Jump to content

The "logic" of the AoS setting?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

That seems to be pretty much the gist it seems - it's not that the rules aren't laid out, it's that there intentionally are no rules, and aye, that isn't for me, since if I'm going to go to the bother of basically doing all of the worldbuilding, I might as well take that one small extra step and start completely from scratch.

When looking at the Mortal Realms in their entirety I can understand that the setting might feel a little overwhelming, implausible, and difficult to get a handle on. But it's worth noting that when you zoom down to the level at which people live their lives and armies clash, the individual regions/locations that are being established are much more familiar, detailed and relatable. This is an ongoing process for GW, who are aware that some people have been unsatisfied with a setting that until recently has seemed infinitely broad but also quite shallow. The cities of Hammerhal and Excelsis are two examples of this, and the skyports of the Kharadron Overlords look set to become similarly fleshed out as living, breathing locations that, as you would put it, follow a certain set of rules.

To suggest that you need to do all the world building yourself is to willfully misrepresent the comments others have made. Everyone is trying to point out that you have the freedom to create your own narratives, not that you're compelled to do so because of some inherent flaw or weakness in the setting. This is pure hyperbole on your part.

 

I appreciate folks taking the time to work through this, even if the result is a bit disappointing - I'd really been hoping for an excuse to get one of those Kharadron Frigates :/

You have many reasons to jump on board with the Kharadron Overlords - your problem is that you're choosing to fixate on the one, somewhat spurious reason not to. Only you can do something about that.

 

Sidenote 1 - Doctor Strange and, by the same token, actual RL mythologies work because they are defined in relation to our own reality, which has comprehensible rules.

In a metatextual sense, the Mortal Realms are also defined in contrast to our own reality, because that is the reader's frame of reference - this is the case for all fantasy fiction. It just so happens that a direct analogue for our world doesn't exist in the Mortal Realms, just as it doesn't exist in many other high fantasy settings.

 

It's akin to the relationship between the Warhammer World and the Chaos Wastes/Realm of Chaos - the latter were defined and described by how they were like or unlike the "reality" of WHF, just as real mythologies(and Strange's dimensions) are defined and described by how they are like or unlike our own reality; absent that point of comparison, trying to parse those "otherspaces" in ways a human understands becomes extremely difficult.

If you want to look at it this way, then the 'reality' off the Mortal Realms is the Warhammer world that preceded it (know in AoS as The World That Was) - which is now a smouldering ball of sigmarite orbited by Sigmar's capital city. The old Warhammer world is a real place that once existed in the chronology of this setting, so if you consider it to be appropriately grounded then take that as your in-setting anchor point for the Mortal Realms - the Earth to Doctor Strange's Dark Dimension.

 

Sidenote 2 - Jamie, it was intended as a joke at my own expense, actually.

Yeah, I took the time to look up your blog. In the context of your piece 'Age of Sigmar and the same old High Fantasy' I have difficulty believing that your opening gambit for hearts and minds was entirely jocular. In your most recent post (albeit from November) you seem fairly bitter about the loss of WHFB and pretty gleeful about what you perceive to be the failure of AoS as a setting and as a project. Frankly I'm somewhat baffled as to why you're here at all. From what I've been reading, I don't think you'll ever allow yourself to enjoy AoS - your replies seem to suggest someone trying very hard to think themselves out of doing something, not into doing something.

But if you're willing to get out of your own way, you'll find a lot to enjoy about AoS - not just the setting and the models, but also the amazing fan projects and the spirit of the community. Two years in and despite the success it's already enjoyed, AoS is just getting warmed up. It's an exciting time to be invested in this game and this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, as someone who has seen Yodhrin's post on Dakka over the last couple of years, the mere fact that he's posting here being openly curious and non-hostile proves that he's actually making an effort to understand the setting and perhaps, in time, even come to enjoy it. I'd give him kudos for that, it's more than most folks do. I also think it's quite unnecessary and unfair to dig up some of his old blog posts and judge him by that when he's posted nothing of the sort on this forum. The AoS community, to me, has always been welcoming to any and all, give the guy a chance and don't assume the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, xking said:

If you want to know more about the lore, I always suggest this podcast.  http://garagehammer.net/category/episodes/

I'd like to suggest The Mortal Realms, it's a podcast almost entirely focused on the lore, where they go through the Realmgate Wars books one by one and discuss the plot as it goes along. Very in-depth and interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nevvermore said:

I don't know, as someone who has seen Yodhrin's post on Dakka over the last couple of years, the mere fact that he's posting here being openly curious and non-hostile proves that he's actually making an effort to understand the setting and perhaps, in time, even come to enjoy it. I'd give him kudos for that, it's more than most folks do. I also think it's quite unnecessary and unfair to dig up some of his old blog posts and judge him by that when he's posted nothing of the sort on this forum. The AoS community, to me, has always been welcoming to any and all, give the guy a chance and don't assume the worst.

Basically this. If Yodhrin finds that the setting is not for him, for whatever reason he wants, thats totally ok. Maybe in 1 year he would rethink about it, or his priorities will change. 
I miself in the past find AoS a giant mountain of... you know. I don't posted it online, but I talked about it with my friends. And here I'm now. Playing it and being happy both with the sistem and even with the lore! At firs I was like "The lore is just bad, but the system is pretty good"; and now I have invested myself in it.

Leave the agresivenes to other forums people! TGA need to remain positive, don't call people troll, or be at the defensive when they try to embrace AoS. Everyone make things at his own pace. If he is not convinced now with all the very good responses people has give him, that doesn't mean that they are worthless. Maybe he will re-read them in 6 months and then he will jump in. Or maybe other 3rd person reading the forum out of curiosity find them, or even between us they are usefull. I have learned many things I didn't know before this post!

So thanks Yodhrin for opening this very constructive debate. And if you don't find yourself confortable with the setting today, maybe in 1 year you will! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MacDuff said:

Yodhrin, to me it seems a shame that after starting this thread, spending days interacting with it, and even desiring some of the toys that represent these worlds that so invite creative freedom, that you end up with such a binary choice. Either you are a very clever troll or you are trapped by the false choices of your perceived desires. Kudos to everyone else for indulging him. I got a lot from your input.

Genuinely, I've no desire to troll. At first I was angry at AoS itself, but I realised over time I was more upset by the End Times stuff than AoS per se - had GW just set WHF aside and pitched AoS as a new thing and left the "origin story" of AoS undefined in a way that let players interpret it as they wanted(distant future of WHF, Blood Bowl-style alternate reality, or just a new world that happened to share some names and terms with WHF like 40K was at the start) I'd probably never have gone beyond mild annoyance at the loss of some plastic kits I didn't have a chance to buy. 

After that point, it was just a matter of being uninterested in AoS, occasional snark aside - I saw the arguments people made about the supposed creative freedom on offer, but to my eyes GW squandered that pretty thoroughly by putting out Land Marines, Oh Look More Khorne, Slightly Different Slayers, Dryadelfs,  Slightly Bigger Orcs and so forth, and all my initial attempts to read into the fluff bounced right off. The Overlords release was the first thing about AoS that had me genuinely excited to find out more, and so I came here to try and see if there was something I'd been missing in my previous assessments of the IP.

As for being trapped by false choices - I don't think so, I just know what it is I want. I'm not a "faction person", I like settings. As I've said, if an IP expects me to do most of the legwork in basic worldbuilding, why not just start one step further back from scratch and build a world entirely to my own liking rather than just mostly? If I'm going to invest thousands of pounds and hours into something, I have to be interested in the core themes and rules of the setting and find the majority, ideally the vast majority of the existing content compelling. With 40K, WHF and so on, I don't find every part of the worlds equally appealing, and on occasion I've forced myself to ignore new additions or retcons I actively disliked, but that's acceptable because I still find the vast, vast majority of them intriguing - I only ever had a couple of modest WHF armies, but I have nearly 30 Mordheim warbands in various stages of completion because I find myself just as excited to model and write about an Altdorf docker gang as I do a band of Fimir or the crumbling retinue of a Tomb King. With AoS however, I couldn't see myself collecting anything more than Overlords, so I was hoping a better understanding of the core themes and rules of the fiction might have been a "way in".

It turns out that's not the case, but that's life eh. As I said, I do appreciate folk talking it through with me regardless of the outcome.

 

EDIT: Nvm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nevvermore said:

 ...

This is just one example of a setting you could create within AoS that, I think, would still have the features you are looking for. The possibilities are endless!

Your on the fly setting is soooo cool! It makes me want to read an entire book on the story of this city. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that when you start something new like AoS, it's important to give it from the very start some "substance". Something people can grasp to build around it, a framework detailed enough to keep it interesting. Which isn't incompatible with personal imagination.

I think AoS usually lacks that "fluff substance" that makes many other fantasy settings appealing from the start. Considering how large and ambitious the setting is, it feels terribly empty (because everything is on such a cosmic/planetary/godly scale). It makes me not care at all on what's going on, could just rinse/repeat every world destruction since the realms are endless. There is no decisive struggle (and grimdarkness! THAT is important :P).

Of course, AoS will eventually be fleshed out with the following years, as we have seen stuff like the City of Secrets or Hammerhal thing. That's the kind of writting pieces AoS needs to make a bit more engaging.

And I don't really get the restriction people see in "one world fantasy" settings, like the Oldworld. You could easily come up with non-canon ideas and find a fitting story since it was so varied within a single world. Well, maybe not continent-sized dragons and gods roaming in space, I'll give you that :D.

 

It might only be an impression, but I think a lot of people restrict their imagination by following the rule: "if it isn't described in the fluff, I can't do it" and so perceive AoS as a step forward in the creativity department since they are no longer given that proper fluff description, as if some random guys in Nottingham had an influence on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After having gotten through a good handful of the Age of Sigmar novels, I'm not sure how people are coming away with the idea that there's so little defined that they may as well start from scratch.  There's so much going on.  

This idea that the vastness or mythic nature of the realms means there's nothing concrete to grab on to is a lot like saying a story set on our earth is pointless because the universe spans an estimated 93 billion light years or because of the billions of years of history the universe already has, does this one pocket of life really matter?.  So you may as well make up your own world from scratch.  Considering how vast and ancient the universe is, it feels terribly empty.

Just like in our lives, what matters are not the massive meta concepts of the origin or nature of the universe.  People do.  Or rather in the case of fiction, characters do.

This sounds like not being able to see the trees for the forest, to flip a cliche around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with lack of substance and grasp of the AoS setting. At the very least, when compared with WHFB and 40k, it lacks:

-An exciting epic history. No HH, no Aenarion and Great Vortex, no Sundering, no Black Fire Pass. I know there are some named battles\events. But they are generally only briefly described. AoS lacks an epic origin from which to build actual setting and characters. War of life, Realmgate Wars, have not been presented in such a way. At least for now.

 

-Heroes and characters with which to relate to. Best effort so far  is Vandus. Rest are pretty much just names. And gods are something not build (atm at least) to relate to.

 

-Human level reconstruction of the setting. Until Hammerhal there was simply no exploration at all of the setting as a living setting. It has gotten better with Hammerhal, city of secrets and blade runner illustration of a skyport. But it is still a long way from being set.

I think GW does know that they need to work at least the third part. The effort they put in Hammerhal shows that. Hope they keep up the work there, but also catch on the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's my years of running RPGs, but I found just the description of the world of fire found in the very first Age of Sigmar novel (War Storm) had enough information in it that I could run an RPG set there and have enough material to work with for probably hundreds of hours of game play.  There's human nomads fleeing from cannibals.  Khorne aspiring champions trying to ascend to daemonhood, slave populations working in fortress forges, the coming of  invaders in a very normandy beach landings manner, the vying between different servants of Khorne for their god's favour.

City of Secrets and Hammerhal offer even more elements like that.

It does make me wonder what people actually want when they find it lacking.  What do you want to use the fiction for?  If it's to enjoy a story, then you only need the elements that matter to that particular story.  If it's to be the base for a game, then there's more than enough.  If it's to geek out on encyclopedic knowledge, then perhaps ones enjoyment is diminished by comparing it to settings that already have a few decades of publications to draw from?

It is also one approach to fictional enjoyment that seems to often damage people's ability to enjoy specific stories, movies, shows, comics etc.,.  For example, lots of the work by Lovecraft, Howard, Smith and other writers of the early weird fiction authors of the 20th century stand on their own and aren't actually helped by bringing in a bunch of outside details from some larger Cthulhu Mythos, Zothique history or Hyborian age.  In fact, it might even distract one from the whole point.  

So many people I've met over the years can geek out over all sorts of cthulhu monsters and the nature of the mythos but as soon as you start talking about the central theme of Lovecraft's work, or what was actually being said in individual story, they have no idea what you're talking about.  Similarly someone truly immersed in Star Wars lore can't necessarily just enjoy a particular episode of Rebels on its own merit.  All they can see is that B-Wings or a certain tie fighter variant were introduced too early in the time line. :D 

It's entirely possible that the Age of Sigmar setting isn't about providing an encyclopedia of information to geek out on beyond what is necessary for people to get excited enough to buy miniatures.  Warstorm for Stormcast and Khorne.  Guardians for Sylvaneth and Nurgle.  City of Secrets was about doing that for Tzeentch miniatures.  Hammerhal for the board game.  You get the idea.

Maybe the same is true of both 40k and WHFB?  And the only thing that enable the approach are the sheer number of publications so far?  Maybe those who want the geeking out over encyclopedic minutiae experience will simply have to wait for more publications?

The thing about Yodhrin's statements that strike me as particularly odd though, is that he's talking about getting miniatures.  As if the depth to which he can have a trivia geek fest somehow changes the value of the miniatures for him.  That strikes me as very impractical compared to evaluating the Kharadron fiction to see if it is something you like.   It seems odd to dismiss the value of Duardin skyship miniatures because there's no unrelated short story about a slave revolt in Khul's forges or whatever would be needed to allow one to feel the world is sufficiently fleshed out.  That this "setting buff" vs "faction buff" approach basically means that all elements are vulnerable to the short comings of any one part.  So things can't be enjoyed on their own basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

Just like in our lives, what matters are not the massive meta concepts of the origin or nature of the universe.  People do.  Or rather in the case of fiction, characters do.

This sounds like not being able to see the tress for the forest, to flip a cliche around.

I think this is the problem that some folks are having with the AoS setting, and I was one of them.  But then I started looking into the setting more and reading summaries of the novels, and started to see that the AoS setting is still new and being filled out and given the detail that is missing.

Nowadays, I enjoy the setting and fluff of Age of Sigmar because it is so grand and undefined.  I realized that what I liked about the Old World was the setting, that I could find my own place in there, where now I view Age of Sigmar in the same way as Dungeons & Dragons as this amalgamation of possibilities.  The different planes, realms, dimensions, and worlds possible can be interconnected, and there are plenty of story telling potential.

It's just a matter of creativity.  To use the RPG comparison, some people want to write up their own worlds and campaigns, and others want to use pre-published modules and settings like Forgotten Realms and Eberron.  And that is okay.  But some of us like world building and coming up with stuff on our own, and others don't.

I have mentioned it elsewhere, but Warhammer Fantasy was (in hindsight) more akin to a historical wargame, while Age of Sigmar is more akin to a roleplaying game, and I think our converstaions in this thread have confirmed my thoughts on that.

20 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

Maybe the same is true of both 40k and WHFB?  And the only thing that enable the approach are the sheer number of publications so far?  Maybe those who want the geeking out over encyclopedic minutiae experience will simply have to wait for more publications?

Geeking out of encyclopedic knowledge is one of the reasons the Marvel Cinematic Universe is so successful, early on the fans were poring over those films looking for references and possible information on the upcoming Marvel films.  AoS just hasn't been fleshed out yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funniest thing is when someone leans over in the theatre to whisper (always loudly) "did you see that? that was from issue 168 of the original comic!" they are always looking away from the screen when something awesome happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Screwface said:

That was some passive aggressive ***** by the OP, I don't care what anyone says. 

He came here 99% convinced that he bitterly disliked AoS and he's left 100% convinced - at least we gave his troubled soul some clarity. It's a shame GW missed out on selling him a box of Arkanauts though, that would have been nice for them. I for one look forward to abandoning AoS for his self-penned masterpiece of world-building as soon as it's ready, and gleefully anticipate getting into long discussions about how wonderfully grounded and easy to comprehend it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

He came here 99% convinced that he bitterly disliked AoS and he's left 100% convinced - at least we gave his troubled soul some clarity. It's a shame GW missed out on selling him a box of Arkanauts though, that would have been nice for them. I for one look forward to abandoning AoS for his self-penned masterpiece of world-building as soon as it's ready, and gleefully anticipate getting into long discussions about how wonderfully grounded and easy to comprehend it is.

Now this is being passive-agressive. Guys, you should knock it down a notch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KillagoreFaceslasha said:

Now this is being passive-agressive. Guys, you should knock it down a notch.

Nope, that was sarcasm. I'm pretty sure he's gone in any case, so we might as well have some fun. I believe that on the whole I've shown approximately the same amount of respect as he has - which is to say 'some'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I've always liked the simplified rules and emphasis on narrative play that came with the release of AoS, I'll admit the vagueness of the setting was something that put me off at first. Here's a few things that changed my mind:

1. The "rules" of the realms:

Each realm is not so much a world as it is an independent reality, with its own physics, biology etc. governed in part by the WFB Wind of Magic that it was formed from. In the fiction we've seen places which seem more magical, and others which seem much more like the Old World. This to me suggests that concentrations of magic are higher in some parts of the realms than others, which in turn leads to those areas seeming more fantastical. This means that you can have a mix of high and low fantasy settings depending on your preferences.

2. Geography

There are unlikely to be complete maps of each realm because a) each is a "reality" in its own right rather than a finite planet or continent; b) the realms are vast and large parts of them remain unexplored by the forces of Sigmar, much like much of the world map was incomplete or lacked detail for most of human history; c) that would take away some of the creative freedom. What is mapped are regions of each of the realms, be that the Brimstone Peninsular in Aquishy or the three cities in Ghyran from Season of War. If you want a mapped, finite and filled out part of the realms to set your games/army in, there are now several available. This was something lacking on release and fits in with the different ways to play philosophy. Think of it like picking a space marine chapter in 40K. You can either pick a first founding chapter with fully fleshed out history, characters and organisation. You can pick one of the less well chronicled but still official codex/successor chapters which allows you to create more characters but still provides a structure, or you can go off and create something a bit off the wall.

3. How the realms and their civilisations interact:

Again linking back to our own world's history, most people and indeed many civilisations in the mortal realms will have little interaction with other realms. However, for the ruling classes and those in major cities (near realm gates for example) the potential for crossover is great. In much the same way, your average 18th-19th century Briton might struggle to point to India on a map, but would be aware of the concept due to its importance to the Empire. A politician, general or an executive of the East India Company would be aware of many of the key locations, their politics, strategic importance and the tensions that existed. Someone living in a remote area of Brazil probably wouldn't even be aware that such a place as India existed. The realm gates facilitate this interaction. As with our world you also have traders and explorers who spread cultures, goods and ideas.

4. Religion:

Part of the reason for similarities is that the pantheon of gods is shared between all the realms. Nagash is the God of Death and the Underworld, Sigmar is your Zeus or Odin figure, Alarielle is godess of life and nature etc etc. Whilst cultures may differ in how they worship these gods all acknowledge their existence. There's also the fact that these gods exist and interact with mortal affairs, giving rise to groups like the Order of Sigmar (Witch Hunters) which carry divine authority recognised throughout the Realms).

5. The Timeline:

Unlike 40k or WFB, there have already been several jumps in the timeline since AoS began. You have the Age of Myth (Sigmar's alliance of gods work together, civilisations are built in all the realms); The Age of Chaos (Chaos discovers the Mortal Realms,  invades, Sigmar's alliance breaks and the Dark Gods conquor almost all of the Mortal Realms whilst Sigmar retreats to Azyr; then there's the Realmgate Wars - Sigmar's initial counterattack with his new army of Stormcast Eternals where he tries to take strategically key locations as the first part of a new offensive against Chaos. This ends with the events of All-Gates and was the first year or so of the game.

With Disciples of Tzeentch and the Overlords release, the timeline has now been moved forward significantly. We now see Sigmar's second alliance in the advanced stages of the "build" phase of a "take, hold, build" operation. The new cities are at the forefront of this and are analogous to the key worlds like Cadia and Armageddon in 40k. This also gives us three distinct societal groupings. There's the Ayzrites, descended from those who fled to Azyr during the Age of Chaos and have lived under Sigmar's rule for centuries. Then there's the Reclaimed, who somehow survived the Age of Chaos in their own realm and are looked down upon or mistrusted by many Azyrites. Lastly you have other civilisations like the Sylvaneth, Fyreslayers and Karadrons who survived by other means and venerate other Gods above Sigmar. These factions are more visually distinctive and show the new setting off.

6. Setting maturity:

In a previous thread, we discussed that AoS is not yet aesthetically mature, since GW does not have the resources to throw at replacing every single mini line at once. This has meant that there's a certain amount of crossover whilst many of the races and civilisations still resemble those of the Old World. If this bothers you you can kitbash, and there's some brilliant examples of this from the community and in White Dwarf. If you hand wave the Old World bit but still find it off to see races from all the realms look so similar, my outlook has always been that the existing miniature range largely represents Azyrite culture, or else is an example of what different races look like in certain parts of the mortal realms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aggressive/passive aggressiveness aside, I feel the thread focus has grown beyond just trying to convince the guy to enjoy Age of Sigmar, and become more of a lore appreciation/brainstorming thing, which is great. Let's stay on that road, and not let ourselves get derailed by perceived negativity, eh? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AGPO said:

5. The Timeline:

Unlike 40k or WFB, there have already been several jumps in the timeline since AoS began.

This is probably my favorite thing about AoS.  And (good news for me) they seem to be bringing this approach to 40k.  While I do get the appeal of a game setting where nothing changes to the sandbox to play in is always there, I think it makes things a bit stagnant at times.  I think that even if big world changing events happen, that doesn't have to mean there is any more or less space to play in.  It's more about how it is done.  So far they haven't done things like have Nurgle's set backs in Gyran mean the expulsion of Nurgle's forces from that realm.  There's still room for a Nurgle warband to make sense operating in Gyran before, during and after the Realmgate Wars novels.

Quote

6. Setting maturity:

This has meant that there's a certain amount of crossover whilst many of the races and civilisations still resemble those of the Old World. 

I really think they should still resemble them.  While WHFB no longer worked for GW as a product, it doesn't mean all of the elements need to go.  Or that certain aesthetics shouldn't stick around.  For example, the 16th century fashion, society and political reality of the Empire wasn't born of the same factors that caused the build up to the 30 years war in our world.  So it's not unreasonable to believe that the freeguild fashion, weapons, culture, etc., comes from something innate to either the people or their gods/mythic history.  It doesn't have to just be a coincidence because GW wanted to keep selling old empire plastics.  It could be that the type of society that results because of Sigmar in the Old World did so again in the Mortal Realms because of who humans are in a particular realm and who Sigmar is (even if he was sealed away).

But I suppose "what if the similarities with the Old World aren't a coincidence/just the result of wanting to keep selling old products" is pretty out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose for me it's similar to the gripe that almost nothing changes aesthetically for 40k in 10,000 years. When you look at the multiple changes in style that occurred just in the 20th century, it just feels unlikely. That said we're playing in a setting with dragons, so what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

This is probably my favorite thing about AoS.  And (good news for me) they seem to be bringing this approach to 40k.  While I do get the appeal of a game setting where nothing changes to the sandbox to play in is always there, I think it makes things a bit stagnant at times.  I think that even if big world changing events happen, that doesn't have to mean there is any more or less space to play in.  It's more about how it is done.  So far they haven't done things like have Nurgle's set backs in Gyran mean the expulsion of Nurgle's forces from that realm.  There's still room for a Nurgle warband to make sense operating in Gyran before, during and after the Realmgate Wars novels.

One of the potential side-effects of this timeline progression that I find most interesting is that the more it progresses the more nonsensical it becomes to treat everything that happened previously as a dead and irrelevant part of the setting - which is exactly what people do when they complain that the old Warhammer World was 'blown up'.

If 90% of the AoS fluff is stuff that happened in the distant past then the compulsion to feel that your battles need to take place in the 'present' becomes less. An ever greater proportion of battles become 'historical' battles. And that could make setting your battles in The World That Was have less of a stigma about it. If you're going to recreate one of the battles of the Realmgate Wars then why not recreate the battle of La Maisontaal in Bretonnia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People that complaing about "past" lore probably has never been a Greenskin player. When 80% of your special characters are all dead in the present timeline of WHFB, it makes you inmune to having problems with playing with past factions/storys/characters :D 
The same goes with my Tau's and Aun'va.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AGPO said:

I suppose for me it's similar to the gripe that almost nothing changes aesthetically for 40k in 10,000 years. When you look at the multiple changes in style that occurred just in the 20th century, it just feels unlikely. That said we're playing in a setting with dragons, so what do I know.

YES.... But. errrr.... I have to digress,  sorry for blatantly going off topic...

I actually think there are good arguments for why the warhammer world -40k and fantasy- would not 'evolve' as quickly as the modern world. Please forgive the western angle here... In our reigning idealistic misuse of Darwins biological theses, our ideals decree that there is a continous 'evolution' going on everywhere, society, nature, biology, economy, personally and so. Because of this, our society is always trying to jump aboard and 'stay ahead of the pack', looking for new inventions and looks and ideas. Our worldview see this as a good thing, but it hasn't always been like this, we should remember.

Before the world was ruled by very different ideals, for a time, we were classicist, who thought the ideal had already been accomplished by the old masters, we should seek to emulate the classic masters and study classic styles and ideas. Before the classicist, there were also the feudalistic societies, where the ideals extolled that the ruling classes -and this responsibility trickled down to everyone- were the stewards of Gods creation for posterity. The idea was to preserve the worldly order in what was a wild world. And as such, it was successful for a long time. 

In 40K -remember, these are people dreaming of the best of times: when the EMPERAH WAS STILL ALIVE and as such the human empire could be seen as both feudalistic and classicist: trying to preserve what was from outer chaos.. A world were new inventions are heresy... 

I could see an argument for the old hammer fantasy world being feudal and preserving as well. Easily! Because off course it is. Now this has all changed with the new setting, which is great and all. I am just waiting for better fluff! More world building. More info on society and such.

But all this aside, I don't agree with you that the settings and feel hasn't changed in the game through time... at all! They just change with in real time and not in warhammer time. I dare you to look at a 1979 white dwarf and tell me the looks and models haven't changed! They are hippies! In the eighties they were punks. Now they're super buffed superheroes, just like our modern tastes dictates... There's plenty of change in the warhammer world!

-Edited because of mumbled english.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...