don't have the attention span to read a half dozen novels, so having the quick and dirty summaries works for me. They are written with just enough color that they have more character than a history book, but don't get bogged down in it. And I was somewhat surprised to find that there are actual story arcs, with character progression and even plot twists. I'm actually somewhat curious where they will be going with this. I'm hoping that the Realmgate Wars actually comes to an epic and satisfying conclusion. I always sort of saw AoS as cool looking armies fighting each other in cool looking realms, but didn't think there was much more to it than that. This is partly because I only read Gates of Azyr, which is literally just one battle between two cool looking armies and little else.
Sqorgar wrote: On a side note, I've been reading the campaign books recently and I'm starting to get into the setting. I don't have the attention span to read a half dozen novels, so having the quick and dirty summaries works for me. They are written with just enough color that they have more character than a history book, but don't get bogged down in it. And I was somewhat surprised to find that there are actual story arcs, with character progression and even plot twists. I'm actually somewhat curious where they will be going with this. I'm hoping that the Realmgate Wars actually comes to an epic and satisfying conclusion. I always sort of saw AoS as cool looking armies fighting each other in cool looking realms, but didn't think there was much more to it than that. This is partly because I only read Gates of Azyr, which is literally just one battle between two cool looking armies and little else.
I would like to dwell a bit deeper into the fluff as well, but haven't bought any books yet.
Would you recommend any of the 3 main campaign books just for the fluff?
None in my little circle of AoS players have any Stormcasts or Khorne armies, so I doubt we'll play the scenarios as intended - But maybe they can be played with any armies?
Sete wrote: Great I like space marines.
Now liking space marines and saying you dont like stormcast because they look like space marines... now thats weird. Its as if someone was grasping at straws for some reason.
To be fair if you liked Space Mariens they already existed before Sigmarines were invented so you could just have played 40K? There are lots of similarities between the games.
auticus wrote: Speaking from someone that is heavily in the software industry, gaming industry, and music industry since the 90s (I am a software architect, i work in gaming, and am a musician that works on original music to include the selling of said music) - people want things for free and expect things for free or next to no cost.
Were you around the 80s when all the crap started coming out? Maybe you will know why people are like they are now.
Bantha Poodoo. All I will say it's not that people want things for free, it's we are sick and tired of things that are crap that people are charging allot for what they offer. Make good music. (Not against you, it's the music industry I am talking about.) Make good movies. Make a good product. Then people will buy. We have been conditioned on crap coming out and people are tired of buying stuff now. Hell GW has conditioned a lot of us not to buy their product and look else where for "better value".
We don't need your music. (not picking on you, just the example you said those business do.) We don't need your movies. We don't need Games Workshop. Want my money? Make a product I desire. Make a product I want. Make a product where I find value in what you are offering.
As for your comment about molds and stuff like that, it's called "THE COST OF DOING BUISNESS". I shouldn't have to pay for you to lean how to sing, or how to play guitar or what ever. We don't care how something is made. We just want to find value in the product.
Does GM or Ford or Toyota or any other company out there charge us for making their product? Car companies don't complain the prices of their cars are expensive because of research and development. They don't complain about the prices of molds. They don't complain about having a warehouse or it costs money to run a shop. It's the COST OF BUISNESS to sell these things.
For Games Workshop it's just an excuse. We are tired of excuses now. Just give us a product WE WANT/DESIRE and we find VALUE in it. If they can't offer that, then don't complain when we keep our money and not giving it to them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 19:46:17
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
I would like to dwell a bit deeper into the fluff as well, but haven't bought any books yet.
Would you recommend any of the 3 main campaign books just for the fluff?
None in my little circle of AoS players have any Stormcasts or Khorne armies, so I doubt we'll play the scenarios as intended - But maybe they can be played with any armies?
First, the scenarios don't need to be played with any specific armies. They are generic scenarios that are kind of thematically similar to the story events. So the story might be about the Stormcast defending a realm gate from Khorne, but you could just as easily play it as the Seraphon defending a gate from the Sylvaneth. The scenarios are story agnostic. Not sure if the Battletomes are more specific though.
As for the campaign books, they are just too expensive to recommend outright, but I'm glad that I'm reading them and intend to get more. I picked them up kind of like a chronicle of the hobby - a sort of documentation of how AoS has grown and changed over time (and they are great for that) - and only recently started reading them. I think it does a good job summarizing the fluff such that even if I don't read the full set of novellas, I still know who the major characters are, their motivations, and general personality. I mean, it really is JUST a summary of all these different battles and events, but I think it gives me enough of the fluff that I know the broad strokes of what is going on (and am actively engaged in it).
But I did read Gates of Azyr when it first came out and that section of the campaign books was a bit of a retread of material I was already familiar with, so it was kind of a drag going through. I'd say that if you are reading the fiction at all, the campaign books might be somewhat redundant.
