Jump to content

The Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer complete buildings as well, but GW don't seem to want terrain that is fully enclosed whilst taking up large space.

I'd love large buildings with a deck, platforms etc. so you can actually play atop of it without it being a boring garrison!
There're endless opportunities for cool fights if you have big, walkable buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PJetski said:

A fantasy setting is a good place to explore ideas without making moral judgements about their real world similarities. You can stop clutching your pearls

counterpoint, fantasy (& indeed sci-fi) are great place to examine and explore concepts and events from reality as they allow us to look at them from fresh perspectives, to approach them without some of the baggage that has accrued around them IRL, to encourage a re-examination of history and to introduce important ideas and historical stories back into popular culture and have them absorbed by people who would otherwise stand on a chair like the old woman from Tom & Jerry screaming 'urgh, there's a politics in my house!'

without a connection to real world events, philosophies, belief and the like it's just strange shaped people shooting pew-pew lasers at each other, which can have it's place but it's a shallow pool to want to hang out in for long

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JPjr said:

counterpoint, fantasy (& indeed sci-fi) are great place to examine and explore concepts and events from reality as they allow us to look at them from fresh perspectives, to approach them without some of the baggage that has accrued around them IRL, to encourage a re-examination of history and to introduce important ideas and historical stories back into popular culture and have them absorbed by people who would otherwise stand on a chair like the old woman from Tom & Jerry screaming 'urgh, there's a politics in my house!'

without a connection to real world events, philosophies, belief and the like it's just strange shaped people shooting pew-pew lasers at each other, which can have it's place but it's a shallow pool to want to hang out in for long

Wait till see you the philosophies of 40k 

Edited by King Under the Mountain
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PJetski said:

GW is not endorsing any kind of idea in the real world when they write fiction. They don't endorse 15th century European colonialism just because they write stories about Dawnbringer Crusades, nor do they endorse real world examples of genocide, slavery, or cannibalism when they write about the Age of Chaos.

A fantasy setting is a good place to explore ideas without making moral judgements about their real world similarities. You can stop clutching your pearls ;)

 

I agree on the endorsement part, but I suppose it would have been clearer (and possibly better for a global product?) not to use the term of "Crusade" to indicate the war of the "civilisation" side vs the chaos/destruction side? As a thought experiment, you can replace it with another term meaning "holy war" in a different language and see if your reaction would have been different.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Erdemo86 said:

what is this cavalaray in the left? With a banner, helebard and Lance?

A6F7530B-E1E1-428B-84C3-58674A024262.jpeg

They look like Chaos knights to me. Actually nevermind, those are definitely NOT chaos knights!

 

Edited by ReynakZhen
looking at wrong unit :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PJetski said:

GW is not endorsing any kind of idea in the real world when they write fiction. They don't endorse 15th century European colonialism just because they write stories about Dawnbringer Crusades, nor do they endorse real world examples of genocide, slavery, or cannibalism when they write about the Age of Chaos.

A fantasy setting is a good place to explore ideas without making moral judgements about their real world similarities. You can stop clutching your pearls ;)

 

While I see nothing wrong with this example, unless GW do it really distastefully (which I very much doubt they will), I do disagree that fantasy and real world issues are separate.

Of course, GW aren't endorsing cannibal murder cults (I hope), but it only takes one look at some of 40k's fanbase (a small but loud minority I should add - large enough to have big YouTube channels and FB pages) to know that real world associations can end up attracting the wrong people. 

I do want to make it perfectly clear that I do not see it as an issue in this particular case, or in current AoS at all. This is more just the general idea that fantasy and reality are often more intertwined that we'd often like. I think it's always helpful to be aware of it :) 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

I'm not wild about this new additional emphasis on crusades and colonisation in the AoS 3.0 background, all these paragons of light forging out from civilisation to "settle in new lands across the Mortal Realms" stuff, to literally purify the dark lands of their monstrous inhabitants. All this stuff about taming the frontier.

It's a shift of emphasis from the idea of reclamation and freeing people from the yoke of chaos domination we got at the start of AoS 1.0. This new angle has some strong undertones of settler-colonialism and manifest destiny as noble and vital things. As ever it's going to depend on the implementation, it's entirely possible it won't done coarsely and uncritically, but eh. We'll see.

The initial lore has ALWAYS been about colonialism. Sigmar and his crew spent thousands of years clearing the lands of its previous peoples so they could resettle. Inevitably this backfired and reinvited Chaos back into the realms, who summarily retook everything. At this point it's not about manifest destiny over poor native cultures, it's about pushing back the tide of evil and wanton destruction that's plagued the realms for an age.

There's nothing "problematic" about this new direction. It's just the natural progression of the narrative in a fantasy game about gods and monsters punching each other really hard. Not that this has anything to do with rumors.

Edited by Mutton
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

While I see nothing wrong with this example, unless GW do it really distastefully (which I very much doubt they will), I do disagree that fantasy and real world issues are separate.

Of course, GW aren't endorsing cannibal murder cults (I hope), but it only takes one look at some of 40k's fanbase (a small but loud minority I should add - large enough to have big YouTube channels and FB pages) to know that real world associations can end up attracting the wrong people. 

I do want to make it perfectly clear that I do not see it as an issue in this particular case, or in current AoS at all. This is more just the general idea that fantasy and reality are often more intertwined that we'd often like. I think it's always helpful to be aware of it :)

I agree. A story about a fantasy take on the Crusades and painting the Templars as good guys and the Middle East as bad guys would have some rough moral insinuations, and probably have some take it that Templars in the real would were awesome heroes.

But that may not have been the author’s intention or even what they were implying at all. But some people will always make links to real world stuff.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

I'm not wild about this new additional emphasis on crusades and colonisation in the AoS 3.0 background, all these paragons of light forging out from civilisation to "settle in new lands across the Mortal Realms" stuff, to literally purify the dark lands of their monstrous inhabitants. All this stuff about taming the frontier.

It's a shift of emphasis from the idea of reclamation and freeing people from the yoke of chaos domination we got at the start of AoS 1.0. This new angle has some strong undertones of settler-colonialism and manifest destiny as noble and vital things. As ever it's going to depend on the implementation, it's entirely possible it won't done coarsely and uncritically, but eh. We'll see.

Even in 1.0 it was about establishing beachheads and Cities, reclaiming and colonising the Realms from Chaos' grip. They were always crusades, there was always colonisation and purging Chaos - right down to the Flagellants whipping themselves so their pure blood consecrates the ground being in Firestorm if not earlier.

I wouldn't read too deep into it though. The Soulbound RPG does roll with the "haughty Azyrite 'saviours' think they're better than non-corrupted natives" thing, but it's kind of difficult to work with much when they're reclaiming them from  literal, pure, malevolent evil.

This is probably more about selling officially licensed Dawnbringer Crusade(tm) terrain with a lore excuse of why they're prefabs and every board in the Realms has the same identical look to them. 

Edited by Clan's Cynic
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PJetski said:

GW is not endorsing any kind of idea in the real world when they write fiction. They don't endorse 15th century European colonialism just because they write stories about Dawnbringer Crusades, nor do they endorse real world examples of genocide, slavery, or cannibalism when they write about the Age of Chaos.

A fantasy setting is a good place to explore ideas without making moral judgements about their real world similarities. You can stop clutching your pearls ;)

And you can stop jumping to conclusions with trite responses about 'pearl clutching' straight out of the 'smh politics in muh fantasy?!' gamer playbook.😉 Didn't say anything about endorsement, just expressing a hope that GW might actually explore these ideas with a degree of nuance and thoughtfulness rather than repeating tired and well-worn tropes.

One of the best things about AoS was that it didn't lunge right into the same 'actually everyone's incredibly irredeemable monsters, oh well, pick your flavour of power-armoured ultra-fascist' depths as 40k. It made it fresh and interesting, even more so when GW then dug into that in AoS 2.0 with what was developed about Sigmar's noble goals having negative side-effects, all the dodgy political compromises that made up the forces of Order, the Stormcast coming with their own host of issues, the divide between Azyrites and the Reclaimed and the free cities being far from ideal places to live for your average mortal. More so again in Soulbound.

This is what I'd like to see more of, not undifferentiated grit but nuance. It's not the vibe I'm getting from what we've heard so far, which seems to be of a 'rah rah, let's colonise the new lands and drive back the savages!' as opposed to 'here are the grand expeditions which carry with them all the contradictions and problems of the free cities, with these positives and these negatives'. Buuuuut then this is all WHC marketing material so it may well be done better and more interestingly in the core book and battletomes.

Edited by sandlemad
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JPjr said:

counterpoint, fantasy (& indeed sci-fi) are great place to examine and explore concepts and events from reality as they allow us to look at them from fresh perspectives, to approach them without some of the baggage that has accrued around them IRL, to encourage a re-examination of history and to introduce important ideas and historical stories back into popular culture and have them absorbed by people who would otherwise stand on a chair like the old woman from Tom & Jerry screaming 'urgh, there's a politics in my house!'

without a connection to real world events, philosophies, belief and the like it's just strange shaped people shooting pew-pew lasers at each other, which can have it's place but it's a shallow pool to want to hang out in for long

Not to be pedantic, but that's not really a counterpoint. I never said you shouldn't comment on politics/history with fiction. It's difficult to write fiction without some grounding in the real world, and avoiding it altogether usually results in a text that is not engaging to an audience because it is not relatable. 

If anything you've affirmed my point that a fantasy setting is a good place to explore ideas :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

And you can stop jumping to conclusions with trite responses about 'pearl clutching' straight out of the 'smh politics in muh fantasy?!' gamer playbook.😉 Didn't say anything about endorsement, just expressing a hope that GW might actually explore these ideas with a degree of nuance and thoughtfulness rather than repeating tired and well-worn tropes.

One of the best things about AoS was that it didn't lunge right into the same 'actually everyone's incredibly irredeemable monsters, oh well, pick your flavour of power-armoured ultra-fascist' depths as 40k. It made it fresh and interesting, even more so when GW then dug into that in AoS 2.0 with what was developed about Sigmar's noble goals having negative side-effects, all the dodgy political compromises that made up the forces of Order, the Stormcast coming with their own host of issues, the divide between Azyrites and the Reclaimed and the free cities being far from ideal places to live for your average mortal. More so again in Soulbound.

This is what I'd like to see more of, not undifferentiated grit but nuance. It's not the vibe I'm getting from what we've heard so far, which seems to be of a 'rah rah, let's colonise the new lands and drive back the savages!' as opposed to 'here are the grand expeditions which carry with them all the contradictions and problems of the free cities, with these positives and these negatives'. Buuuuut then this is all WHC marketing material so it may well be done better and more interestingly in the core book and battletomes.

The problem is that Sigmar's trying to reclaim the Realms from... murderhobos who have a primal urge to kill everything (including one another) and the literal manifestation of evil who damn their followers to an eternity in hell when they die. It's kind of difficult to really run a commentary when it's already established that living under Sigmar & Friends is a far, far, far, far, far, better alternative for just about everybody who isn't already an evil monster who wants to kick puppies.

I'm sure Black Library/Cubicle 7 will delve into the nitty gritty of laser-focused towns and Cities where X oppresses Y group and prejudices are given a look, but the GW Studio only really care about the broad strokes. 40k has the depth of a puddle if you take it at Studio lore alone too.

"Dawnbringer Crusade' is a cool name, buy this new terrain we have, smash your toy soldiers together." That was probably the extent of their thought process.

Edited by Clan's Cynic
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mutton @Clan's Cynic It's true that the colonialism/imperialism aspect was always there right from the start and I get the argument that the whole reclamation/'free the people from chaos' aspect could be taken as a rather threadbare figleaf, but at least it was there and had some focus in the background.

This has a rather different vibe and seems to be playing it a lot straighter through a rather stark reuse of old tropes and language about colonialism, imperialism, etc. Thermian arguments about 'actually these filthy savages are really evil' don't carry much water to my mind, or not much more than your average 'no seriously, she's a thousand year old dragon in a pre-teen's body' anime argument. I feel that being open about how these factions/whatever are explicitly written to be bad guys to be beaten up in a game of plastic army men (even if they have other resonances that are not explored critically or thoughtfully) is the better and more honest approach rather than acting like there's some sort of internal logic that doesn't ultimately come down to selling the minis.

But again, you're right that this is just transparent marketing material so it may not reflect how this stuff is written in the core book/battletomes/BL stories/RPG.

Edited by sandlemad
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sandlemad said:

And you can stop jumping to conclusions with trite responses about 'pearl clutching' straight out of the 'smh politics in muh fantasy?!' gamer playbook.😉 Didn't say anything about endorsement, just expressing a hope that GW might actually explore these ideas with a degree of nuance and thoughtfulness rather than repeating tired and well-worn tropes.

One of the best things about AoS was that it didn't lunge right into the same 'actually everyone's incredibly irredeemable monsters, oh well, pick your flavour of power-armoured ultra-fascist' depths as 40k. It made it fresh and interesting, even more so when GW then dug into that in AoS 2.0 with what was developed about Sigmar's noble goals having negative side-effects, all the dodgy political compromises that made up the forces of Order, the Stormcast coming with their own host of issues, the divide between Azyrites and the Reclaimed and the free cities being far from ideal places to live for your average mortal.

This is what I'd like to see more of, not undifferentiated grit but nuance. It's not the vibe I'm getting from what we've heard so far, which seems to be of a 'rah rah, let's colonise the new lands and drive back the savages!' as opposed to 'here are the grand expeditions which carry with them all the contradictions and problems of the free cities, with these positives and these negatives'. Buuuuut then this is all WHC marketing material so it may well be done better and more interestingly in the core book and battletomes.

Yeah, let's hope that the Age of the Beast actually gives narrative consideration to the viewpoint of Destruction at some point, and does not fall into the trap of making the Stormcast/Cities colonists the canon "good guys". I think there is a way to give weight to both the view points of the colonist forces of Order and everyone else who's going to suffer from their colonization efforts. I hope the name "Dawnbringer Crusades" is intentionally chosen to evoke an adverse reaction, and it seems like even the new article is not painting an entirely pleasant picture of them:

Quote

Are you thinking of taking up the Coin Malleus* and setting off on an expedition of your own?

* A special emblem that’s worn around the neck to signify membership in a Dawnbringer Crusade. Once taken, losing it is punishable by hanging, so try to keep it to hand.

As always, people who are unironically fans of the real crusades and colonialism will be unironic fans of the Dawnbringer Crusades, and that sucks. But also as always, enjoyment of elements of fiction that are unethical in real life is not itself unethical as long as you do it critically (same for writing fiction with such elements). Let's hope GW handles it with the appropriate gravitas, as the consequences of colonialism are definitely issues that still affect many people today.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Not to be pedantic, but that's not really a counterpoint. I never said you shouldn't comment on politics/history with fiction. It's difficult to write fiction without some grounding in the real world, and avoiding it altogether usually results in a text that is not engaging to an audience because it is not relatable. 

If anything you've affirmed my point that a fantasy setting is a good place to explore ideas :P

Don't. Just leave it. Logic has long left this place in regards to many topics. 

Seriously, is it really offensive now that the "good" fantasy guys colonize regions of the bad fantasy guys? Time to grow up. This is fiction - and if the implications of such actions bother you, then kids, the worlds Warhammer (where the good guys are at best in a grey zone usually) are really not the place for you.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the thing that benefits Age of Sigmar's narrative over 40K is the ability to showcase multiple points of view. In establishing a stronghold in areas that belong to Chaos or Destruction we can see both sides of the narrative unfold rather than simply the perspective of Order. In this way we can have stories showcasing sympathetic people allying with Chaos to oppose a tyrant imposing Feudal law on the land, or a Destruction force taking down the army allowing the farmers to demand freedom from oppression. 

Again I am not sure what narrative dictums exist but I think that nuance can be accomplished much more readily by showcasing different points of view.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont care about this nonsense around cruzades in rl and so,also i dont mind the lore......but i was hyped about new free peoples models with this crusade and finnally it is only crappy terrain.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AaronWilson said:

Honestly I don't understand how we get drawn into a politics discussion so much. It's not the place for it, it'll only end in a mod closing it down. Just enjoy the toy soldiers for what they are. 

I enjoy them very much. My point is that GW is actively making it harder to "just enjoy" them by calling the fight of civilisation vs evil a "Crusade". they are bringing me to real world politics, not the other way around

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it comical how immediately and hysterically threatened some folks - and it is the same folks as usual in this thread, honestly - are by even the mildest criticism or reading beyond the surface level of... anything really.

1 minute ago, Neverchosen said:

I think the thing that benefits Age of Sigmar's narrative over 40K is the ability to showcase multiple points of view. In establishing a stronghold in areas that belong to Chaos or Destruction we can see both sides of the narrative unfold rather than simply the perspective of Order. In this way we can have stories showcasing sympathetic people allying with Chaos to oppose a tyrant imposing Feudal law on the land, or a Destruction force taking down the army allowing the farmers to demand freedom from oppression. 

Again I am not sure what narrative dictums exist but I think that nuance can be accomplished much more readily by showcasing different points of view.  

Exactly this, it's a strength of AoS and makes it much more compelling than 40k. If we get it with this new edition's background, great. We may well do so! But it's not the vibe being put forward by these (clearly marketing-based, back-of-envelope summary) preview materials.

Edited by sandlemad
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MitGas said:

Don't. Just leave it. Logic has long left this place in regards to many topics. 

Seriously, is it really offensive now that the "good" fantasy guys colonize regions of the bad fantasy guys? Time to grow up. This is fiction - and if the implications of such actions bother you, then kids, the worlds Warhammer (where the good guys are at best in a grey zone usually) are really not the place for you.

Translation: I don’t like it when people find subtext I dislike or disagree with, so therefore they lack “logic” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and are being immature. Because I said so.

Edited by JustAsPlanned
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 5
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...