The "logic" of the AoS setting?

[Grimma]

Precisely.

[Killax]

Logic is really what narrative says is logical :). I think the prime difference for players who really like WFB world to 'like' AoS is that you need to realize that Age of Sigmar is set in a universe and not a a single world. Because of this certain non-Earth-like transportations are required  .

In addition to that I think a lot of players liked WFB's mix of historical and fantasy figures. Such as 'French' Brettonia, 'German' Empire or 'Norse' Chaos Warriors. If your capable of letting that go and see every faction as a complete different race it will general work out.

As said before, the moment I got the He-man vibe I slowly began to like AoS' setting. All in all you just need to like the models to start liking the game and what I like most of all is how well these models match up with the actual art.
WFB had some amazing art aswell but the models typically didn't look like the art for a mighty long time.

[Menkeroth]

This. You nailed it, Killax.

[Grimma]

.

[Menkeroth]

It only seems, and certainly not worse than FB was, which, by the way, was also very poorly justified for all to fight all. And of course, one can't compare AoS to Middle Earth, they are even very differently made, for a start, and nothing GW has done from that perspective can be close to what was created by a man who knew exactly what he was doing. After all, Tokien was a specialist in germanic and scandinavian mythology and languages, and even though GW spent decades polishing their creations, they were but his bleak copies. But it suffices.

[Grimma]

.

[Menkeroth]

7 minutes ago, Grimma said:

It's just really clear that the setting is just some nonsense that sounds like some sort of fantasy da-da project.

Of course not.

8 minutes ago, Grimma said:

or Martin

He, by the way, is also not that special writer (though not bad). But, for instance, Andrzei Sapkowski is.

 

9 minutes ago, Grimma said:

because I find the LoTR game too unwieldy.

it depends of which you prefer. Strategic game is indeed a bit overcomplexed, but LotR RPG is more or less balanced.

10 minutes ago, Grimma said:

I'm also happy to have a non-narrative game where "and then these steam-punk sky dwarves arrived" is about all you get in terms of logic.

No, not all, though it does not change "and then they arrived", but it's always the case when a world is being made like this, it can't be the other way 'round. AoS has just the same logic as Indian or Scandinavian mythology and that's obvious as they were made this way. LotR was created in the likeness of how monotheistic religions do it.

[Grimma]

.

[Menkeroth]

GoT (which, by the way, is not an universe, it's a very small planet) is not an epic fantasy either. Conan, however, is - or DnD for that matter, and this is precisely what AoS is - Dnd meeting warhammer and MtG to some degree. Nothing here is random, especially since AoS was developed long before WHFB died. This, for example, can be seen in some 8th edition books like Wood Elves - they were slowly driving towards the new style those times as well.

[Grimma]

.

[Mayple]

1 hour ago, Grimma said:

I'm not sure what definition of 'epic fantasy' would exclude GoT, but whatever - it is coherent, both narratively and in world-building terms. It's not just a fantasy-trope-salad like AoS.

Low-fantasy (GoT)

High fantasy (Lotr)

Epic fantasy (Age of Sigmar)

[Grimma]

.

[rokapoke]

1 hour ago, Mayple said:

Low-fantasy (GoT)

High fantasy (Lotr)

Epic fantasy (Age of Sigmar)

Can you give definitions rather than examples? I'd personally just call each of these "fantasy" and be perfectly happy about that. 

[Killax]

6 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Can you give definitions rather than examples? I'd personally just call each of these "fantasy" and be perfectly happy about that. 

Well it's only relevant if you want to further sub-catogorize Fantasy genres.

Wikipedia has put quite some time into all possible genres that became popular. I'd say GW even made up their own before with the Dark Grim Fantasy, AoS in my opinion is also something new. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy#By_theme_.28subgenres.29

The moral for me is, don't try to label things as good or bad, Age of Sigmar unlike Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones is not a novel or trying to sell stroies as their prime selling point. It is a game, all content created for it is there to sell miniatures not books.
Unlike novels, Age of Sigmar is also not finished yet, meaning that there will be a continious battle with open ends. Like there was in WFB up until Archaon blew up the place .

In a way this is also where the He-man parralel can be drawn. That cartoon was made to sell He-man figures, merchandise and even games. So if you think the Age of Sigmar stories can't compair to Lord of the Rings your right, this is also because they are not trying to sell you the same product either.

[Zeratan]

6 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Can you give definitions rather than examples? I'd personally just call each of these "fantasy" and be perfectly happy about that. 

Sadly humans have a strong drive to label everything which makes sense to a certain degree but can be annoying when it comes to a discussion like this.

Also can we just all agree that comparing AoS to works of Tolkien, the man who spent decades building his world and is regarded as one of the best writers of all time is simply unfair? Sure, both AoS and Silmarilion have mythological vibe to them and they have fantasy worlds inhabited by people suffering from species-wide dwarfism and barrel-chest syndrome (dwarves/duardin), slim folk with Satyr ears and elitist attitude (elves/aelfs) etc. but they are otherwise vastly different.

[Killax]

10 hours ago, Grimma said:

A flimsy attempt to justify a bunch of crazy models fighting each other. That's ok, ultimately I'm happy to play it as a fun fighting game with cool models and no cohesive narrative.

Well, that's exactly what it should be. As above, Age of Sigmar is about miniatures. Narrative certainly has a good influence on how characters are portrayed but the prime reason as to why Age of Sigmar is evolving the way it is is because you can see where GW puts the priorities.

Game started, just a few rules (and a ton of miniatures), game continued with more rules and narrative. Tying in narrative to excuse battles is sometimes a forced process and will not generate the same depth as you see between 'character build up first then battle' as is the case in Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.

9 hours ago, Menkeroth said:

GoT (which, by the way, is not an universe, it's a very small planet) is not an epic fantasy either. Conan, however, is - or DnD for that matter, and this is precisely what AoS is - Dnd meeting warhammer and MtG to some degree. Nothing here is random, especially since AoS was developed long before WHFB died. This, for example, can be seen in some 8th edition books like Wood Elves - they were slowly driving towards the new style those times as well.

Absolutely.

Also for those unaware. DnD is the parent of both Warhammer Fantasy and Magic the Gathering. Due to the popularity of DnD both Games Workshop and Wizards had the briliant idea to translate DnD from dice and paper to miniatures and playing cards. Due to this being back in the early 90s a lot of nerd cash build up these compagnies  

Both Warhammer and Magic the Gathering furthermore influenced other games, such as World of Warcraft. So despite the popular WoW brand it wouldn't have excisted the way it does now without Warhammer and MtG. In that same way, without DnD Warhammer wouldn't even be around.

[Killax]

8 minutes ago, Zeratan said:

Sadly humans have a strong drive to label everything which makes sense to a certain degree but can be annoying when it comes to a discussion like this.

Also can we just all agree that comparing AoS to works of Tolkien, the man who spent decades building his world and is regarded as one of the best writers of all time is simply unfair? Sure, both AoS and Silmarilion have mythological vibe to them and they have fantasy worlds inhabited by people suffering from species-wide dwarfism and barrel-chest syndrome (dwarves/duardin), slim folk with Satyr ears and elitist attitude (elves/aelfs) etc. but they are otherwise vastly different.

It's not only unfair, it's also nonsensical.
Age of Sigmar is a miniatures game.
Lord of the Rings is a trilogy of books.

It would be the same as saying Pokémon's story isn't as great as Harry Potters. Which is also true because one brand aims to sell cards while the other went for books. The end result of the stories used for this 'product' has completely different quality labels.

To some extend a lot of people are compairing trains with cars here. Sure one can carry more weight and freight. The train will also always have the same set destination. While other can be converted and brings you where you want to go yourself.

So pick and choose:
- Better selling games: Games Workshop blows Tolkien out of the water.  
- Better selling books: Tolkien blows Games Workshop out of the water.

[Nin Win]

Genre is just about expectations, so definitions aren't the most useful thing.  There can be elements present that people expect in high fantasy in low fantasy but presented in a different way.  Most people have ideas in their head about what they expect to see and not expect to see in a particular genre but the author is then free to play on those expectations, use them to surprise and so on.  Just what those expectations are will be distributed among the population in different ways based on prior exposure to other materials and a variety of factors.

In the end, it's not really fruitful to talk about genre as hard categories.  It's only really useful in terms of writing technique and figuring out what matches your particular arrangement of expectations and even then, things don't fit into neat categories.

I don't know what the major influences have been on say, Josh Reynolds, but if I had to guess, he's been exposed to a lot of 1920s through 40s weird fiction and sword & sorcery stuff.

[Zeratan]

36 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

Genre is just about expectations, so definitions aren't the most useful thing.  There can be elements present that people expect in high fantasy in low fantasy but presented in a different way.  Most people have ideas in their head about what they expect to see and not expect to see in a particular genre but the author is then free to play on those expectations, use them to surprise and so on.  Just what those expectations are will be distributed among the population in different ways based on prior exposure to other materials and a variety of factors.

In the end, it's not really fruitful to talk about genre as hard categories.  It's only really useful in terms of writing technique and figuring out what matches your particular arrangement of expectations and even then, things don't fit into neat categories.

I don't know what the major influences have been on say, Josh Reynolds, but if I had to guess, he's been exposed to a lot of 1920s through 40s weird fiction and sword & sorcery stuff.

So essentialy works make genres not other way around so we shouldn't demand from AoS (or any other work of fiction) to obey the rules of certain category but (if one feels the need to do so) analyse it to determine which label could possibly fit it (if any).

[Nin Win]

1 hour ago, Zeratan said:

So essentialy works make genres not other way around so we shouldn't demand from AoS (or any other work of fiction) to obey the rules of certain category but (if one feels the need to do so) analyse it to determine which label could possibly fit it (if any).

I think so.  Basically the category only has "rules" so the author can make decisions about when to break them and when not to.  So the story they produce is what they want the reader to experience.  Familiarity gets people to get comfortable with a work of fiction but we also enjoy being surprised.

As for analyzing it for the point of categorization, I'd say that's only really useful when you actually have something to say about it.  For example, I went on a huge dark fantasy and weird fiction kick for about half a decade and those general categories were useful in determining what I should put on my reading list, and to get the opinion of others as to what I might enjoy that I didn't know about.  In terms of categorization for its own sake, that's usually less about communicating and more about being right on the internet.  Most "what genre is warhammer?" discussions I see end up getting lost in irrelevant details and end up not really serving any purpose other than winning an argument on the internet.  

Basically if someone were to say "I really like the Age of Sigmar , what other books out there might I enjoy?" then I think they'd get suggestions that cross genre lines as a lot of people would like to have them in a dictionary or encyclopedia.  Even book publishers have been moving away from hard categories given the advent of online stores that can make suggestions based on what other people have also read and enjoyed rather than a "sci-fi" "fantasy" or "horror" label applied at the publisher level.  Those labels are still used because there are people who use them to make purchasing decisions, but they're becoming less and less important.  Book stores are starting to see more and more sales driven by tailored suggestions and general trends of enjoyment in reviews by the same user than those browsing by category.

TLDR version:  Genre is a tool, not the truth about books.

[Menkeroth]

Gut gesagt - indeed it's so. And as far as cohesion is concerned, it was there from the start, because otherwise it could not exist in its current form.

[Killax]

The thing with any creative work is that I believe the best creations are unique in many ways possible. With this I also mean that I'd personally be more upset if Age of Sigmar was a vague reflection of Lord of the Rings instead of what it is now.

I personally am not a huge fan of all written fiction on Age of Sigmar but also think that the game is so new that compairing it to other works of fiction isn't really fair nor contributing a good opinion on what is written. All I can say is that Games Workshop is not known for producing novels, Black Liberary is but to assume that all GW wants is to produce good fiction is just simply not the prime driving point behind the compagnies. Brick and mortar GW stores arn't filled with books afterall, they are filled with miniatures.

I believe that Games Workshop uses its fiction to improve the game's experience and not to create so much narrative that the game has to follow it's 'rules'. To give another Lord of the Rings example; It's actually difficult to create a game for Lord of the Rings that is not about the 'Journey of the Ring'. For game-design this actually much more restrictive as some seem to realize. Because the path to deliver the Ring is set in stone. Frodo and fellowship will not suddenly be on the other end of the world.

Age of Sigmar is a game that revolves around battle. Because of this all it's narrative is focused on that. To some extend this is very illogical because you cannot historically use examples of worlds that are in constant battle. As historic logic would dictate that there are no resources to do such a thing.
So without doubt, Age of Sigmar will become a universe capable of doing such a thing, because it's what the game is about. This is also reflected in their models. They are very dynamic and prepaired for battle. We don't see miniatures sculpted as if they are resting, falling in love or building cities. Cool as it might me, that's currently not what the Age of Sigmar game is about.

The same sort of discussion was also held on the narrative for The Ninth Age game, a game made for veteran fans of the old WFB content. They will focus on a more historical fantasy setting, a setting that more or less matches what players like about Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones for example.
The prime reason I have an issue with that is that a lot of such fiction isn't really relevant for a game unless you can amulate that fiction. Having cities build and troops trained is a very cool part of fiction but useless for a game to me unless you can emulate that.
- As an example; Skarr dies and returns; the game can emulate that, the same applies to Stormcast.
- If AoS lore would go into detail about how castles and worlds are created I'd expect the game to allow you to emulate this, else such fiction is 'filler' stuff you read before the core of it; battle.

[Nin Win]

I've always taken the "there is only war" pronouncements for both AoS and 40k with a grain of salt.  "An army marches on its stomach" (whether this was original said by Frederick the Great, Napoleon or Galen isn't known).  War requires industry.  Industry requires work which requires society.  Even in the very first Realm Gate novels there is mention of slaves working away at Khul's forges and the some of the first characters introduced in the realm of fire are human nomads who are fleeing from the servants of Khorne.  They must do something to live.  They are there in the story to provide a contrast with the stormcast.  They are the eyes that you get to meet the stormcasts through.  So normal humans are definitely a thing from the start.  And that means familiar stuff to us that is not just "there is only war."

Even when we think about times of total war in our history, when we look closer we actually find that things are not so cut and dry.  Even during WW2 Germany didn't go on a total war economic footing until very late in the conflict.

[Menkeroth]

You are right. Also as examples you meet nomads in the stories of Thostos Bladestorm ("Manticore Dreadhold"), with some pictures of their everyday lives, and in "City of Secrets" (the best and detailed so far), and in Hammerhal. So this is not a problem after all, and also there are details on how others live in their battletomes. 

[Zeratan]

24 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

I've always taken the "there is only war" pronouncements for both AoS and 40k with a grain of salt.  "An army marches on its stomach" (whether this was original said by Frederick the Great, Napoleon or Galen isn't known).  War requires industry.  Industry requires work which requires society.  Even in the very first Realm Gate novels there is mention of slaves working away at Khul's forges and the some of the first characters introduced in the realm of fire are human nomads who are fleeing from the servants of Khorne.  They must do something to live.  They are there in the story to provide a contrast with the stormcast.  They are the eyes that you get to meet the stormcasts through.  So normal humans are definitely a thing from the start.  And that means familiar stuff to us that is not just "there is only war."

Even when we think about times of total war in our history, when we look closer we actually find that things are not so cut and dry.  Even during WW2 Germany didn't go on a total war economic footing until very late in the conflict.

I would say that giving rules to various theatres of war across the Realms gives at least a little meaning to the places armies fight for. 

On the subject of economy it's almost funny how many factions are constantly on the move searching for food, coin etc. and on top of that most of them aren't labled as 'evil' (in way too many settings nomads=terrible barbarians).

Also that very first AoS story let's us see people react to Stormcasts in a logical way: "magical and dangerous- must be daemons!" If GW truly didn't care as some folk claim those nomads would be awed and bow to their new golden&kobalt overlods.