Jump to content

Your preferred level of fantasy in the AoS setting


Enoby

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, The Merchant Prince said:

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.

Imho, that's just a coherent and well made setting.
In you example, if a dragonfly use their wings, it is using real physics to fly (assuming that the setting has the same atmosphere, gravity, etc...).

In a high fantasy setting, the dragonfly could use magic to fly, but "that" magic should have their own laws. The explanation behind this "laws" is what it will make the setting coherent and beliavable.

In other words, "wild and crazy" magic doesn't mean that it's just high fantay if there is some (good) reason behind this behaviour. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental question is not actually one of high or low fantasy. It is a question of world building and verisimilitude. “Low” fantasy often has the benefit of being able to shoulder a lot of those issues into real world assumptions. How does a gyro copter fly? It’s a helicopter run by basic combustion. How does an Arkanaut ironclad fly? It’s powered by magic floating gold. As modern humans we instinctively grasp that helicopter and combustion engines work, even if we individually don’t know how. Magic floating gold requires more effort to make it seem real.  

 

This combines with the issue that AoS is a setting and not a narrative. In a novel, world building can function being limited to the view points of the protagonists and the compelling story will see us through without having to worry so much about what people on the other side of the world eat

 

AoS has a harder time creating verisimilitude. But the amount of that a person cares about varies  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my taste GW is creating vastly not interesting models right now. The level of Fantasy coming from WHFB was totally fine IMO. When stuff gets so much exacurated it kind of becomes "funny" and loses its claim to portrait an alternative world, as it more and more becomes a comic.

I know, that since WHFB was neglected, that some designers went away and took their license for several armies with them, not giving those to GW. These are the armies, that are totally drawn away of the game right now, such as Bretonnia etc. .

Overall it was a mistake, how GW went with the design of the miniatures and the rules.
Why wasn't it just done like in 40k, to create a new rules set for the existing world / lore / model range and then remake the existing models and release new stuff for existing armie.
Don't get it wrong please, I am not a whiner of WHFB, since I have never played it an totally understand the issues with that system.

But exacurating the style now in that way they do is not a go to target IMO.

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

On 9/20/2019 at 12:59 AM, Battlefury said:

For my taste GW is creating vastly not interesting models right now. The level of Fantasy coming from WHFB was totally fine IMO. When stuff gets so much exacurated it kind of becomes "funny" and loses its claim to portrait an alternative world, as it more and more becomes a comic.

I know, that since WHFB was neglected, that some designers went away and took their license for several armies with them, not giving those to GW. These are the armies, that are totally drawn away of the game right now, such as Bretonnia etc. .

Overall it was a mistake, how GW went with the design of the miniatures and the rules.
Why wasn't it just done like in 40k, to create a new rules set for the existing world / lore / model range and then remake the existing models and release new stuff for existing armie.
Don't get it wrong please, I am not a whiner of WHFB, since I have never played it an totally understand the issues with that system.

But exacurating the style now in that way they do is not a go to target IMO.

Also add on that GW wants "can only find in Warhammer" Stuff

For example they really don't want a dwarf army that I can easily buy something like this to have some stand ins

195349335.jpeg

 

It has to be Kharadron Overlords TM Arkanauts Company TM armed with a  barrelled aethermatic volley gun TM riding in an Arkanaut Frigate TM.

 

Heck I'm pretty sure the main motivation (originally back then) for Fireforge Games was to poach Bretonnian players since they never got any new models.

Edited by kenshin620
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh there's whole companies making Kickstarters and running firms (Raging Heroes). GW can take any direction they want and the 3rd parties will just follow GW. It doesn't really matter if they are generic dwarves or if GW makes Steampunk Dwarves who fight in dresses whilst riding atop slugs where the slugs have wings. The 3rd parties will just copy-cat the concept. 

Also I think that GW is solid enough in their position that the vast majority of people will be buying GW brand models The name changes alone mean that GW can at least steal the first google search terms, since the 3rd parties can't use those names to advertise their products. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that fantasy is heavily based on reality, so the more a concept distances itself from the basic principles of our world the more it becomes estranged. Personally i prefer the  tone and fantasy level of the the Old World. As far as AoS goes some armies are nice (looking at you KO) but in general it feels bundled with cheap ideas (SCE). Also the implementation of Endless Spells and some army specific sceneries were a step backwards for me since they interfere with my immersion, not to mention the extra balance variable.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm primarily playing Legion of Blood and I feel like I have to set boundaries within the setting to make the lore work. It's all on such a grand scale that most things don't really have an impact. If I'm Neferata's spy and manage to infiltrate a big city, there's a dozen more in the same realm and a hundred more over all. My enemies are Stormcasts which are made of lightning and energy as much as my Vampires are supernatural beings; now that everything's fantastic, the fantastic components don't have that much weight. As long as I'm writing my background around one city, say, Glymmsforge, and add Mortals and their thoughts to it, it's fine, but on the grand scale, even Neferata, for example, doesn't have that much impact in a battle of Gods.

Edited by AHexInScarletRed
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Overread said:

Eh there's whole companies making Kickstarters and running firms (Raging Heroes). GW can take any direction they want and the 3rd parties will just follow GW. It doesn't really matter if they are generic dwarves or if GW makes Steampunk Dwarves who fight in dresses whilst riding atop slugs where the slugs have wings. The 3rd parties will just copy-cat the concept. 

Also I think that GW is solid enough in their position that the vast majority of people will be buying GW brand models The name changes alone mean that GW can at least steal the first google search terms, since the 3rd parties can't use those names to advertise their products. 

GW isn't all that solid in its lead though, the level of detail others can produce is rising steadily, and the design choices of GW have never been consistent, and that has not improved in the most recent years. At the very least, there's quite a market of people that do not like some or a lot of their choices.

Mid '90's their lead was good enough, but there's a reason WFB failed when it did (actually, a ton of reasons, but rising competitor quality was one).

Now they do have mass, and a frankly well thought out ruleset in AoS, so it's easier to find people playing AoS than, say, Saga and it's a good system to get started in. Combine this with their gateway games in Underworld, Warcry, Quest and the upcoming roleplaying system, and you have a good way to get people started in AoS, and then naturally play the game their friends play.

But mass is fickle, and they do need to step up their communication, because for people that have had armies removed, it's easy to look what's on the other side of the fence (I, for instance, am certainly looking to see what's in other systems and have a few on my to read list).  They may bring a few other with them, and only battleshock immune units will not be diminished. Wait, no, that last part is a bit odd.

I mean that, if in a certain community a mini agnostic system gets played a bit more, it may gain ground enough that the AoS community diminishes. The system can vary from city to city, but I have seen people switch from brands in roleplaying games quite suddenly and almost virally, and think that could also apply to miniature games.

Edited by zilberfrid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

As far as AoS goes some armies are nice (looking at you KO) but in general it feels bundled with cheap ideas (SCE)

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with SCE being "cheap". I mean, we played for about 30 years using models that copy&pasted aesthetics from real world...

Edited by Beliman
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2019 at 6:15 AM, kenshin620 said:

Also add on that GW wants "can only find in Warhammer" Stuff

For example they really don't want a dwarf army that I can easily buy something like this to have some stand ins

195349335.jpeg

 

It has to be Kharadron Overlords TM Arkanauts Company TM armed with a  barrelled aethermatic volley gun TM riding in an Arkanaut Frigate TM.

 

Heck I'm pretty sure the main motivation (originally back then) for Fireforge Games was to poach Bretonnian players since they never got any new models.

Absulutely agree.

It feels a little like "copyright over design", wich IMO isn't a good way to create a game, exept you really make a good way between the both, wich I sometimes dom't really see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that makes sense considering a lot of those 3rd party models look pretty good and are a fraction of the cost.  The guys around here tell me thats why no one ever bought new warhammer models, they would just get them on ebay or buy stand ins that looked pretty good but were 1/4 of the price.  Especially if they are playing competitively and have to buy new armies regularly.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Well that makes sense considering a lot of those 3rd party models look pretty good and are a fraction of the cost.  The guys around here tell me thats why no one ever bought new warhammer models, they would just get them on ebay or buy stand ins that looked pretty good but were 1/4 of the price.  Especially if they are playing competitively and have to buy new armies regularly.

Some Warhammer models are well designed, but the incredibly dated ones have competition that looks better, has more versatility and costs half. That's a bit harder to justify. See Lizardmen, Freeguild Crossbowmen or Freeguild Guard for instance.

And I STILL play pure GW.

Edited by zilberfrid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Battlefury said:

It feels a little like "copyright over design", wich IMO isn't a good way to create a game, exept you really make a good way between the both, wich I sometimes dom't really see.

Well, I can't complain.
One of the firsts steps in an artistic process is what can we do to "print" our signature on our designs? This is what makes your product  stand up by itself.

Of course you can make something "generic"  and still make money, but that's another thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 3:00 AM, Overread said:

The name changes alone mean that GW can at least steal the first google search terms, since the 3rd parties can't use those names to advertise their products. 

I've always thought the name changes were more about search engines than actual copyright (though copyright helps protect those page 1 results). Ever since Thor: The Dark World came out if you google "Malekith" you get the Marvel character for at least the first page. On Instagram "Dwarf" gets you all sorts of things but Duardin will just show you GW stuff.

Edit: I don't know how much % of sales occur early in the product life cycle for models but if it is a significant percentage more unique sculpts would be effective against 3rd party knock offs as there would be an initial window before other companies can develop and produce their knock-offs. Plus, higher fantasy can produce more variety. A arkonaut is much more interesting than another traditionally armored melee dwarf when you already have the excellent Hammerer, Longbeard, and Ironbreaker models.

Edited by Forrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Forrix said:

I don't know how much % of sales occur early in the product life cycle for models but if it is a significant percentage more unique sculpts would be effective against 3rd party knock offs as there would be an initial window before other companies can develop and produce their knock-offs.

I've heard conjectures as high as 80% in the first two months.  But I hesitate to bring it up because I have no idea how far up whose backside that conjecture was pulled from.

Edited by amysrevenge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been said here before, but the matter of high fantasy or low fantasy is alltogether a matter of taste.

BUT

There is an issue of consistence and quality to be considered. There's more Low Fantasy than High Fantasy, and generally it's easy to find good low fantasy than high fantasy, because most of the work is already done if you want to create a low fantasy world. The world itself. After all, the world is similar, if not the same, as ours. The ground rules are the same, people are the same, cultures may even be the same... GoT is nowadays' prime example, but I'd say that Sapkowski's The Witcher novels are a better showcase of the trope.

On the contrary, High Fantasy, as in "magical and supernatural elements are everywhere and rather mundane", the "trains fueled by gibblegook fuel, gyrocopters running on Djinns blowing from the co-pilot seat, ships that fly thanks to the Power of Love and Friendship", kind of High Fantasy, is difficult to do. Suddently the power of Love and Friendship can be harnessed and used to do amazing things. Why aren't people doing it? The ground rules can be so bizarre that you need very iron-tight narrative and scaffolding for your world to make sense. After all, why wouldn't they use fire wizards to kickstart an industrial revolution? People still need manufactured goods, and wealth can still be had in selling it. Which raises questions, which you want answered in a way that makes sense in-universe. 

"The Kharadron should be immensely rich because of their superior means of transporation and therefore dominion on trade". Yup. No amount of air krakens will make air travel less safe than land or sea travel, I think. Unless the air krakens blot out the sun, in which case we're all doomed and there's no world. Of course, the writers can give explanations, and the reader can choose to believe (or not) in them to better enjoy the book or game or movie. But the explanations need to make sense.

When you read Harry Potter and you ask yourself, "Hmm, maybe Boris Johnson had no time to nominate a new Minister of Magic. Hmm, I wonder who might be the Minsiter of Magic for Jeremy Corbyn. Does he have a pick? Was Himmler the Reichsminister of Magic Affairs for the Third Reich? What were the wizards up to during WW2?", then you're in a low fantasy world that hasn't been well thought out. 

But, of course, Harry Potter was a story, not a setting. When you create a setting, it needs to be tight. And the world being tight is the main thing, to me.

Edited by Cèsar de Quart
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who jumped in during AoS and not WFB... honestly the old Warhammer, like 40k, had little that appealed to me. As far as I could tell (from what little cultural osmosis there was - usually if someone was talking about Warhammer it was 40k, 40k, always 40k) it was another Tolkien ripoff with some elements copy-pasted from history and some cool things like lizardmen and ratmen. (And before you correct me, I said that’s what it *seemed* like to me).

Conversely there isn’t a single faction in AoS that I don’t feel attracted to collect in some way or another. It’s just more interesting in every which way. And it doesn’t have the weird casual racism that the old ‘hammer had (casual racism in  a fantasy game? Well I never).

And I’m sure all those statements just made me a horrible person in the eyes of real Warhammer fans, but whatever.

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

On 10/1/2019 at 6:08 PM, Cèsar de Quart said:

Unless the air krakens blot out the sun,

Have you read Spear of Shadows? There are monsters the size of God-beasts in the sky. And regular sky-pirates (skaven, grots, even Orruks).  There are definitely places where walking on foot is safer, maybe even underground. And most of treasures and riches are spent to acquire more Aether-Gold - without it all KO cities would fall.

I think many fictional worlds would fall apart if you analyze them thoroughly.  Same goes for 40k Imperium - it should fall long ago with its bureaucracy but it keeps existing. The trick is to not overly analyze some things - it just spoils the fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, IneptusAstartes said:

As someone who jumped in during AoS and not WFB... honestly the old Warhammer, like 40k, had little that appealed to me. As far as I could tell (from what little cultural osmosis there was - usually if someone was talking about Warhammer it was 40k, 40k, always 40k) it was another Tolkien ripoff with some elements copy-pasted from history and some cool things like lizardmen and ratmen. (And before you correct me, I said that’s what it *seemed* like to me).

Conversely there isn’t a single faction in AoS that I don’t feel attracted to collect in some way or another. It’s just more interesting in every which way. And it doesn’t have the weird casual racism that the old ‘hammer had (casual racism in  a fantasy game? Well I never).

And I’m sure all those statements just made me a horrible person in the eyes of real Warhammer fans, but whatever.

Ironically what you are describing was kind of its greatest strength as a wargames setting. At face value it had most of what you expect from a standard fantasy setting, which made it very accessible. It was only once you dug into the lore, and started reading the army books and RPG supplements that you find out what all the fuss is about. It had a depth of lore, and some stuff that really made it stand out, but that didn't get in the way of doing the "tolkien rip off" type games if that was what you wanted, or the only thing you were expecting.

The fact that all the factions hated each other was quite deliberate, since it makes it much easier to justify why anyone would fight anyone else, even if they happened to be from two "order" factions, or even both be empire armies.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, michu said:

Have you read Spear of Shadows? There are monsters the size of God-beasts in the sky. And regular sky-pirates (skaven, grots, even Orruks).  There are definitely places where walking on foot is safer, maybe even underground. And most of treasures and riches are spent to acquire more Aether-Gold - without it all KO cities would fall.

I think many fictional worlds would fall apart if you analyze them thoroughly.  Same goes for 40k Imperium - it should fall long ago with its bureaucracy but it keeps existing. The trick is to not overly analyze some things - it just spoils the fun.

I agree with you, but only halfway. Most fictional worlds fall apart, but the trick is to start from so familiar a concept, or so real an idea, that overanalising it feels unnecessary. It's trickery, but I think it works.

Let's overanalise the 40k Imperium, for example. I know bureaucracy is a thing, but I've never worked as a state clerk (or ran a country) and I'm unaware of the intricacies of palace politics, logistics and world trade. Probably if I was Hobsbawm I'd find the 40k setting laughable. But as exagerated and ridiculous it may seem, it's got truth in it: the Imperium is a fiction more than a tightly controlled state. A fiction in which most people believe in, and so, a combination of faith and bureaucratic inertia (the tithe ships coming exactly at the same time to the same planets, the same formulae, the same titles, etc etc) makes the Imperium run, despite its obivous bloat and inefficacy. 

(Incidentally, this was one of the things I liked the most about the Imperium before 8th Ed, the impersonality of it all. We didn't know who were the High Lords of Terra because they really didn't matter, they were as much a cog in the machine as the last guardsman. Now that Guilliman is running things, this clever trick of the setting is lifted, and if the Imperium is a horrible place, it's not because of centuries of momentum. It's because of Guilliman. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?)

And this, precisely, is what many historians think of the Roman, Byzantine (they're the same, yes I know), Mongol Empires, and may pre-modern states. The fiction of the state was one of the main components of it actually existing. For centuries, Byzantine local rulers in the far reaches of Anatolia paid taxes to the Byzantine emperor, not because the Emperor had the ability to assert his power in that region, but rather because the locals knew that everyone has an overlord, that the Emperor was Christ's vicar on Earth, and that they were Christian, so the Byzantine Emperor was their overlord. When the Seljuk Turks raided the area, and it became clear that the Emperor could do little to defend them, the fiction broke and the Turks became lords over a large area because, well, it looks like the Turks are now our overlords.

Sorry for the tangent, but this is where I wanted to get to: I can believe, easily, that the 40k Imperium is just an extreme bloated version of this historical process. Now, can I believe that the sky is filled with huge flying monsters and pirates? I find it a bit more difficult. I haven't read Spear of Shadows and I don't know how well does Reynolds explain the situation. I've got a lot of respect for him. But I haven't read many 40k novels either, and I'm having a much easier time believing the Imperium's workings than the Kharadron not being the British Empire of AoS. Just because the Imperium takes real ideas and concepts and plays them up to the extreme, so that the ground beneath your feet is solid. AoS, I've said many times, has a lot of potential, but sometimes they start the house from the top down. 

I realise now I may have digressed a little. Sorry.

Edited by Cèsar de Quart
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cèsar de Quart said:

this clever trick of the setting is lifted, and if the Imperium is a horrible place, it's not because of centuries of momentum. It's because of Guilliman. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?)

One Primarch won't change the whole Imperium, even in 100 years. Most of bad things in the Imperium are still High Lords fault. And don't even ask about the Imperium Nihilus.

10 minutes ago, Cèsar de Quart said:

Now, can I believe that the sky is filled with huge flying monsters and pirates? I find it a bit more difficult.

It's not about believing - it's all in the Battletomes. One sky-port was overrun by Gloomspite, Ironjawz has Skybasha clan that use primitive flying machines to spread havoc in the sky, Skaven has whole armadas and there are also Grotbag Scuttclers fleets. There are definitely Chaos fleets too. KO don't have a monopoly on skyfaring.

And remember - Aether-Gold attracts all kind of monsters. Regular beast to even Daemons. Artworks shows fighting with Tzeentch  Screamers and Khorne Bloodthirsters. Casualties are definitely high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, michu said:

One Primarch won't change the whole Imperium, even in 100 years. Most of bad things in the Imperium are still High Lords fault. And don't even ask about the Imperium Nihilus.

It's not about believing - it's all in the Battletomes. One sky-port was overrun by Gloomspite, Ironjawz has Skybasha clan that use primitive flying machines to spread havoc in the sky, Skaven has whole armadas and there are also Grotbag Scuttclers fleets. There are definitely Chaos fleets too. KO don't have a monopoly on skyfaring.

And remember - Aether-Gold attracts all kind of monsters. Regular beast to even Daemons. Artworks shows fighting with Tzeentch  Screamers and Khorne Bloodthirsters. Casualties are definitely high.

But that's the thing: most bad things in the Imperium aren't even the High Lord's fault. Millenia of tradition have sculpted the psyche of mankind, and mankind is doing these horrible things to itself, like the broken window leading to more broken windows. The tithe ships keep coming not because they were ordered to, but because there's a centuries old timetable to follow, and they've been taught to follow it. The Inquisition can't even be commanded by the High Lords, they just do whatever they think is right because of their ideals and upbringing and training. The High Lords, I'd argue, have very little power. The Imperium, one could almost say, is a state of mind, more than a centralised state (corny, I know).

And as for the "It's in the Battletomes", sometimes a concept can be explained, and still be weird or inconsistent. I'll have to read the Kharadron tome again, but my first impression was "these guys should be the absolute rulers of all the Realms, why aren't they?". Once air power was invented during WW1, it became impossible to win a war without it. Even today's most powerful armada, the US navy, is little more than its aircraft carriers, and naval power is measured in amount of aircraft carriers and planes available. Now, if there are other massive airfleets present, this changes things, but it does beg the question: Sigmar, get going with the airfleets, man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cèsar de Quart said:

Sigmar, get going with the airfleets, man. 

Some cities definitely have airfleets - and for others, KO are their airfleets.

6 minutes ago, Cèsar de Quart said:

"these guys should be the absolute rulers of all the Realms, why aren't they?"

Being airborne doesn't make KO the strongest. Not in the Mortal Realms. Not when Skaven can easily attack them through Gnawholes (ofc if they drill it in the right place) and when KO cities are presumably under constant attacks by monsters and Daemons lured by the scent of all that Aether-Gold. And their ships can be shot down by wizards. Remember it's a world where you can cast down a zoggin' meteor on your enemies! One civilisation even built a magical cannon that could shoot enemies in other realms (and Khorne annihilated them for that)!! There are no simple ways to achieve dominance in the Mortal Realms.

It's not our world, it doesn't work exactly like our world and sometimes what works here doesn't work there. It doesn't make Mortal Realms any less engaging and realistical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, michu said:

It's not our world, it doesn't work exactly like our world and sometimes what works here doesn't work there. It doesn't make Mortal Realms any less engaging and realistical.

Well, this really sums up the general criticism against the AoS setting: too weird, too complex, too much "anything can happen" for it to make sense. 

I really like the possibilities AoS holds as a setting, but every time I want to create a city in the Realms I'm confronted by scores of questions to which I have no answer. In the Old World, it was easy because magic, although powerful, was generally a "hidden" element of the world. There were never great enough concentrations of it to make the "I like this Middenheim you built, with your high towers and thick walls, now watch it go poof with a rain of meteors", and even during the End Times most of the initial destruction was done in ways that, at least at some level, made sense.  There were never a lot of magic users, there seemed to be a certain genetic element linked to magic use (not everyone could go and become a wizard) and most civilizations either shunned them, or kept a close watch on them.

Anyway, I really appreciate you clearing out some of my questions, thanks for that!

  • Like 1
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...