Are you a fan of the old GW lore? Data gathering to test a theory!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Baron wrote:

    Oh, I didn't mean knowledge loss by plague.

    It was the dark ages and the barbaric peoples(namely Gauls) that caused knowledge loss as they destroyed many of the great works of the Romans. Even Charlemagne's library did not escape their wrath when he tried to bring about a early Renaissance.
    Please stop before you embarrass yourself further :)

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; UPRISING 2018 - 26/27 May - Singles Tournament
  • Giladis wrote:

    Human nations will be just as fantasy as the rest of the setting, with mythical stuff, magic and wonder. What the B&A team is trying to achieve is that the entire world follows a certain logic, or if you want to call it a set of rules that makes it much more believable. So no more plagues that reduce the population to the point knowledge is lost and has to be reinvented from almost scratch, or apocalyptic battles every few years that would require insane logistics to maintain armies fighting in them and leave the manpool so depleted it would take generations to recover.

    The 9th Age is fantasy but it will be consistent fantasy.
    But all this makes a good read. I don't care about 'a logical fantasy world', thats not what drives me into a good narrative. 'Oh wow! This is so logical that it might actual have happened in our own history' (not being spiteful, just picturing myself reading a logical fantasy novel) :) If this is your main goal for a new fantasy setting, I'm afraid you are deemed to fail.

    By the way, the written language of the Norse was lost after the black plague here in Norway, so knowledge can be lost (at least for a very long time) after a plague that wipes out "all" scholars. We had to "invent" a new language :)

    I agree with Vazalaar, Warhammer found the good balance between fantasy and our history. Historic enough that I recognized and identify with its narrative, and fantasy enough that it was foreign, unexpected and new. Look at the narrative and world of Age of Sigmar, that narrative went too far to the side of fantasy and its totally foreign to me and I have a hard time identifying with its setting (at times I have no clue what the hell I'm reading :P ). What I'm trying to say, be careful so you don't go too far over to the side of world history and logic.
    #freekillerinstinct - Killer Instinct for all Dread Elves!

    Painted armies for sale:
    Coming soon: Kingdom of Equitaine Army
  • What i liked in the old fluff, was that it got my imagination running.
    I have been playing DE exclusively for 20 something years (bought a 5th ed in 1995...) and obviously getting into it:

    The Witch king and his crazy plotting mother, Hellebron and her struggle for influence and of course, Malus Darkblade. I loved those characters as they where a full part of the hobby. Think for a minute to all those people who have written stories about the old world for hours before publishing them in forums feeding yet again the whole thing with their own additions. Role playing and creating one's own character is only possible within a certain existing environement be it fantasy or real.

    It wasn't perfect (a backstabbing sociopath society is not to go very far) but it was deep enough to make of it what suited me.

    The old lore is dead and buried period. I think it's sad but nonetheless, there's nothing we can do exept ask GW lawyers not to sue us to hell for misuse of IP or what's theirs in it, which is not going to happen.

    We do need a new lore, but we also need to remember that the former one got a lot of us into this game. I do not want Dread elves singing love songs picking up flowers.
  • Angord wrote:

    We do need a new lore, but we also need to remember that the former one got a lot of us into this game. I do not want Dread elves singing love songs picking up flowers.
    Not even if they're 'love songs' about romance over the bodies of their slain enemies and poisonous flowers?
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Baron wrote:

    the shadow goat wrote:

    I liked the GW world. But the one and all important thing for me is consistency. I do not want two different fluff sources to contradict each other. I hope T9A keeps an eye on this :)
    Even if the contradiction comes from different in-universe sources? (Probably not what you meant, but wanted to ask)
    I'm perfectly okay with dwarfs and elves all having their own version of who is to blame for the fights between them for example. I meant a real contradiction, like a character dying in one story but still living in another story at a later time.
    Revere the ancestors, obey your king, bear your arms with pride, fear no foe, hate the Greenskin, mistrust the Elf, and you can do no wrong.
  • lawgnome wrote:






    My theory is this: the people who have the biggest connection to the old lore and the people who keep asking for things like the old special characters are all people who primarily play the main story races (HBE, DH, WoDG, etc.)

    The reason for this theory is this - I think the old lore is utter crap. Absolute garbage. Terrible writing. The worst case of Mary Sue writing I have ever seen (this is all my own personal opinion, and my opinion only. Please don't take offense if you liked it). So it was a little surprising to me to read comments from people saying that they much prefer the old lore and don't care what the new lore is, even though my opinion on what I have read so far is that the new lore has been a great improvement.

    I am just trying to determine why other people liked the lore so much when I disliked it so heartily. I think that the reason is that my two armies apparently had no bearing on the world at large, while other people are attached to lore showing how great their own army is.
    Very interesting issue.

    Personally I think the fact that some of the lore was terribly written doesn't necessarily mean anything bad.

    I mean, many people love ancient Greek history, but to them reading Herodotus is impossible. A setting, a lore, is not only the "stories", but also "impressions" and atmospheres, and in general A story which is not necessarily linked to a narration.

    The old lore was a 30yo story developed on such a level of complexity that everyone can identify in a race, a character, a province of the Empire, a Bloodline of vampires. The fact that specific stories, sub-plots and other details were crap to some people (I'm not saying they weren't, it's just a matter of taste of course) doesn't necessary mean the setting in it's entirety was crap.

    Last but not least, never forget people doesn't like change in general. More than this, if you started with the old lore when you were 12 y.o and you are today 35 (such as me, for example) it's very hard to change, because you are changing something you grew up with in the last 20 years.

    People need time to adapt and love new things.

    Display Spoiler

    A jackal, O Karna, residing in the forest in the midst of hares regardeth himself a lion till he actually sees a lion.


    Display Spoiler

    Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento
    (Hae tibi erunt artes), pacique imponere morem,
    Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.


  • @grim squeaker


    grim squeaker wrote:

    Warhammer found the good balance between fantasy and our history. Historic enough that I recognized and identify with its narrative, and fantasy enough that it was foreign, unexpected and new. Look at the narrative and world of Age of Sigmar, that narrative went too far to the side of fantasy and its totally foreign to me and I have a hard time identifying with its setting (at times I have no clue what the hell I'm reading ). What I'm trying to say, be careful so you don't go too far over to the side of world history and logic.
    What army is your favorite? Was there any part of the old lore that you particularly liked? Was there any part of the old lore that you particularly disliked?
  • I don't think it's as really as black and white as the poll wants it to be. I liked certain parts of the old fluff. While I liked the chaos gods I think they could of been a lot more complex. I think Khorne could of always been a little more interesting than "ghhrr I'm angry, kill, kill, kill".

    The new fluff was very watered down compared to the stuff I read back in 4th and 5th.
  • I know I don't post often, but lore is something I care quite a bit for so I'd like to share some feedback.

    My relationship with Warhammer lore is a bit complicated. I liked a lot of the ideas and images that the lore evoked. I laughed at the jokes. I appreciated the breadth and variety of themes and cultural/historical inspirations. I found lots of things that were cool or funny that I have grown fond of. Things like how Orcs and Goblins talk, how Slayers look, how Dwarfs and Elves behave, especially around each other. There was a lot to like.

    But like @lawgnome, I found a lot of it absolutely dreadful in practice. Shameless hyperbole, fan-service (I'm looking at you, Dark Elves), and "grim-darkness" never fail to elicit an involuntary eye-roll from me. I didn't buy or read the End Times books, but the synopses I read did not inspire confidence. I have my doubts that I could make it through a Black Library novel, though I'm willing to give it a shot on a dare.

    I really appreciate @Giladis comments about consistency. A lot of the things I read about Warhammer made me question if such a world or if any such societies could even function realistically. As "gritty" as I've heard it described, it never really tried to be mature, or even just to be serious. I always have a laugh whenever I hear someone saying that the Warhammer lore is "better" than the works of a more thoughtful author like Tolkein. That's an apples-to-oranges comparison if I've ever heard one.

    I guess what it comes down to is that I didn't like the lore at all, actually. What I liked was the aesthetic. As such, with some thought, some skill, and some philosophy I dare say it could be improved by a lot.

    FYI, I liked the background/aesthetic for some factions better than others. It's hard for me to pick a favourite, so I'll just go in order of how much money I've spent on each army, which roughly correlates to how much I like them. For the rest that I haven't spent any money on over nearly two decades since I started playing, I probably didn't like very much.

    1. Dwarfs
    2. Bretonnia
    3. Orcs & Goblins
    4. High Elves
    5. Wood Elves
    6. Lizardmen
    7. Skaven
    8. Empire
  • Elves, dwarves, demons, monsters magic powers already break the suspension of disbelief. No one is reading a fantasy story about a mammoth battle and worrying about how it was funded, where the toilets are, how the crops are back home. Most just want action and adventure without thinking about census statistics or logistics behind the making of an army.

    There are plenty of historical miniature battle games for realism out there, by playing fantasy games we have already agreed to break the realism and expect a single hero to defeat an army on his own, or giant invasions and nations in crisis and power.
  • Baron wrote:

    Hmm, well they did sack Rome but I suppose my statement did sound irrational by making it sound like they were a driving force in Europe's troubles. My apologies.
    No need to apologise but I have a feeling you are mixing the peoples and events.

    Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC in the Classical Period of early Antiquity
    Goths (Visigoths to be more precise) sacked Rome in 410 AD during what is know as Migration Period of late Antiquity

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; UPRISING 2018 - 26/27 May - Singles Tournament
  • VisconteDimezzato wrote:

    Last but not least, never forget people doesn't like change in general. More than this, if you started with the old lore when you were 12 y.o and you are today 35 (such as me, for example) it's very hard to change, because you are changing something you grew up with in the last 20 years.
    I definitely considered that. I was 28 when I first read any of the lore (I'm 31 now). Would it have been different for me if I was 12 when I started? Maybe.

    I didn't include that possibility in the poll because I figured it was long enough as it is :)
  • Slayerz wrote:

    Elves, dwarves, demons, monsters magic powers already break the suspension of disbelief. No one is reading a fantasy story about a mammoth battle and worrying about how it was funded, where the toilets are, how the crops are back home. Most just want action and adventure without thinking about census statistics or logistics behind the making of an army.

    There are plenty of historical miniature battle games for realism out there, by playing fantasy games we have already agreed to break the realism and expect a single hero to defeat an army on his own, or giant invasions and nations in crisis and power.
    Yet you still need to make a distinction between a Fantasy Story which can be free standing and Fantasy Setting which needs to be build in such a way that it can support both free standing and interlinked stories.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; UPRISING 2018 - 26/27 May - Singles Tournament