The "logic" of the AoS setting?

[Menkeroth]

5 minutes ago, Grimma said:

but if you're really telling me that you think Puff and Smaug are equal in terms of the coherency and narrative, then I guess I understand your take a lot better.

 

because they are, despite anything that could be said, as it's a fact. They both hail from one and the same source and just used for different purposes (apart from the fact the authors are quite different, in terms of quality as well, but that's obvious). Smaug is used to serve as a background for dwarven character (and Bilbo) and the main reason the story takes place, so he is kind of a god watching mortals do something because he has done something in the past, and though Smaug does have a bit of action himself, mostly he even does not need to. His opponent, on the other hand, is not a background or reason for things to take place, he is one of actively acting characters and is like a one of rpg heroes with occasional "deus ex machina" thing. Because of the various purposes they are described differently and play different roles depending of what is required of them. I know you don't need all of this as you have convinced yourself of another point of view long ago and your point is adamant, so it's rather for other people who understand that AoS even now is as good and consistent as any other setting.

By the way, Smaug is magic dragon too. But that's another story.

[Zeratan]

8 minutes ago, Grimma said:

At the risk of being banned for telling people it's ok for them to like what they like (which seems to be annoying some), I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I like Puff the Magic Dragon too, but if you're really telling me that you think Puff and Smaug are equal in terms of the coherency and narrative, then I guess I understand your take a lot better.

The problem I have with your argumentation is that you're constantly talking about Tolkien knowing that the quality of his works is undeniable and few people would dare to say that even some of the best fantasy authors are equal or better than him. You're using this comparison as an equivolant of a nuke- 'is it as good or better than what Tolkien wrote? No? Than it's terrible'. Not mention you haven't presented a single example of bad or illogical writing in AoS that wasn't countered with ease by other users. 

[Grimma]

.

[Galas]

I'm not gonna jump here to say that AoS is a work that merits a Pullitzer, but saying that """"incoherent universe""""=bad universe is a very big jump and asumption. Just go to read the Odisea of Homero to see how a Incoherent number of adventures and monsters put together can become one of the best works of literature of human history. A universe only needs to be coherent in hitself and the rules it has. You can't measure coherence comparing it to the real world, thats just absurd.

The quality of a work is totally independent to the tools it uses to make himsellf. Quality is quality. Saying that a realist world has just better quality by the fact of being realist as if those traits define what is good and what is bad in literature... well. 

I'll just let you keep those ideas, meanwhyle I'm gonna read some Discworld  

 

[Killax]

Read and comment on the things you like and dislike is never bad. Putting down judgement on creative work as bad, incoherent, illogical, fantastic or amazing adds very little to the depth of a debate. Be specific about what you like/dislike or don't mention it at all @Grimma. For one I'd like to know what you truely think is bad in AoS' written stories.

The gut feeling I have is that some like to compair it again to Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones or even Warhammer Fantasy lore. Age of Sigmar is not set in such a universe, not bound by the same physical laws as such universes and most importantly Age of Sigmar isn't even in it's core based on historical events or parralels to begin with.
As someone who respects DnD and many ways of creative experessions I will say that AoS does a good job in what it should do for it's market. A market that isn't 16/18+ like WFB used to be or what Game of Thrones is. What AoS does is create art and bring that to live. This transforms into narrative and miniatures that can be liked by everyone, young, old, hardcore nerd or just a general fan of good looking miniatures.

What helps understanding Age of Sigmar is that it's a universe build upon magic 'flows'. So if you keep this as your starting point it's obvious to see why AoS is so 'high fantasy', He-man-like, Mythical and even has 'non-sensical maps' akin to that of Asgard. I mention this because at it's core it will help you understand why AoS is so crazy, because the same winds of Magic in what used to be WFB's Magic Lores are now Realms, Mortal Realms who each have their own rules on phyisics, own grazy laws and creatures. 

In the end, the logic of AoS' setting is the same logic as that found in Magic because it's core comes from Magic Lores that used to be there in WFB. So yes, AoS is full of the art that produces illusions as entertainment. They create stories about worlds where plastic soldiers come to life. This is very illogical at it's core. Just like Dragons, Daemons and Ghosts are illogical beings because they do not follow the same laws that real life nature gives us.  
Hopes that helps you understand, if not, I can only say I feel sorry for you having such creative limitations that you cannot enjoy books written for toys. I certainly hope you do enjoy the toys that follow the same illogical design as it's narrative. 

[Grimma]

.

[wayniac]

It's basically Outland from.WoW. With the idea I assume being magical enough that you can justify and do almost literally anything you want without trying to shoehorn it into a defined setting, which was the main issue with old WHFB.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Zeratan]

9 minutes ago, wayniac said:

It's basically Outland from.WoW. With the idea I assume being magical enough that you can justify and do almost literally anything you want without trying to shoehorn it into a defined setting, which was the main issue with old WHFB.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 

You're helping but you aren't helping (see: the whole setting coherance thing above).

[Mayple]

@Grimma which book did you read that portrayed the world of Age of Sigmar as not coherent?

[wayniac]

3 hours ago, Zeratan said:

You're helping but you aren't helping (see: the whole setting coherance thing above).

I don't think there is setting coherence, by design.

[Menkeroth]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

I don't think there is setting coherence, by design.

By design it is as coherent as Indian or Norse myths, actually. Interdependent sections of the whole picture.

[Zeratan]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

I don't think there is setting coherence, by design.

Can you point out a part of the setting that doesn't fit the rest in a way of not having a logical explanation of how it came to be? I assume that's what not having coherence means in this context.

[Grimma]

...

[Killax]

If you are to proud to admit you didn't read a single Age of Sigmar piece of narrative that's okay. If you want to draw a premature conclusion and say Age of Sigmar's narrative is less coherent as Lord of the Rings that's okay too (Age of Sigmar's lore is not finished). But the moment you think Middle Earth is a game your sadly mistaken. It also reflects on your actual knowledge about narrative and games. Now either you are talking about Middle Earth as the fictional setting for Tolkien's characters or you are talking about games, such as Lord of the Rings SBG or The Hobbit, with several variations of Battle Games.
But creating fiction for a novel is not the same as creating it for a game. It will also never will be because both are a different form of entertainment. 

Again, Lord of the Rings is not a game either. There are games created who draw inspiration from that world. Tolkien never created the work to be used for games. Age of Sigmar is a game. There is narrative created for it so that players can draw inspiration from that universe. Games Workshop never created Age of Sigmar to be a novel. Games Workshop stores arn't filled with books but with miniatures. 
It's quite clear to me you don't really seem to capable to process the difference in outcome of both creative works. For the record, Lord of the Rings easily contains the same sort of epic high-fantasy situations as Age of Sigmar. The only reason why most fans seem unaware of it is because this part of Tolkiens written fiction isn't replicated on film.

My suggestion, read Age of Sigmar novels and inform yourself before you form an unbased opinion. Once you have you'll see how both creative works do not limit their creative space. The only reason as to why some seem to draw a historical paralel to Tolkiens world and ours is because Tolkien tells a story about a world that actually becomes less magical as years and battles pass by. To the point where humans are the only 'magical' craetures left at the end. It suggests a fantastical history.

Cheers,

[Menkeroth]

22 minutes ago, Killax said:

Now either you are talking about Middle Earth as the fictional setting for Tolkien's characters or you are talking about games, such as Lord of the Rings SBG or The Hobbit, with several variations of Battle Games. Creating fiction for a novel is not the same as creating it for a game.

 

What's more and even funnier is that LotR games from GW have not that very much in common with the original, it's even further from it than films. And not all GW created for the game is as coherent or well written as the original content, so to speak, and basically LotR from GW and from Tolkien are quite different things with not that really much in common. As games AoS and LotR are very similar in quality and coherency, and the original fiction is better in quality (what to say? it's obvious) but the same coherency and consistency level. 

[Killax]

38 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

What's more and even funnier is that LotR games from GW have not that very much in common with the original, it's even further from it than films. And not all GW created for the game is as coherent or well written as the original content, so to speak, and basically LotR from GW and from Tolkien are quite different things with not that really much in common. As games AoS and LotR are very similar in quality and coherency, and the original fiction is better in quality (what to say? it's obvious) but the same coherency and consistency level. 

In a lot of cases games based on literature have very little to do with the actual story that draws readers into novels  . From a game designers perspective this is the case because you will have to limit creativity in game design or simply said can't follow the same story.
- Grabbing Lord of the Rings SBG as a prime example, note how none of the battles actually lead to the one ring being transported from A to B. Nor was surivival of Lord of the Rings key characters in game as essential as it was for the succes of it's story. 

Fantasy Flight Games is the perfect compagny example of a gamescompagny who draws it's public from excisting fan-bases. This can be really cool, they are very succesful with X-Wing because of it. However most importantly to see is that all of FFG games design would have worked on practically everything. I was a huge fan of FFG's Conquest LCG, Conquest LCG had nothing to do with 40K and could have been ANY Universal battle/resource game, you could also have stuck 'Red Alert in Space' brand onto it. 

I think there is enough to say on the subject, back to the logic of AoS, it's as logic as Magic gets. Which leaves room for a ton of creative input provided that input fits it particular Realm. What I hope and expect is that GW will expand it and with the way they have communicated with their player base I can only see the following lore improve.

As said in the original post, I read Bloodbound and I didn't like much of it's Narrative. To me it was to much of a repeated 'skull taking, man-eating' character. It was coherent but also not 'new' or had the same character depth I could find in Khorne's followers from WFB.
With Blades of Khorne a lot of that changed. Not only do we see more important characters be fleshed out, we also see four different 'larger armies from narrative' be available to players within the book. I hope that we'll eventually see many more. I really like how narrative now plays out on the table. The Goretide is fast and furious while The Skullfiend Tribe is completely set up to maul Heroes and Monsters, a true thorn in the back of any Destruction army. 

My moral is that AoS is a game, thus the narrative should fit the game's purposes. Which is to create games that can be played with the same armies but present a totally different outcome (each game). In that same vein, books have a different entertainment purpose. Which is to enjoy the reader and suck it into it's world despite always having the same outcome (once read).

[Menkeroth]

Nothing to add, really. Apart from that we still don't know what Grimma means with coherency and "it's a random stuff pile" and how he came to think of it this way. Though I doubt he will present at least some arguments and not just unproved statements.

[Grimma]

...

[Silchas_Ruin]

You don't want to argue about AoS, you just want to post 5 times on each page in a tread where we talk about the world and tell us that it does not make sense, while you have not actually read any AoS fluff at all, makes sence to me... Each time someone asks about a example of anything not making sense you do a quick not interested in arguing since you don't actually know anything about AoS fluff and can't come with a example, and then insult us, just talking about minor stuff like:

"taste the difference between Sprite and Don Perignon"

You don't think its insulting, since you are clearly right about everything. But its what you do all the time. In every 5-6 comments saying its ok I'm just here to help, but you are stupid. 

Think I will bookmark this tread to use later as a example of how to walk the line of trolling but not getting banned.

 

[Menkeroth]

8 minutes ago, Silchas_Ruin said:

Think I will bookmark this tread to use later as a example of how to be walk the line of trolling but not getting banned.

Exactly. Very obvious but harmless as well, so it's continuing on and on all these pages despite the "I don't want to argue". It baffles me either, to some degree, as well as the subject's unwillingness to agree with the fact that "Sprite" actually drinks exactly he, but he still is trying to disrupt our peaceful "Captain Morgan" meeting. Marvellous.

[Mayple]

22 minutes ago, Grimma said:

I'm not sure how many times, or in how many ways I can say that I'm not interested in arguing about AoS. I love that you like it, that's fine. If you think there is no difference in coherence of the Middle Earth setting and the AoS setting that's fine too, it just means there is really very little scope for a conversation. Just like if you can't taste the difference between Sprite and Don Perignon, that's fine - I'm not interested in arguing about whether your taste or mine is 'right'. I'm interested in the ways in which that difference affects the game.

What in the world are you doing in this thread then? That's a different topic entirely.

Also, no one ever said there is -no- difference in coherency, but your (so far) uneducated blanders of saying that Age of Sigmar is anything but coherent (or making comparisons to suggest it is a work of less sophisticated value than whatever it is your high horse rode in on) without backing it up with anything specific, or anything that even remotely implies you've actually -read- any of the written works, does not put you in a favourable light. It is perfectly fine to dislike something, but to slander it without even having done the most minimum required work to familliarize yourself with that which you critique, makes you an absolute tool. 

Hiding behind a 'it's just my opinion bro' does not remedy that at all. 

Or am I mistaken, and you do in fact have more in-depth knowledge than a passing glance, or a skimmed wikipedia search? In which case I shall happily stand corrected. If not, do see yourself out. 

I'll be happy to engage in the topic you expressed desire to pursue (different views on the lore and the ways it affects stuff), but this is not the thread for it. A thread of it's own would be fitting. 

[Grimma]

...

[Teletomas]

On 11. maj 2017 at 8:21 PM, Zeratan said:

 

 

deleted

[Silchas_Ruin]

7 hours ago, Grimma said:

It's not 'trolling' to decline to engage in a fruitless argument about what you like or what I like. I was hoping to be able to look at the lack of logic in the AoS setting in the context of other game systems and settings, and how the difference in coherence and narrative sense affects gameplay, but that level of discussion seems impossible - instead we're stuck on "but you're WRONG! I LIKE IT!". Sigh.

Great work there. Fruitless argument about what we like, but want to look at the lack of logic. LOL

Thats why you are a troll. Its not about what we like. You want to look at the lack of logic, but you WILL NOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE. You just state as a fact that it does not make sense. Its not about liking it or not, WE THINK IT MAKES SENSE. So we can't talk about the lack of logic WHEN YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THAT THERE IS NO LOGIC. If you could read you would know that by now, but think we know by now you are just here to ****** with us.

EDIT: deleted like 20 lines of namecalling, congrats on totally messing up the tread idiot

[Menkeroth]

The best we can do is to ignore him, really.