Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Yodhrin

The "logic" of the AoS setting?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Galas
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Teletomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes 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.

.....

Skærmbillede 2017-05-05 kl. 15.19.23.png

Skærmbillede 2017-05-05 kl. 15.18.58.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought the aesthetic of the game hasn't changed, in fact I think I was arguing the opposite in another thread earlier this week, but I disagree with the notion that the classists ever held that much sway. Even in a feudal setting, just look at the changes in weapons and equipment between say the end of the 100 Years War and the Battle of Bosworth. Look at the changes in fashion between Bosworth and the Elizabethan era. I'd be hard pressed tofind a period in urbanised human history with little to no change in any field of aesthetics.

 Either way if that justification works for you who am I to gainsay? We all get different things from the hobby after all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Teletomas The evolutionary dogmas you described belong to neolamarkism not neodarwinism. The former embodies the evolutionary ladder of constantly becoming better and more complex while the latter presents the evolution as devoted of a goal, driven by random mutations and environmental preassures. In (neo)darwinistic view of the evolutionary process what matters is finding a niche in which species can reproduce and have offspring capable of effective reproduction. It doesn't matter wheter or not it gains or loses complexity on the way (just ask Nematoda).

Sorry for further derailing the thread... Down with lamarkists!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, AGPO said:

I never thought the aesthetic of the game hasn't changed, in fact I think I was arguing the opposite in another thread earlier this week, but I disagree with the notion that the classists ever held that much sway. Even in a feudal setting, just look at the changes in weapons and equipment between say the end of the 100 Years War and the Battle of Bosworth. Look at the changes in fashion between Bosworth and the Elizabethan era. I'd be hard pressed tofind a period in urbanised human history with little to no change in any field of aesthetics.

 Either way if that justification works for you who am I to gainsay? We all get different things from the hobby after all.

War is a huge driving factor in the development of technology though, which probably explains the relatively quick evolution and refinement of weaponry. And in terms of fashion, that's a luxury that can only be afforded by the wealthy.

Away from the battlefield, the aristocracy and the merchant classes, I think if you look at the lives and appearance of ordinary people (particularly in rural communities) you wouldn't really see much change from the start of the iron age through to the dawn of the industrial era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zeratan said:

@Teletomas The evolutionary dogmas you described belong to neolamarkism not neodarwinism. The former embodies the evolutionary ladder of constantly becoming better and more complex while the latter presents the evolution as devoted of a goal, driven by random mutations and environmental preassures. In (neo)darwinistic view of the evolutionary process what matters is finding a niche in which species can reproduce and have offspring capable of effective reproduction. It doesn't matter wheter or not it gains or loses complexity on the way (just ask Nematoda).

Sorry for further derailing the thread... Down with lamarkists!

 I love it! Thanks for clearing this up, you are right in everything. I wasn't exactly pertaining to the biological theory though but the popular misunderstanding of the evolutionary concept as a universal law ruling over everything, the fuzzy genres of sociology, culture, psychology, wellness, personal development as well. But You're right! -Neolamarkism.

.... -Down with the lamarkists!

 

19 minutes ago, AGPO said:

I never thought the aesthetic of the game hasn't changed, in fact I think I was arguing the opposite in another thread earlier this week, but I disagree with the notion that the classists ever held that much sway. Even in a feudal setting, just look at the changes in weapons and equipment between say the end of the 100 Years War and the Battle of Bosworth. Look at the changes in fashion between Bosworth and the Elizabethan era. I'd be hard pressed tofind a period in urbanised human history with little to no change in any field of aesthetics.

 Either way if that justification works for you who am I to gainsay? We all get different things from the hobby after all.

Aesthetics: Ah, okay I see.

Classicism vs changes: Yes I agree there were definitely changes. I didnt mean it as an absolute, just that different reigning ideals enhance what we see and look for one way or other and this in effect enhances how quickly these changes occur...Though admittedly 10.000 years is a long time for any empire! Only the different empires of Egypt come close to the emprah's reign!

Anyway in my original post -before I edited for clarity- I wrote that the standing ideals enhanced the way we look at changes and other things, but off course, there are changes still. This was lost in the editing warp though (english is not my first language and I was rambling a bit off course in the post). 

With these comments, I will respectfully retreat to put on my helmet and my war gear and join the fight in the Mortal Realms again, and leave further musings on Maximillian Von Kerst's famous socio-political satire over the societies of Azyr, smartly concealed in a fictional account of the history of the dystopian hell hole called '"Earth".

T

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AGPO said:

I never thought the aesthetic of the game hasn't changed, in fact I think I was arguing the opposite in another thread earlier this week, but I disagree with the notion that the classists ever held that much sway. Even in a feudal setting, just look at the changes in weapons and equipment between say the end of the 100 Years War and the Battle of Bosworth. Look at the changes in fashion between Bosworth and the Elizabethan era. I'd be hard pressed tofind a period in urbanised human history with little to no change in any field of aesthetics.

 Either way if that justification works for you who am I to gainsay? We all get different things from the hobby after all.

I think that you are correct in the change of aesthetic, but is too comprensible that in every sci-fi/fantasy setting, the change is minimal. Just look Lord of the Rings. In like 4.000 years and they where basically the same.

Making a compelling and good aesthetic to your universe is difficult. Making one for every 20-30 years in-universe is a little impossible :D 

Edited by Galas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the whole thread so won't be repeating what others have already said. But a bit of my two cents anyway.

First, I'm with the ones who like the vastness and freedom of the Mortal Realms. I was fascinated with this, and being a somewhat fan of DnD and MtG to some degree, I immediately recognized what GW has done. After all, GW started making miniatures for "Chainmail", and they always come back to their roots. Just look at the "Realms of Chaos" dilogy! So AoS is essentially DnD meeting Warhammer and this is truly epic, and with quite a lot of info for now you have everything you need to create your own fluff and set it in the Mortal Realms in whatever place you like. Or you can say that your fluff is taking place before Age of Sigmar, for example, in Age of Myth, and so everything is different. This is truly fascinating.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more questions i asked of josh reynolds.

"What wonders do you imagine a person can see in the realm of life?"

Well, you've seen some of them already...walking glaciers, floating islands, vast Sargasso seas that form semi-solid pathways between islands. There are forests that move with the seasons, following the rains. Living mountains, where every scrap of lichen and burrowing beast are part of a single consciousness. Prides of green-maned ghyrlions, prowling the Wild Grasses of Veridia. The great stone skiffs of the Verdant Bay, that cut across the sargassum like blades. The reed-city of Gramin, a lagoon metropolis made from a single bed of reeds. Or even the Old Gardeners - immense constructs of mud and wood that see to the planting of new forests. Stuff like that.

 

What book are the old the Old Gardeners from?

One I'm starting work on in a week or two. I just made them up, so I should probably mention them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know much about the lore, I do care somewhat but havn't liked all lore. I am however happier with the lore written in Blades of Khorne. The style is different from Bloodbound and I like that a lot.

Personally I believe that Age of Sigmar just uses the rule of cool in its lore aswell. There are some limitations but not too many and frankly speaking we have just seen the tip of the iceberg as Games Workshop is far from finishing Age of Sigmar and even further from 'transforming' the factions so that they work very well and look cool for Age of Sigmar.

For me Age of Sigmar works with something I'd call 'He-man vibes' or "full fantasy" and I dont mind that. Its just important that the semi-historical Warhammer Fantasy fans should know that lorewise Age of Sigmar is a totally different world, not even world, universe I should say. :) 

Edited by Killax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed, it's DnD and Moorcock style high fantasy instead of Tolkien based fantasy in WHFB, and that's also great - not bad certainly. That's why everything is as it is - DnD meets Warhammer and Magic: the Gathering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-5 at 0:16 PM, Jamie the Jasper said:

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'.

Oh no, I actually came back to keep discussing things because a lot of the points raised were interesting, you know you guys are just so welcoming and friendly, I'm sure AoS has a bright future ahead when the community are so welcoming to people who weren't immediately convinced by it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yodhrin said:

Oh no, I actually came back to keep discussing things because a lot of the points raised were interesting, you know you guys are just so welcoming and friendly, I'm sure AoS has a bright future ahead when the community are so welcoming to people who weren't immediately convinced by it.

Ok, now were you sarcastic here? Technically speaking most people were quite friendly spare for one small eruption of a**hole behaviour but the quote you used makes me question your intentions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeratan said:

Ok, now were you sarcastic here? Technically speaking most people were quite friendly spare for one small eruption of a**hole behaviour but the quote you used makes me question your intentions.

I don't believe he was at all :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel in discussions like these that folks seem to be asking AoS lore to fulfil criteria that WFB never achieved. 

Basically for me AoS is superior as it provides a narrative vehicle that allows for the various factions/races/alliances to actually fight with each other. When reading WFB background it's quite apparent that Wars between quite a few of the races would have never happened, in fact it's highly likely that some wouldn't have ever even met. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, while all live in all places, and actually it's rather good as you can convert and paint your guys very differently according to the Realm they live in. GW seems to explore this, for example, one Fyreslayer lodge in Ghyran is known as Pale Slayers of Winter and uses wood sap to paint their crests. Or an Ironbark sylvaneth grove which lives in Chamon and has strong ties with the duardin in the area. Such variability really fascinates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna lie, this threads got me thinking about which Realm my Bloodbound hail from. Trouble is, I'm not 100% sure what all the Realms *are*. Could someone give me the rundown?

Dragonlover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-5 at 6:02 PM, Galas said:

I think that you are correct in the change of aesthetic, but is too comprensible that in every sci-fi/fantasy setting, the change is minimal. Just look Lord of the Rings. In like 4.000 years and they where basically the same.

Making a compelling and good aesthetic to your universe is difficult. Making one for every 20-30 years in-universe is a little impossible :D 

@Galas Sorry to be nitpicky, but something that tends to annoy me is that people assume Tolkien's world was stationary. It really wasn't. In the First Age (of the Sun), you have Humans essentially being tribal/clans, somewhere between late bronze age and early iron age. Then you have a 3 thousand year build up to the glory of Numenor (in real world parallels, think 17th Century with some magical elements that made them much much more so). That's essentially the Second Age. Then in the Third Age, the Dunedain in Exile start at a very highly advanced system, but gradually decline due to too many, constant, grinding wars, until you get to the point of the Third Age (where LoTR happens) where Gondor has dwindled to essentially not really understanding most of the technology that they use, their military tactics have become woefully inadequate and out of date, and most of the world of (Western) Men is technologically, socially, and population wise regressing (Arnor, for example, goes from Numenorean style glory to not existing and Eriador being almost totally depopulated).
And that's just the Edain/Numenoreans/Dunedain. The other tribes and groups of humans have different progressions, and different stages of technology too. Let alone what the Elves and Dwarves are like.

 

Now, as to WFB being limited, I'd actually argue that it was only as limited players let it be. The fluff frequently went out of its way to show different factions fighting, of humans being in Lustria for example, or Vampires, or various forms of Elves, etc and etc. Hell, it went into depth about groups of Lizardmen travelling around the world fighting everyone. It left things such as the Southlands as being somewhat ill defined for a reason, mostly of letting people have what AoS currently has, that is, the broadest brushstrokes for people to fill in the details themselves. Hell, the Border Princes were literally the perfect combination of the two general groups that seem to be emerging on this thread - those that think that fluff needs structure, and those that want no limitations - in that it was set out fairly detailed in terms of geography, and rough political history (in a grand sense of the world), but we knew practically nothing about it or who was Prince of what or where there. It literally says that Lords and Ladies of every race were there at points.
Now, as for me, I do get the issue with AoS fluff. I don't get the sense of connection, of immediacy, that I had when we were talking about the Old World - if Nuln was going to be destroyed, I understood that. I understood the threat, the stakes. It is very hard to get worked up the loss of a town of millions means nothing, because there are billions of such cities across reality. I have this issue with a lot of 40K fluff too - why should I care about one planet, unless there is a clear sector or segmentum wide reason to do so? There's hundreds of thousands more after all.
I think for me as well, the other issue that I have is that most of the fluff for AoS is Order, especially Stormcast, centric. And frankly I don't care about the Stormcasts. In nearly every way, I find them boring (in much the same way I find Grey Knights in 40K boring - on the tabletop, too tanky and killy to be interesting, in the fluff, too grimderp and noblebright). But with the majority of the fluff being told from their perspective, it's hard to get behind it, as I don't care what that part of Order are up to - Kharadron Overlords are interesting, what the Elves are up are interesting, what happened to new Freeguilders are interesting. THe Stormcasts? What is there that is interesting or particularly new?

I think that AoS can find its way to being a coherent setting and story, but at the moment, it is a little bit too comic booky, a little bit too "mythical", when mythical is used  by those that never looked into alternative world systems and got their Norse mythology from Marvel comics. By which I mean "This is is cool, therefore it is, even those this makes no sense according to other things that have happened". Saying it is mythical doesn't make sense to me - mythologies have their own internal logic, their own internal consistency. All mythologies do, as they are what a culture considers important. WFB had that, 40K has that, the Norse sagas and Arthurian legends have that, but AoS currently doesn't. It might develop it, but currently for me, it's a case of good rules, but not great fluff.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, after so much writing now, I'd disagree. The fluff is now developed and is only improving and broadening, but with consistency and such he has no problems at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

Oh no, I actually came back to keep discussing things because a lot of the points raised were interesting, you know you guys are just so welcoming and friendly, I'm sure AoS has a bright future ahead when the community are so welcoming to people who weren't immediately convinced by it.

This community tries, of course we disagree at times but largely I found we at least try to keep it "nice", but overall I personally like this place because it's so welcoming. Compared to most forums it feels more "Homey". 

14 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I always feel in discussions like these that folks seem to be asking AoS lore to fulfil criteria that WFB never achieved. 

Basically for me AoS is superior as it provides a narrative vehicle that allows for the various factions/races/alliances to actually fight with each other. When reading WFB background it's quite apparent that Wars between quite a few of the races would have never happened, in fact it's highly likely that some wouldn't have ever even met. 

This was also one of my personal annoyances as well, as someone who did vampire counts they largely did nothing in the empire and would never gain territory because it would disrupt the lore of the empire too much also chaos were the main "antagonists". Vampire counts just made mean faces sometimes, same case with the high elves and dark elves. 

Black library writers have said in interviews the problem they had with writing whfb stories is that things could not be disrupted and they felt "limited". They could not knock over nuln, they could not even give the dark elves any lasting victory due to possibly invalidating high elves etc.

Humans are not allowed anywhere near the ulthuan so you would never see humans aiding the high elves in their war against the dark elves or dark elves possibly deciding to invade the humans in retribution. I personally like in AOS that the races live together somewhat and certain factions also have their own personal holdings and cities. Case example the Pheonicum largely founded by the pheonix temple also have a large number of humans living there according to the disciple of tzeentch tome as scribes. 

Of course this is all personal taste, some might feel differently. 

Edited by shinros
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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...