Your preferred level of fantasy in the AoS setting

[Sputnik]

I prefer something like the fantasy of the Terry Pratchett novels. He took tropes from high and low fantasy but made them unique, quirky  and full of character.  Humour is also a big thing for me, I want a bit of tongue-in-cheek sillyness. I do think that GW has lost a bit of the sense of fun that existed in older Warahammer lore. Yes give me mighty Gods and epic battles, but give me greedy halflings and doom divers as well. 

[EccentricCircle]

Its a very interesting question, and one which isn't straightforward to answer.

Overall I'd say I'm a fan of "gritty low fantasy". That's defining "low fantasy" as being  a fantasy epic  set in a reasonably grounded world, which contrasts its fantastical elements with an otherwise "realistic setting". A world where  put upon heroes prevail against the odds while stomping around in the muck.

There is another definition of low fantasy, which is more along the lines of magical realism, where fantastical elements are introduced sparingly into what is otherwise the "real world". Clearly that doesn't apply to a secondary world fantasy story like Warhammer. To give some examples; I love reading books by the likes of Scott Lynch and Joe Abercrombie.

When it comes to my own world building and RPG design I tend to veer more in that direction. I create a largely grounded world, with lots of inspiration from real world history. I like heists, political scheming, and scenarios where a few neer-do-wells succeed over ridiculous odds.

Historically that is the fantasy niche that Warhammer has always done really well in. It distinguished itself from other fantasy games by being the "grim world of perilous adventure". Compared to Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance that made it very bold and different. To continue the literary analogy; In an age of Tolkien rip offs it dared to be a Michael Moorcock story.

That said, I don't think the warhammer world is really that "low fantasy". Depending on your perspective the magical elements are actually very prominent. If you're slogging around the empire then magic is something to be feared and avoided. Witches abound, and chaos cults lurk in the shadows, but you've probably not actually seen them and there's obviously no such thing as Skaven.
If you're a Dragon Prince of Caledor then clearly you are far more aware of the high fantasy side of the world.

This is a planet beset by magical forces, mutation abounds, dragons fill the skies over Ulthuan, and the lizardmen work weird magics in their hidden citadels. If you are reading about the great rituals of Nagash, or the lore of the elves. then you are very much in a High Fantasy story. On the battlefield that stuff is naturally going to come to the forefront, because who doesn't want to paint and field dragons? I mean... they're Dragons!

So Warhammer wasn't inherently less fantastical than any other game, it just balanced those fantastical elements really well, so that there was room for the low fantasy stuff, without it being drowned out by the high fantasy stuff. That can be hard to pull off.

Contrast the Forgotten Realms. Elements of that setting have a lot going for them, but by trying to encompass everything in D&D it becomes generic as heck. The perception is that you can't walk into a tavern in Balder's Gate without bumping into overpowered NPCs, and that there are so many magical threats besetting the world that there's no space for normal people. They've had to work very hard to try to break some of those cliches. Conversely Warhammer did this so well that they were able to market their product as the definitive low fantasy game.

I think they've lost that somewhat in the transition to AoS, and ironically in their effort to establish their own unique product identify on a micro scale, they've lost a lot of what made their world unique on a macro scale. We live in a world today which is crowded with fantasy settings. All of them are trying to be the definitive setting for their little niche of the genre, but they've all got to try to appeal to the fans of the others too.

The low fantasy elements are actually as present in Age of Sigmar as they were in the Old World. They are found in an increasing number of novels, and seen in some of the army books more than others. However they are drowned out by the high fantasy elements, even though there are only slightly more of those than there were in the old world. Before the focus was on the Empire, and there was a lot of material about it. It remained at the core of the marketing, even though a typical tabletop battle wasn't really representative of that background.

Now the background is much more in sync with the tabletop experience, and they've taken that opportunity to dial things up to eleven and add more of the cool high fantasy stuff. However in so doing they've lost that balance between the two aspects of the setting, and so its easy to people to miss that the Low fantasy is there, and decry things which are essential parts of the setting as not fitting their conception of what the "AoS aesthetic" is.

I think some of this is down to the way AoS is set up to have a much less clear sense of place.

In the old world everyone more or less knew where the Empire was, and what Kislev was like. You knew that if you walk north you reach the Chaos Wastes, and Dark Elves come raiding from across the sea. Everyone had the broad strokes, and then dove into the lore of their chosen faction.

In Age of Sigmar everything is still a bit too undefined. We know the broad layout of the universe, but not really of any given world. From the stuff I've seen and read, I can only think of one place I've actually "visited" more than once (which happens to be Excelsis).

They keep referring to places, and I can sometimes find them on the maps, but you don't get the same sense of every part of the lore reinforcing other parts. Its all spread out, and lots of stuff is kind of in isolation. I'm confident that this will improve with time, and then maybe we'll get a better balance between the high fantasy and the low.

I don't think that will necessarily make everyone with conflicting tastes happy, though. What would be the fun in that?

 

[Sleboda]

16 hours ago, Ironbreaker said:

What's the point of the setting if nothing has limits or boundaries? It just becomes a playground argument where children continue to invent even stronger and more outlandish events until the bounds imagination are stressed.

A key difference:

These children (us!) don't get to just invent the better stuff. The teachers or parents hand us the stuff. We can say X is gonna kick Y's rear end, but we still have rules to follow to resolve that boast.

 

On the main topic, I like super hero action figure high fantasy. Heck, I still watch Mummies Alive reruns, have a Purgatory action figure on my desk, and complain that Thor is not being given his proper due in the MCU!

In the old world we never could have seen (demi?)gods on our tables, or if we did, they became the entire focus of the game. Now, in AoS, we see these guys on the table regularly, and it's both awesome and fair.

Put me firmly in the first camp (and this is from an old Empire player who still has what used to be over 10,000 points of that army).

[WatcherintheWater]

I like both. From a "realism" & lore point of view, I think it's easier to get into low fantasy.  Not to make it a WHFB vs AoS thing, but the characters in low fantasy novels are generally more relateable.  I really liked the almost history book style of some of the old WHFB Army Books, too.

However, for a hobby, I think the high fantasy setting works better. Like many posters said, the amount of freedom you get is awesome, and gives you so much opportunity for customization and creativity. I think it also works better on the tabletop. For a WHFB battle to feel epic, you needed at least 100 models, because the majority of armies were  just infantry (some armies had way than 100). Because of the scale & power of the new models (also maybe because you don't have to rank up any more), a game of AoS can feel like a huge fight with half the figures on the table. As a slow painter I appreciate that.

I think the AoS setting can easily support both types of armies, even if it's mostly high fantasy so far. I think the Skaven and Gloomspite both somewhat fill the low fantasy role, if you want to build them that way and Cities of Sigmar likely will too.

[michu]

Skaven. Low fantasy.  Choose one.

We have laser cannons and giant deadly hamster wheels. Nothing "low fantasy" in that.

Edited September 17, 2019 by michu

[Frowny]

10 minutes ago, WatcherintheWater said:

I like both. From a "realism" & lore point of view, I think it's easier to get into low fantasy.  Not to make it a WHFB vs AoS thing, but the characters in low fantasy novels are generally more relateable.  I really liked the almost history book style of some of the old WHFB Army Books, too.

However, for a hobby, I think the high fantasy setting works better. Like many posters said, the amount of freedom you get is awesome, and gives you so much opportunity for customization and creativity. I think it also works better on the tabletop. For a WHFB battle to feel epic, you needed at least 100 models, because the majority of armies were  just infantry (some armies had way than 100). Because of the scale & power of the new models (also maybe because you don't have to rank up any more), a game of AoS can feel like a huge fight with half the figures on the table. As a slow painter I appreciate that.

I think the AoS setting can easily support both types of armies, even if it's mostly high fantasy so far. I think the Skaven and Gloomspite both somewhat fill the low fantasy role, if you want to build them that way and Cities of Sigmar likely will too.

 

This. I much prefer reading low fantasy. However, when painting and modelling the more fantastic things are much more fun. Endless human infantry feel like a chore to paint through compared to something different and don't offer as much variety for painting as say, 10 goblins, a troll, a squig and a giant spider might. 

There feel like a lot more possibilities in the realms too. Like what about metal orcs from chamon? Or hysh khorne? Lots of possibilities  My aqushy sylvaneth were quite fun to make. I'm also now considering ice seraphon...

[Zanzou]

3 hours ago, Frowny said:

Endless human infantry feel like a chore to paint through compared to something different and don't offer as much variety for painting as say, 10 goblins, a troll, a squig and a giant spider might. 

Keeping in mind that I do not think having some variety of races like goblins and trolls excludes the possibility of it being lower-ish fantasy:

Are they 'regular' mortals that follow the same basic physical rules of our universe, without having 'crazy' off-the-wall powers?  How are they born, do they bleed when they are cut, do they have proportionate/ realistic strength to their stature (if not, why?), what happens when they "die", where do their commonfolk live, what do they do for a living, what do they eat?  If all of those questions can be answered clearly, I think it adds up to give me a better picture of what kind of fantasy I am dealing with.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Zanzou

[EccentricCircle]

There is an argument to be made that a mostly real world with a few magical elements feels more weird and wonderful than one which is all magic, all the time.

If the world is mostly like the one around us, then a mountain made from the skull of a gigantic godbeast is wonderous and spectacular. If all mountains in the country are made of giant skulls, then surely the people who live there will be used to it by now.

If you come across a river which flows in a circle, then it should ask the question of how it got there, what makes it that way, and finding out those answers makes you learn more about the setting, and dig a little deeper into the lore. If the answer is just "it doesn't matter, its a fantasy world, so MAGIC!" then you don't get to find a more interesting answer to those questions. If all rivers flow in circles, then you don't even need to ask the questions.

Note that I'm absolutely not saying that AoS always goes too far. The fact that each realm is a crystalised manifestation of one colour of the preexisting magic system is a great blanket explanation, which gives gamers to the tools to come up with cool weirdness of their own, and link it into the fabric of the world. I really like the cosmology they've developed, and think that it has a lot of potential to explore.

[WatcherintheWater]

4 hours ago, michu said:

Skaven. Low fantasy.  Choose one.

We have laser cannons and giant deadly hamster wheels. Nothing "low fantasy" in that.

LOL. Fair. I was thinking  of a Skaven list that is mostly clan rats/plague monks/stormverman, with some heroes wizards, and a few War Machines.  In that case most of the army is roughly the size and power level of a normal human. Contrast that with Stormcast or BCR where every model is some sort of larger than life character.

On the other hand Clan Skyre is about as high fantasy as it gets. 

[Kugane]

High fantasy in a WHFB setting for me. Like skaven or tomb kings and their environment.

The new realms somehow makes everything feel less connected to me.

[KHHaunts]

Most of what i could say has been mentioned already but i agree AOS needs grounding.

The old world was.so exciting for me as you would have relatable people on a realisitc level of power so when a Bloodthirster showed up you could feel the terror and gravitas of the situation and it was amazing to read about now i feel like because we are in the realms where "anything is possible" everything is less impressive.

Another example would.be Nagash. L love the character and love the model but there was something thrilling about this being that everyone knew the name of a legend from ancient times that everyone feared but ultimately we never knew in vast detail

Now we have a god strolling about it ruined alot of the mystic.

Dont get me wrong i like the AOS setting but i feel that now GW have cast the line out far they should start to reel it in until they find that perfect balance.

Edited September 17, 2019 by KHHaunts

[Beliman]

I prefer a coherent setting. Don't care if it's Low or High Fantasy, but if it makes sense, I'm fine.

Low fantasy don't need a lot to make sense, but behind a high fantasy setting, you need A LOT to make it coherent enough to be believable without going to "It's magic" route. 

[KHHaunts]

5 hours ago, Beliman said:

I prefer a coherent setting. Don't care if it's Low or High Fantasy, but if it makes sense, I'm fine.

Low fantasy don't need a lot to make sense, but behind a high fantasy setting, you need A LOT to make it coherent enough to be believable without going to "It's magic" route. 

Agreed. To me this links to my previous comment.

I like things to matter in the setting and an organised one you see a cause and effect.

But if not then everything's just gets hidden under flimsy hasty plot devices.

I love magic but it can make for lazy lore.

[amysrevenge]

I think, as long as we are veeerrry careful not to define "I don't like this" with "lazy"*, I could be on-board with this.  But if armchair online criticism has taught me anything, it's that people have a hard time resisting imprinting motivations on to content creators.

*By which I mean "I don't like this" is perfectly valid criticism, especially if it is linked to specific examples.  "This is lazy" is itself lazy criticism, trying to criticize the creator rather than criticizing the creation, in an attempt to be able to say "I don't like this" without making the effort to say exactly what about it is dislikable. 

"Lazy" implies a lack of effort, but often what seems lazy took a great deal of effort and simply failed to work, whereas other times what seems like it took extensive effort actually came together quickly and easily.

[stratigo]

On 9/16/2019 at 7:33 PM, Dead Scribe said:

The more super hero and cartoony the better IMO.  Low fantasy or "realistic fantasy" I don't think sells well and GW also then has to deal with other companies making rip off models a lot easier.

Crank the dial all the way up GW.

Super hero stories spend a significant amount of time focusing on the plight and struggles of the common man. Remember that scene in avangers when the old man stood up to loki and told him off. It was a great scene. Comics and movies are full of scenes like this. If you lack this you start to lose touch with the setting. You need pathos to make a good story

[Dead Scribe]

I don't really care about the story to be honest.  

[lordreaven448]

I think a balance can be achieved. One example of this balance is the Elder Scrolls series. On the baseline, it's very low fantasy with magic thrown in. However, when you go deeper in the lore, it goes from 0 to 100 incredibly fast. This is something I think AoS can learn from. Hide the crazy high fantasy stuff in myth and legend, but still have it relevant (the Bad moon is a good example of this).

[Whitefang]

4 hours ago, xking said:

Age of Sigmar IS epic

While the only true epic we've seen so far is the story of an old wandering dwarf from low fantasy world...?

Edited September 19, 2019 by Whitefang

[flemingmma]

I'm of the opinion that fantasy can run on a spectrum, hell the cheapo intro fiction hammerhal is split between an fairly low fantasy witchhunter adventure and an epic fantasy stormcast battle and it fits well. life can still be grimdark under the boots of battling gods

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, flemingmma said:

I'm of the opinion that fantasy can run on a spectrum, hell the cheapo intro fiction hammerhal is split between an fairly low fantasy witchhunter adventure and an epic fantasy stormcast battle and it fits well. life can still be grimdark under the boots of battling gods

100% agree.
Dark Souls or even Kingdom of Death background are over the top settings and more grimdark than the Old World by a mile. 

[TheCovenLord]

High fantasy is great for opening the setting and aos has done that very well. However, if they continue too much without grounding with some low fantasy elements like the common man/human struggles (here's hoping for Cities of sigmar bringing this element back) it becomes very bland.

 

What impact does being a god have if you see them every Tuesday afternoon on the battlefield and they get killed by a sigmarine on the regular? Why is everyone afraid of big tough villain X if he's taken out by super being Y instantly every day of the week. Is it even an issue when the standard being in age of sigmar can lift a wagon for reps?  Everyone is supposed to be scared of Nagash but when his shard is on every single battlefield and is destroyed in them regularly its just another thing among a vast sea of things and loses that special status and gravity he is supposed to exude. The scale suffers significantly and the impact of certain models/beings become extremely pillow-fisted making for an extremely bland setting. 

 

In the words of Syndrome from the Incredibles movie: "If everyone is super. No one will be."

[Overread]

I think you're seeing more of that mundane more and more through the Black Library books. The Novellas especially show several mundane and regular human warriors dealing with the Realms and how they interact with them. Inferno also has some good stories about them. I think that the material is out there now; you just have to go look for it and won't typically find it in a "Stormcast" novel (for obvious reasons)

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, TheCovenLord said:

 

In the words of Syndrome from the Incredibles movie: "If everyone is super. No one will be."

That's always been a favorite go-to quote for me when describing why I like 40K and why I think AoS is more just general bombastic fun than WFB was. 

I really enjoy being able to use Mortarion and Nagash in my games with them dominating.

The reason I can use them is that everyone has a super awesome big thing (and battleplans that reward more than just straight up killing).

Edited September 19, 2019 by Sleboda

[The Merchant Prince]

On 9/17/2019 at 11:44 PM, michu said:

Skaven. Low fantasy.  Choose one.

We have laser cannons and giant deadly hamster wheels. Nothing "low fantasy" in that.

I see low fantasy as less about the amount of magic and other fantastical elements but rather the ease with which they can be related to by reference to real world natural laws and so forth - do the dragons fly by their wings alone and are they comparable to a wild beast or are they intelligent and perhaps fly with the aid of magic? This also applies to magic itself - is magic bound by laws in terms of source and function or wild and crazy and appear randomly?

Ultimately, those are machines and so can be understood without too much struggle. They're powered by a mcguffin sure (warpstone), but it's not a mcguffin we can't related to - it's similar in nature to a radioisotope, being an energy-emitting power source and mutagen.

[Forrix]

If I had to choose one I'd say high fantasy because I like more imaginative and otherworldly settings, especially when it comes to models.  BUT

Quality of writing is really important, especially in a high fantasy setting. A world needs clearly defined rules and systems with an internal logic that is reasonable and consistently followed.  It has always bothered me that with Fyreslayers we have a militaristic culture with a strong emphasis on lineage yet essentially no women. When they are explained its a weaksauce explanation of them "being very rare". Well if they're rare how do Fyreslayers keep their numbers up considering they are fighting near constantly? Are dwarf women basically broodmothers like in Dragon Age? Are 90% of dwarf men fine with being incels or are they constantly having gangbangs? Was Felix ever invited to one? Yes this keeps me up at night. 

On the smaller scale, characters are much more relatable and interesting when they actually have to be intelligent and clever to make use of magic instead of just thrusting their hands out and "focusing their will". I also find invincible characters to be very boring.