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.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

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

    What is your favorite army, and do you love the old lore or do you want new lore? 79
    1.  
      My favorite is Dwarven Holds - I was a fan of the old lore (9) 11%
    2.  
      My favorite is Warriors of the Dark Gods - I was a fan of the old lore (8) 10%
    3.  
      My favorite is Empire of Sonnstahl - I was a fan of the old lore (7) 9%
    4.  
      My favorite is Dread Elves - I was not a fan of the old lore (6) 8%
    5.  
      My favorite is Kingdom of Equitaine - I was a fan of the old lore (6) 8%
    6.  
      My favorite is Sylvan Elves - I was a fan of the old lore (5) 6%
    7.  
      My favorite is Dwarven Holds - I was not a fan of the old lore (5) 6%
    8.  
      My favorite is Highborn Elves - I was a fan of the old lore (4) 5%
    9.  
      My favorite is Highborn Elves - I was not a fan of the old lore (4) 5%
    10.  
      My favorite is Infernal Dwarves - I was a fan of the old lore (3) 4%
    11.  
      My favorite is Dread Elves - I was a fan of the old lore (3) 4%
    12.  
      My favorite is Saurian Ancients - I was a fan of the old lore (3) 4%
    13.  
      My favorite is Vampire Covenant - I was a fan of the old lore (3) 4%
    14.  
      My favorite is Beast Herds - I was not a fan of the old lore (2) 3%
    15.  
      My favorite is Undying Dynasties - I was a fan of the old lore (2) 3%
    16.  
      My favorite is Orcs and Goblins - I was a fan of the old lore (2) 3%
    17.  
      My favorite is Warriors of the Dark Gods - I was not a fan of the old lore (1) 1%
    18.  
      My favorite is Ogre Khans - I was not a fan of the old lore (1) 1%
    19.  
      My favorite is Kingdom of Equitaine - I was not a fan of the old lore (1) 1%
    20.  
      My favorite is Vermin Swarm - I was a fan of the old lore (1) 1%
    21.  
      My favorite is Vampire Covenant - I was not a fan of the old lore (1) 1%
    22.  
      My favorite is Daemon Legions - I was a fan of the old lore (1) 1%
    23.  
      My favorite is Sylvan Elves - I was not a fan of the old lore (1) 1%
    24.  
      My favorite is Undying Dynasties - I was not a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    25.  
      My favorite is Beast Herds - I was a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    26.  
      My favorite is Vermin Swarm - I was not a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    27.  
      My favorite is Saurian Ancients - I was not a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    28.  
      My favorite is Orcs and Goblins - I was not a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    29.  
      My favorite is Infernal Dwarves - I was not a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    30.  
      My favorite is Empire of Sonnstahl - I was not a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    31.  
      My favorite is Daemon Legions - I was not a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    32.  
      My favorite is Ogre Khans - I was a fan of the old lore (0) 0%
    I am gathering data to test a theory of mine based on some interesting conversations in the Do we really need special characters? thread. I am making this poll solely to test this theory, and the results do not have any bearing on any future T9A projects or changes, so please vote how you feel.


    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 disliked the old lore a lot. But I have seen a lot of posts from people who really liked it, including some who have said that they still use the old lore for everything when playing T9A. I am trying to find out why some people loved the old stories so much when I did not.

    So, when voting, keep in mind that I am not in any way saying that the old lore should be brought back, or kept, or anything else. This vote is solely to see why some people have an attachment to a lot of the old story, and why some people are really enthused about the new stories.

    In this poll, the first part is what army is your favorite. The second part is asking if you were a fan of the old lore or if you didn't like it.

    The post was edited 6 times, last by lawgnome ().

  • Marcos24 wrote:

    I just don't want the essence of my favorite kingdom to be too different from old lore. As long as it's a fantasy heavy cavalry focused medieval France I'm happy, it's the only reason I chose "old lore"
    Heh. I chose 'wants new lore', but i still want DE to be immortal vengeful kin of highborn elves who feel they've been betrayed and wrongly chased from the ancestral halls of power. I just don't really care particularly about the specific history GW had, or even being particularly close to it.

    (Of course, even better if that belief is justified, and the highborn elves superior moral pretentions are just that - pretentions disguising the rot beneath)

    I figured that the broad outlines of the fluff pretty much had to stay, because so much of the army mechanics are built around it. But within those broad outlines, something far from GW's honestly 3rd rate D+D/tolkien amalgam would be nice.
    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

  • @lawgnome (cc @Digger614, @Pinktaco)
    Sorry, but I cannot understand the meaning of your poll.

    lawgnome wrote:

    Are you a fan of the old GW lore?
    ...Do we really need special characters? ...

    ...the results do not have any bearing on any future T9A projects or changes...
    Please select your favorite army and whether or not you love the old lore, or if you are looking forward to new lore.

    1. Wrong "old" Army names.
    You gave T9A names to "old lore" armies, which refers explicitely to GW.
    Come on! What does "Empire of Sonnstahl - I love the old lore" mean? There is no such thing as an old lore of Sonnstahl, especially not linked with GW.
    Same for all other armies, except O&G.

    2. Unreleased lores.
    Besides UD and SE, the new lore is not known.
    How can you compare anything already released to something which does not exist?

    3. So what?
    I doubt that you intend to resurrect GW lores, by GW. You know very well that the special characters of GW are all dead. GW killed them explicitly in the End Times series, and started AoS with a few of them. They are not coming back.

    You say yourself that you do not intend to influence T9A. Indeed, you know very well that the new T9A will not and cannot create equivalent characters as GW did. No plagiarism.

    So, if you do not wish to influence the old GW lore, nor the new T9A lore, what is your point?

    -=-=-
    @lawgnome, I took my moderator's powers to "freeze" the poll (ending date in the past) in order to let you provide clarification about the points above.
    You have the ability to reset the ending date to the future, and to disallow change of opinions.

    Social Media Team

    UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

    - druchii.net contribution: The 9th Age - Dread Elves
  • @Calisson

    I had hoped to get some data before fully going into my theory (I am trying to avoid bias), but I suppose I should fully explain.

    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 not doing this poll with the intent of saying "hey, lets bring back the old lore" or anything like that. I am obviously aware that the old stuff is dead and gone (and good riddance, in my opinion). 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.

    I played two armies in 8th Ed. - ogres and lizardmen. Ogre lore is forgettable, in my opinion. They do not have any real impact on world events. I think they got a passing reference or two in the end times books, but otherwise my favorite army is just kinda there on the sidelines. No characters influence anything, no special units or rules added in the end times, no lore showing how they held back a million demons with one hand tied behind their back, nothing. Same thing with the lizardmen. While the connection to the old ones was neat, the fact of the matter is that for the most part they don't have much of a role to play in the greater story. There was no skink brigade aiding in the final fight. They do not go out and do anything to further their race. They are stuck trying to figure out what was planned for them and are purely reactionary. Heck, based on the bastilodon lore, even their own book says that they are superfluous, as the five finger activator on the solar cannon model is hinted at being meant for a race other than lizards (probably elves). And then they got wiped off the planet. Yay?

    Meanwhile, the new lore has been a breath of fresh air for me. I have really enjoyed all of the new stuff, and cannot wait to read more. I really look forward to reading the stories about the ogres and the SA, and want to be able to use those stories for some fluffy scenarios.


    I will go back and edit the poll to be a little more clear of exactly what I am looking for and exactly what the poll means. Hopefully that will help clarify things. If it turns out that all this particular poll does is aggravate people, then I can have it removed. I am really just trying to figure out why people think differently than I do, and no offense is intended.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by lawgnome ().

  • I liked some of the lore, but equally found some difficult to connect with or lacklustre and on reflection as ET came it was more of the latter and less of the former.

    I really liked the lore from earlier editions (4th & 5th) where the writing, atmosphere, ideas behind it all really clicked for me as a teenager.

    Coming back to the hobby in 8th i found the writing, atmosphere and ideas had changed in my perspective, it seemed shallow, 'lazy' or one dimesnsional and not as appealing. Whether this is the case or it was a case of me changing and evolving as an older person im not really sure but it certainly meant i was not as invested in the lore.

    I still loved the setting and the world but preferred my impressions from earlier editions than those put forward in the later books.

    The opportunity of changing the lore so people had far more freedom in their personal view of how their army can be portrayed is one of the biggest reasons of becoming involved in T9A for me.
    My attempt at a Hobby Blog Clan Brighthelmstone (attempts at hobby)

    Attempts at Battle Reports Some lists and the mistakes i make
  • lawgnome wrote:

    @Vazalaar

    What army is your favorite? What did you like most about the old lore?
    The Empire. The history / artwork of the Empire and its provinces was magnificent. Layer of layer was added and that for 30 years by very talented artists.

    It is impossible for 9th Age to recreate this in a couple of months or years.

    While 9th Age has some talented folks, they are not of the same league as Adrian Smith, Karl Kopinski and others that brought the Warhammer world alive with their artwork.
  • ZardukZarakhil wrote:

    I still loved the setting and the world but preferred my impressions from earlier editions than those put forward in the later books.
    This was my take on things as well.


    Vazalaar wrote:

    It is impossible for 9th Age to recreate this in a couple of months or years.
    That is correct. What gives me great hope that we will eventually create a world that will be right there with the best fantasy settings in existance is the people involved in the project. The breath of talent and expertise we have is stunning and as the project grows I am sure it will grow as well to give an even better result. I will agree that the community is currently is somewhat in the dark, but that can be understandable since world building is not an easy thing especially if the people involved what to do things right.

    Vazalaar wrote:

    While 9th Age has some talented folks, they are not of the same league as Adrian Smith, Karl Kopinski and others that brought the Warhammer world alive with their artwork.
    I have great respect for the works of Smith and Kopinski, I even follow the later, but I am not willing to sell our Art team short. Though not all are on the same level and they work in different techniques I am quite positive that given sufficient time and resources we are able to produce art that we could proudly put side by side with anything that is published in high end fantasy publications.


    We have only taken baby steps and yet we are recognisable on the world stage, I can't wait what we will achieve in 5 years time.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • Thanks for clarifications.

    -=-=-
    Actually, I did like WH lore, as fantasy related to real world.
    T9A lore is more promising as being closer to a realistic world and closer to historic/legendary medieval world.

    -=-=-

    Vazalaar wrote:

    The history / artwork of the Empire and its provinces was magnificent. Layer of layer was added and that for 30 years by very talented artists.It is impossible for 9th Age to recreate this in a couple of months or years.
    Debatable.
    It was impossible for GW to recreate, even after 30 years, history and artwork any close to actual historical/legendary medieval times/early renaissance.
    The closer T9A gets to actual historical/legendary medieval times/early renaissance, the more actual historical/legendary medieval times/early renaissance sources will be usable and the less necessary it will be for T9A to invent complementary stuff.

    Quickly said: we need less to create as T9A is closer to "real" stuff.

    The opposite example is AoS: not only it is nearly as recent as T9A, but contrary to T9A it has little relation to "real" stuff so everything missing is actualy missing.

    Social Media Team

    UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

    - druchii.net contribution: The 9th Age - Dread Elves
  • Calisson wrote:

    Thanks for clarifications.

    -=-=-
    Actually, I did like WH lore, as fantasy related to real world.
    T9A lore is more promising as being closer to a realistic world and closer to historic/legendary medieval world.

    -=-=-

    Vazalaar wrote:

    The history / artwork of the Empire and its provinces was magnificent. Layer of layer was added and that for 30 years by very talented artists.It is impossible for 9th Age to recreate this in a couple of months or years.
    Debatable.It was impossible for GW to recreate, even after 30 years, history and artwork any close to actual historical/legendary medieval times/early renaissance.
    The closer T9A gets to actual historical/legendary medieval times/early renaissance, the more actual historical/legendary medieval times/early renaissance sources will be usable and the less necessary it will be for T9A to invent complementary stuff.

    Quickly said: we need less to create as T9A is closer to "real" stuff.

    The opposite example is AoS: not only it is nearly as recent as T9A, but contrary to T9A it has little relation to "real" stuff so everything missing is actualy missing.
    I can't say agree with you. But I will wait until I read the complete EoS armybook with background, but for now let's say that the Sunna thing certainly doens't have the same appeal for me as Sigmar.

    For me the Warhammer world was with Empire/Bretonnia/Border Princes, Tilea, Marienburg and etc.. more than close enough to the "real stuff". If it gets any closer, I honestly don't see the appeal in it. I am huge fan of the Western 11th century until 15th century history. Miniature and book wise and while I really like that period. I don't have much interest in an EoS or KoE that's more "realistic" than what The Empire and Bretonnia was.

    But I assume that I misunderstood you and that the lore of the human nations for 9th Age will not be a simple rehash of history just to save time or a Song of Ice and Fire clone.

    I think it is not easy to create a new fantasy world comparable to the Warhammer world. Imo Mantic failed with their attempt (The world of Mantica..).

    If I was a betting man, I think that around 2017 we will see atleast something Warhammer World related from Forgeworld, around the same time the second big release of Total War: Warhammer is released. The succes of that game is much bigger than expected and it will have an impact in what GW / Forgeworld will do.

    I.e I do think the Mordheim re-release by Forgeworld will be in the old world and not in the new AoS universe.
  • 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.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • Haha, if you switch it around to where you said that large battles that caused populations and knowledge to be lost and plagues that reduced manpower that'd need generations to recover then you'd actually get more a realistic background. (The dark ages and the black plague, respectively. )

    Edit: (loved every bit of the old GW lore....and money's on AoS Mordheim)
  • Baron wrote:

    Haha, if you switch it around to where you said that large battles that caused populations and knowledge to be lost and plagues that reduced manpower that'd need generations to recover then you'd actually get more a realistic background. (The dark ages and the black plague, respectively. )

    Edit: (loved every bit of the old GW lore....and money's on AoS Mordheim)
    Even the black plague didn't really cause knowledge to be lost. Certainly not practical knowledge, and arguably not the reason we lost writings - the paper medium and selective scribal recopying were plenty sufficient for that. Nor were battles a primary cause of knowledge loss. Now, a culture disdainful of knowledge or that burned books? Yeah, societies can certainly cause knowledge to be lost.

    Not going to argue about the population loss. Black plague was a huge hit the first couple times. But such things evolve to be less lethal, and humans evolved to be more resistant, so such things don't repeat forever.

    But he has a point about demographics and logistics putting limits on battle/war sizes and frequency.
    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

  • 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.
  • Baron wrote:

    Haha, if you switch it around to where you said that large battles that caused populations and knowledge to be lost and plagues that reduced manpower that'd need generations to recover then you'd actually get more a realistic background. (The dark ages and the black plague, respectively. )
    The Dark Ages weren't daisies and honey cakes but they weren't the Dark AgesTM same goes for the Black Plague. It was a horrible thing that did a lot of damage but it cannot be compared to GW Skaven version that killed 9/10 people in the Empire.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG: