Jump to content

The "logic" of the AoS setting?


Recommended Posts

10 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. 

 

4 hours ago, Killax said:

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 ;)

@rokapoke I'm not sure what you're looking for, but the definitions, or at least the in-depth descriptions of the genres have been provided above, courtesy of @Killax:)

My own post was mainly for pointing out that Game of Thrones is low fantasy (which it is, although you can also just call it 'fantasy') 

The epic fantasy link on the wiki will redirect you to high fantasy, so either epic fantasy is not a genre (I did think it was, but I might be mistaken in my terminology, and it exists under a different name) or the wiki haven't made a topic of it. Either way, the genre I thought 'epic fantasy' represented is basically high fantasy cranked up to 11, which is my impression of what Age of Sigmar is (if anyone knows the proper terminology for epic fantasy, I would appreciate the correction ;) )

You can just call all of it 'fantasy' though. Even sci-fi, if you're up for it ;)

Hope that covers your request. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@xking allready provides some info about shadow eating wolves, fire clowns, man-eating castles and likely more crazy things.
So yeah, to me Epic Fantasy would be what it is... I also think that He-Man had this same sort of stuff (Mighty Max toys also). 
Moral really is that almost everything goes in Age of Sigmar and I think those who can enjoy 'silly Fantasy' aswell can enjoy Age of Sigmar also.

If you look at the artwork of Age of Sigmar closely you'll also notice a distinct lack of clear blood and gore, stuff that was around in WFB. While the AoS narrative does include it it also shows how GW tries to cater to a slightly different market with AoS as it used to do with WFB. With this I mean that you can expect 'silly stuff' to become part of AoS because this is also what can be fun.

Khadadron Overlords recieved some flak aswell and now seems fully embraced. I personally see Nagash as a updated variant of Skelator and Stormcast/Sigmar as the He-Man of our story. :) 

Most importantly though, if you can't enjoy the logic or lore, just don't read too much into it. I heavily dislike the lore in Bloodbound and like the Blades of Khorne lore version (of the same stuff) more. As I felt the depth of Bloodbound stopped at cannibals and headcollectors while Blades of Khorne depicts them as a clear Legion of Khorne and woeful enemy to Order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to people not liking the AoS narrative and/or setting, I can't help but wonder how much of the available material they've actually read, and how much off their opinion is based on scraps of second-hand information pieced together on forums. I do wonder if some people are judging it based on what they think it is rather than what it actually is.

If you don't like the setting/narrative, and chance you could let us know which of the battletomes, novels, etc you've read? Would be very interesting to find out how much material (and which material) people are basing their views on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I can't help but wonder how much of the available material they've actually read,

In most cases such people read next to nothing really.

24 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I do wonder if some people are judging it based on what they think it is rather than what it actually is.

This.

24 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

If you don't like the setting/narrative, and chance you could let us know which of the battletomes, novels, etc you've read? Would be very interesting to find out how much material (and which material) people are basing their views on.

 

Most people would hardly prove that, and those who dislike only because of hate and destroying the Old World won't even bother changing their arguments even if they were already proved wrong. For example, on one Russian forum there was a horrible rant when the Fyreslayers came out, one of the reasons that they wear too little clothing. In their tome it's explained, as well all other things about them, like their life outside the battle or how their lodges are organized. It mattered little to those just hating AoS in any form, they still cling to the only remaining point of half-nakedness of the slayers even if they are shown of old Adrian Smith's art with just such kind of slayers (but still in WHFB). When the intellect is low at its best, all other things don't really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

When it comes to people not liking the AoS narrative and/or setting, I can't help but wonder how much of the available material they've actually read, and how much off their opinion is based on scraps of second-hand information pieced together on forums. I do wonder if some people are judging it based on what they think it is rather than what it actually is.

If you don't like the setting/narrative, and chance you could let us know which of the battletomes, novels, etc you've read? Would be very interesting to find out how much material (and which material) people are basing their views on.

Indeed, I still remember meeting one guy on a convention who was convinced (by forums) that AoS has, urgh, Twilight vampires. So, yeah people will believe anything they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Killax said:

...

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.

Funny enough, Gary Gygax based the earliest version of D&D off of a wargame rules set that he had worked on called Chainmail.  RPGs and Wargames are inexorably linked together since the creation of the published RPG.

5 hours ago, Killax said:

...

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.

Which can be represented in narrative battles and campaigns put together by GW itself or by the playerbase.  How about a battle that is a small band of attackers going after a caravan that follows behind a larger marching army?  Or defenders trying to stop invaders before the castle wall is finished?  Or an enemy force is trying bring down one of the floating continents (mentioned in the Kharadron Overlords book) and crush an entire nation into paste?  The vagueness of the setting allows for different scale of conflict and resolution to be had, and with GW not writing up any more than they have, they are giving us, the fans, the opportunity to tell our own stories in their setting.

Age of Sigmar is, IMHO, more akin to the RPG side of tabletop gaming, while Warmahordes is purely a wargame (what with no opportunity to customize your own fluff out of the setting).  40K is in the middle with its combination of large scale and defined events, and WHFB is more like a historical wargame with magic as it is a set world with some room for personal fluff and customization.

On topic, I kind of think that the movie Flash Gordon is a good idea of what could happen in Age of Sigmar, especially with the Kharadron Overlords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Grimma said:

I think the AoS 'setting' is pretty feeble, and I would much rather play in a more fleshed out and coherent setting.

It only appears so but not what it really is, although it takes time, of course, for fleshing out does not last 2 years, it needs decades at best. But as it is now it is more than fleshed out and coherent.

23 minutes ago, Grimma said:

Playing in Middle Earth means you don't randomly get steam-punk-sky-dwarves dropping in for no particular reason. N

But you do get a 10 thousand Uruk-hai from nowhere in no time (the Professor, sadly, didn't clearly stated how Saruman achieved that and how he created all that guys), or a cursed by Isildur mountain tribe out of sheer air when it was needed. This is not that easy, you know. 

9 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Age of Sigmar is, IMHO, more akin to the RPG side of tabletop gaming,

indeed it is, that's why the world and game are more suitable for things like Hammerhal and Silver Tower rather than fighting large battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grimma said:

Well God bless you if you think the AoS setting is coherent, you're entitled to that opinion. ;)

 

 
 

I don't think, I know, because I've read all the fluff there currently is.

1 hour ago, Grimma said:

To compare dropping a group who seem to have no real connection to anything else, indeed don't even seem to be bound by the same physical laws as the rest of the setting,

 
 

They were mentioned before and the laws are the same. They just live in the air.

1 hour ago, Grimma said:

There are a number of reasonable theories about Saruman's army, but again, ultimately this is a matter of taste.

Theories are nothing, it's a trash. Matters only what is written, and Tolkien left out lots of blank space, maybe for a reader to think it all over himself, who knows. After all, he also didn't strive to write about anything after all.

1 hour ago, Grimma said:

AoS is a just a series of things that look cool piled one on top of the other.

No, it's not.

1 hour ago, Grimma said:

Tolkein's world is designed from the ground up.

And it took decades, surprisingly - that was not the case from the start, and GW is writing it constantly as well. FB was also an undeveloped world initially, for it can't be that it is so without years and years of development.

1 hour ago, Grimma said:

it's just that, as a setting, it doesn't appeal to me as much as one that is thought th

It will be, but as of yet it's developed just fine and has a stable solid base. For two years it's a good result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that this discussion went in this direction but what is even more absurd is comparing a universe developed for decades by a linguist and an expert on norse (and germanic) myths to a 2 years old tt wargame setting. Naturall the former is more detailed with languages etc. and obviously the latter has less raw content as well as polish. Which is fine  as it's constantly developed (unlike Tolkien's setting which is so limited and constraining that writers on Shadows of war videogame have to rewrite an important part of history so they can create events of any significance).

Also saying that AoS is just a bunch of random characters thrown together in a ruleless world shows that you didn't bother to read much about it and is rather disrespectfull towards people who spent a lot of time putting together all the previous comments explaining the setting as well as it's values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Funny enough, Gary Gygax based the earliest version of D&D off of a wargame rules set that he had worked on called Chainmail.  RPGs and Wargames are inexorably linked together since the creation of the published RPG.

Which can be represented in narrative battles and campaigns put together by GW itself or by the playerbase.  How about a battle that is a small band of attackers going after a caravan that follows behind a larger marching army?  Or defenders trying to stop invaders before the castle wall is finished?  Or an enemy force is trying bring down one of the floating continents (mentioned in the Kharadron Overlords book) and crush an entire nation into paste?  The vagueness of the setting allows for different scale of conflict and resolution to be had, and with GW not writing up any more than they have, they are giving us, the fans, the opportunity to tell our own stories in their setting.

Age of Sigmar is, IMHO, more akin to the RPG side of tabletop gaming, while Warmahordes is purely a wargame (what with no opportunity to customize your own fluff out of the setting).  40K is in the middle with its combination of large scale and defined events, and WHFB is more like a historical wargame with magic as it is a set world with some room for personal fluff and customization.

On topic, I kind of think that the movie Flash Gordon is a good idea of what could happen in Age of Sigmar, especially with the Kharadron Overlords.

Yeah it's really cool how that blends together. As above I also see He-Man influences in Age of Sigmar. The golden armoured Hero is not something too new to me :)

As for smaller battles, Narrative play has that covered for you... Path to Glory isn't only fantastic, it can also, if you wish, generate your whole Army or Warband at random. All Wall defending, hunting or nation battles are also found in all the Battletomes :D! 

AoS is certainly a blend of RPG and tabletop gaming. WarmaHordes came from that but decided to not stick to it's orginal RPG roots. What I see is that GW is going back to it, just like Warhammer 1st to 3rd edition where heavily RPG influenced army games. I will also tell you that in those Glory days the content GW made for that time was ahead of it's time and by comparison the best content they ever made. (Without it World of Warcraft wouldn't even excisted, not Starcraft, due to how 40K followed after).

Flash Gordon, He-man, Marvel and DC comics all creative designs who match AoS'. I really like WFB lore, currently think it's better as AoS' but compairing the two is also like compairing a 2 year old to a 30 year old in terms of what they archived in their lifetime. Which is a bit unfair :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Killax said:

As above I also see He-Man influences in Age of Sigmar.

Certainly. And, by the way, the old film with Dolph Lundgren is awesome - I've watched it many times in my childhood. High Fantasy as it is :)

30 minutes ago, Killax said:

AoS is certainly a blend of RPG and tabletop gaming.

It is. If the late WHFB editions were mass scaled army battles and politics and wars were the most interesting in them, AoS is the opposite - small skirmishes and role elements like seeking artifacts or vying for Realmgates are much better made than large scale clashes. Which is also fine. 

32 minutes ago, Killax said:

I really like WFB lore, currently think it's better as AoS' but compairing the two is also like compairing a 2 year old to a 30 year old in terms of what they archived in their lifetime. Which is a bit unfair

 

And what's more, they have a different base and approach to creation so it's very hard to compare them by all means.

24 minutes ago, Grimma said:

Also, for what it's worth, the comparison to Tolkien is not between the books and AoS, but between the wargaming system set in Tolkien's world vs the AoS 'setting'. 

 

Because, obviously, the game is based on books, though loosely - much more based on films, and GW has created lots of what in books does not exist. But again, AoS setting is not far away from this in terms of basing and core rules, especially if comparing it to the "Silmarillion" - they will be quite similar in all aspects then. After some decade or two AoS will be as set as LotR after Tolkien spent much more time to write all he wanted (or tried at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Grimma said:

No, what you'll have after two decades of AoS is a much bigger pile of random cool stuff piled one on top of the other, not a coherent world. No matter how much more Mad-libs you play it won't make more sense.

Makes plenty of sense to me and it's rather coherent as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grimma said:

Playing in Middle Earth means you don't randomly get steam-punk-sky-dwarves dropping in for no particular reason. Now, that's a plus for me, because narratively they don't make any sense, but in terms of miniature war-gaming, they are certainly cool.

Except that they have been narratively added. Makes sense to me. Dwarfs already have airships. We know they have larger ones than gyrocopters in WHFB. Chaos rampages over all the things. So some dwarfs think sod it and follow technology to the point of literally flying away. Isolation leads to individualism. Now Kharadrons. Start, middle, and now. Narratively makes sense.

Starting to think you just don't like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Grimma said:

No, what you'll have after two decades of AoS is a much bigger pile of random cool stuff piled one on top of the other, not a coherent world. No matter how much more Mad-libs you play it won't make more sense.

 

Of course not. I guess this is the only argument people always repeat as they didn't read anything on the subject. Well, if AoS is not coherent, DnD, MtG and Norse and Indian myths are not too - which is dumm, is it not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Grimma said:

You're not going to convince me that AoS makes any sense at all.

I didn't want to. :)

6 minutes ago, Grimma said:

Like it or not, you can't deny it's ridiculous.

Like it or not, you can't claim it's not coherent.

6 minutes ago, Grimma said:

the writing and narrative is impossible to take seriously.

In fact it's possible. If you are not into high fantasy, then many other settings are closed to you too - which is fine as well. If you are, then it's just as good as any. After all, LotR, GoT or WHFB have lots of unbelievable and dumm things, which, on the other hand, don't make them bad or ridiculous if you like the style and genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...