Lousy Beatnik Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 A handful of people who haven't ready any of the background complaining on Facebook posts is all I've seen, so it's hardly worth worrying about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travis Baumann Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 4 hours ago, Lucio said: I think Destruction is the weakest definition for the Grand Alliances, as it's basically just Orruks, Ogors and Grots. Skaven could have gone into here for example bar the odd, more focused choice like Clan Pestillens. What I'd like to see in the future is a Human, Aelf or Duardin addition to Destruction, something like steampunk cyborgs, shape changers, or elementally influenced hybrids. Something that is more in tune with Ghur or Chamon that feels like it's a wild, unstoppable force. I would prefer to move away from the classic fantasy trio of races and come up with some new stuff. The different realms offer some real possibility for innovation. Actual elemental beings made of the stuff of their realm like metal, crystal, or fire would be interesting... they could either be native organisms that evolved there or were awakened by the Age of Chaos followed by Nagash's activities. About the Skaven, I started playing in the '80's and initially Skaven did not have a Great Horned Rat deity that I recall (certainly not one you could actually field) and to me, although they used Realmstone, they were not exactly of Chaos. While there is a definite ordered structure to their clans and hierarchy, I could have seen them fitting into Destruction in that they seek the destruction and/or domination of every other living being (and do like to backstab each other quite frequently too). It really comes down to as others have said, Destruction has the most limited choices of armies for list building and allies. You are either Greenskins or Ogres. They really could use an all new force that is preferably not something we have ever seen (or even thought of) before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragequit Posted March 24, 2018 Author Share Posted March 24, 2018 16 hours ago, ZaelART said: Yeah, it's probably more appropriate to consider the GAs as abstract concepts rather than actual political or geographical entities. While I agree; seeing the geographical/racial element first seems to make it a clear decider before looking at the “behaviour” to determine the GA An Orruk would just beat the witch aelf and any other opponents rather then think the blood sacrifice was some beneficial spell for GA Destruction. Alternatively, the Orruk would beat up Ogors and grots and they would team up to fight another GA like Gulgaz from Path to Glory book 15 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said: I think of it more along the lines of; Order builds and has a rule of law - they are civilised. Destruction are effectively locusts who exploit and the only hard and fast rule is survival of the toughest (or sneakiest). I think the word Exploit is where the division/confusion is coming from, the Idoneth and Daughters sacrifice the Order inhabitants. 5 hours ago, Lousy Beatnik said: A handful of people who haven't ready any of the background complaining on Facebook posts is all I've seen, so it's hardly worth worrying about. Now that you mention it.. I don’t think I seen that misconception in this forum 4 hours ago, Travis Baumann said: I would prefer to move away from the classic fantasy trio of races and come up with some new stuff. The different realms offer some real possibility for innovation. Actual elemental beings made of the stuff of their realm like metal, crystal, or fire would be interesting... they could either be native organisms that evolved there or were awakened by the Age of Chaos followed by Nagash's activities. About the Skaven, I started playing in the '80's and initially Skaven did not have a Great Horned Rat deity that I recall (certainly not one you could actually field) and to me, although they used Realmstone, they were not exactly of Chaos. While there is a definite ordered structure to their clans and hierarchy, I could have seen them fitting into Destruction in that they seek the destruction and/or domination of every other living being (and do like to backstab each other quite frequently too). It really comes down to as others have said, Destruction has the most limited choices of armies for list building and allies. You are either Greenskins or Ogres. They really could use an all new force that is preferably not something we have ever seen (or even thought of) before. I have been trying to come up with proper Destruction races Elementals came to mind, mini versions of the Gork Idol Another one I have played around with after watching a myth youtube series are Centaurs. Thunderscorn can be reimagined in Destruction or something similar to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyriakin Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 Brayherd / Warheard (etc.) from GA: Chaos to GA: Destruction is the only switch that I ever thought might be suitable. I wondered abut the Skaven and Dragon Ogres too, but I guess the former will probably feature heavily in the story with Chaos alignment. However, I can't see Beastmen ever being anything more than an ignored small fish in the massive pond that is GA: Chaos. If you knew nothing of the Old World after entering the hobby, non-God-aligned "brown" Beastmen would probably seem more Destruction-like than Chaos-y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMMachine Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 16 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said: As would I. Perhaps there ought to be a way to chance Allegiance abilities? Such as a Battalion or Chapter Tactics-like rule that changes the Grand Alliance keyword in the Warscroll? 14 hours ago, Lucio said: Honestly? In my friendly games we just do it, so for example I've had an army of "undead" Orruks, using the Zombie rules but Orruk and Destruction keywords instead of Zombie and Death I think the main problem isn't the Grand Alliance here. I mean, we have seen Stormcast Eternals fighting together with Death (Neferata, Manfred) against chaos or the Astral Templars fighting together with Orruks against Chaos. Fyreslayers mostly ally with everyone when getting paid with ur-gold. Or a Wizard (not a necromancer) raising Zombies from Graveyards to fulfill something shouldn't be a problem, too. The Mainproblem comes, when people are thinking in the Matched Play ruleset, where you are restricted to 1 of the Alliances. Perhaps we should go more into the Narrative Play section to create some epic lore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoTitanedition Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 23 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said: This is just... not right. How can a truly evil character generate sympathy? No-one believes themselves to be evil - even people we might think of as 'evil' believe themselves to be moral, and that their horrific actions are ultimately a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good. Everyone is the hero of their own story. To generate sympathy we need to be able to A) understand why a character feels that what they're doing is right, and B) be able to see them in ourselves to some extent - we have to be able to imagine that their motivations could be ours given the right circumstances and pressures. Far from 'grey areas' making it difficult for people to associate with a character or faction, it's actually essential. That's good storytelling 101. Really? So what`s the greyish motive for Orruks, that can be interpreted positively or negatively? Or the skavens goal of destroying pretty much everything? I`m not saying that people have to be evil to like "an evil faction", but you can choose from the impression you get, what role you actually want to immerse in. It`s like acting. Sometimes it can simply be enjoyable to be the villian. I`m pretty sure people do make that choice a lot, to whatever reason. Some like to do things without causing any harm, that they usually wouldn`t, some like to explore evil the way it is presented in a certain setting. What I`m saying is, that a clear distinction of these factions in not being painted all grey, gives not only the scenario a lot more versatility, but more choices for the player to explore as well. Also think about the people that want a clear distinction. Some might want to be the knight in shining armour, essentially being the good guy. Others like to have the feeling of not being bound to anybody, so a neutral faction (which is only neutral if other factions are noticeably opposing each other and they don`t align to neither side) can give that feeling, and others again do like to switch roles for a change, as I mentioned, and explore being the bad guy once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailessine Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 As long as at least one of the new aelf factions will not be order that will be a plus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMMachine Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 12 minutes ago, Tailessine said: As long as at least one of the new aelf factions will not be order that will be a plus If they bring back the Slaaneshcult, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaz Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 On 23/3/2018 at 7:07 PM, Ragequit said: Why do people think certain factions should belong in Destruction instead of Order? ... Order at the moment is simply Aelves, Duardin, Stormcast, Seraphon and Free humans. ... Just my two cents. Interested to see what I am missing. I would like to point out that "Order" is whoever that can ally with Stormcast. Not because they are of certain race, or have particular alignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHHaunts Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 On 23/03/2018 at 11:34 AM, AaronWIlson said: It most likely comes from the Old Fantasy days. High Elves were good, Dark elves were bad etc. To be fair, Order as a title suggests the "good guys". I think it's more people not understanding what the "Order" word denotes for the Order alliance. Dark elves may have been bad guys but they would still have been classed as "Order" as They were not chaos worshiping and Malekiths ultimate goal was to rule over ulthuan. He wated to extablish "Order" albeit under is own tyranical view. I wont mention any real life people for political reasons but if you think of some well known "Evil" people from history many of them still did what they did for the sake of "order" Chaos on the other hand does what it does because it does it. They are not typical villains that belive them selves to be fighting for the greater good by doing something distasteful they, to quote the joker from the dark knight who cited himself as an "agent of chaos" - "I just do" Once you accept that the grand alliances have always existed even in WHFB however with alot less emphasis and that they are just loose affiliations and motivations not political or physical alliances its very easy to understand who belongs where. P.S i quoted you Aaron to agree with you for the most part not disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 ORDER primarily focuses on a Rule of Law for structure. Each of the forces in the ORDER Grand Alliance have their civilization built on some form of laws. They have a structure to their governance ... CHAOS is based on a might of the strongest, while they may have tenets ... they are devoted to putting forward vices as directed by the chaos deities. They wish to break down the Rule of Law and replace it with service to self. (A ‘What can I get out of this situation?’ Approach. That happens to be an extension of a pantheon of 5.) DESTRUCTION focuses almost entirely on beating the opposing forces up. A “Good? ... bad? ... let’s get a good fight on and party at the end of the day ...” They’re a ‘neutral force’ looking to beat down their opponents. Similar to CHAOS, they have a ‘Might of the Strongest’ mentality ... but they do it because fighting is fun and a good meal at the end of the day is the way to go.... Grots are in there as well because they want to be at the top of the pile ... but they can’t do that directly ... because they’ll just get pulped. So they’re in it for the backstabbing kind of fighting. DEATH is closest to ORDER ... at the end the objective is knowledge and a rule of law ... but after the end ... All armies will eventually become DEATH armies ... everyone eventually dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosmer Nightblade Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 I get that Order doesn't equal 'good' alignment. I'm on board with that and so i can see how Daughters fit nicely here. But Idoneth on the other hand? I mean, they've been disowned by an actual Order God. They attack the other Order factions not by the odd minor disagreement but as a matter of course. They are a society of raiders who steal the life force of others. These don't feel like Order at all. Destruction possibly, maybe even Death with the whole life siphon thing. Then there's Sylvaneth. Why are these Order? Do they even have a civilisation? These feel much better off as an unstoppable force of nature. It'd be so cool to have Alarielle as a terrible unfeeling force, not evil, but simply existing to protect the balance of nature and against all insults to the land. Think when Galadriel goes all monochrome in Fellowship of the Ring (film) when contemplating what she could become with the One Ring: "In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen! Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Treacherous as the sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth!". Waaaaaaay better. ok gw, actually for AOS2, can we have Alarielle go that way? Would be awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AthlorianStoners Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Bosmer Nightblade said: I get that Order doesn't equal 'good' alignment. I'm on board with that and so i can see how Daughters fit nicely here. But Idoneth on the other hand? I mean, they've been disowned by an actual Order God. They attack the other Order factions not by the odd minor disagreement but as a matter of course. They are a society of raiders who steal the life force of others. These don't feel like Order at all. Destruction possibly, maybe even Death with the whole life siphon thing. Then there's Sylvaneth. Why are these Order? Do they even have a civilisation? These feel much better off as an unstoppable force of nature. It'd be so cool to have Alarielle as a terrible unfeeling force, not evil, but simply existing to protect the balance of nature and against all insults to the land. Think when Galadriel goes all monochrome in Fellowship of the Ring (film) when contemplating what she could become with the One Ring: "In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen! Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Treacherous as the sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth!". Waaaaaaay better. ok gw, actually for AOS2, can we have Alarielle go that way? Would be awesome The sylvaneth actually do have civilisations, the glades actually being highly political and solcially structured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattila Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 i tought it was the wanderers/ wood elves who had this civilisation and that sylvaneth were just the forest elementals... Orcs have also a socially structured society (boss- orruk- grots etc) even if its not complex. Sylvaneth would have been great in GA Destruction i think. édit: sylvaneth doesnt build cities or the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melcavuk Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Order was defined specifically as any race that builds cities that worships neither chaos nor nagash. Essentially the factions that will build empires, settlements and generally live by their own rule of law. Destruction are largely raiders, nomads, pillagers. Specifically not city builders, they may inhabit what they loot but they do not build. Death is... death, undead and nagash worshippers. Chaos is chaos. So essentially if its a new race that builds cities its Order, as for Sylvaneth I believe "The LIving City" in ghyran is a cites of massive expansive trees inhabitted by aelves and sylvaneth and fought for in the last global campaign. I imagine its where Alarielle cultivates the soul pods used to make sylvaneth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AthlorianStoners Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 7 hours ago, rattila said: i tought it was the wanderers/ wood elves who had this civilisation and that sylvaneth were just the forest elementals... Orcs have also a socially structured society (boss- orruk- grots etc) even if its not complex. Sylvaneth would have been great in GA Destruction i think. édit: sylvaneth doesnt build cities or the like. Nah Sylvaneth have cities, cultures, royalty, politics and society. They have customs and cultural standards, and have gardens that they tend. Sylvaneth society centres around Glades, which make up the nations or groups of Sylvaneth. Each glade has its own culture, customs and identities, as well as their own central area of living. Glades are ruled over by the royal famklies, who in turn are subservient to alarielle. Their bsttletome is really cool and the short stories about them also rock, definitely recommend giving them a read. In terms of Grand Alliance, I think they are 100% order. They arent a conquesting or (overall) a warmongering people. They don’t prey on others for their sport or way of life. Destruction isn’t really a great fit for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoTitanedition Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 21 hours ago, Melcavuk said: Destruction are largely raiders, nomads, pillagers. Specifically not city builders, they may inhabit what they loot but they do not build. Largely, but not exlusively. I can`t remember the exact place, but I am 100% sure, that I`ve read that Ironjawz actually like to build and they like to build as high as possible. I guess "nomadic" must mean moving from one settlement to another, in certain routes. Bloodtoofs ar specifically mentioned as being nomadic, their whole lore is build around being in search for the biggest WAAAGH, but this might also mean, that they do build some kind of settlements, that they simply occupy again, as soon as they reach it again. It does also make sense, all armies, no matter how much fantasy is in the background, has at least to stop to eat and drink at a certain size. As for the affiliation with "ORDER", although I prefer to think of them as "good guy group", it might also simply mean "despising Chaos". At least that would make sense in the way they are currently grouped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratigo Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 On 3/23/2018 at 11:37 AM, Sleboda said: Ding ding ding! We have a winner. If people would drop the connection between "good" and "order" this would go away. Stalin wanted order. He was not good. In fact, lots of dictators want completely orderly societies and are very, very far from good. Nagash wants order, but he’s not in order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenshin620 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 I mean to be fair even in oldhammer there was much inter conflict within "Order". Some dwarfs never let go of the High Elf grudge (war of the beards) and wouldn't mind hitting one over the head with their ax. Wood elves didn't mind attacking anyone and anything that posed a threat to the forest, even nosy Bretonnians who "were totally not being mind controlled" by the wood elves themselves. I just want some more alliance loose units or mini factions. Maybe not to the extent of mercenaries that can work for anyone. Either that or plastic chaos dwarfs. I would like that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 1 hour ago, stratigo said: Nagash wants order, but he’s not in order Would it be fair to say that “he’s out of order?” He might only be partially broken now ... so maybe he’s not entirely out of order ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 3 hours ago, stratigo said: Nagash wants order, but he’s not in order True, but I'd say order through annihilation is pretty solidly more of a Death thing than Order thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratigo Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 19 hours ago, Sleboda said: True, but I'd say order through annihilation is pretty solidly more of a Death thing than Order thing. Death isn’t annihilation. In AoS you soul goes to either a god or an underworld. You aren’t annihilated. Nagash just wants all dead souls in essential slavery to himself, and further probably wants everything in that state, although he might be fine with mortals serving him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Ok, tweaky little nits aside, it's pretty clear that Order is more than just imposed rule (though that can certainly be a factor) and that The Lord Of All Dead Stuff is sqaurely in the Death GA. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.