Talk:Warhammer: Age of Sigmar

From 1d4chan

The Celestant-Prime Is...[edit]

I have a theory as to the identity of the Celestant-Prime. He is described by GW as "A great king and guardian of men even in mortal life..." Furthermore, GW also stated that, in Age of Sigmar "Warhammer Age of Sigmar reintroduces these legendary heroes and notorious villains, though not all will come back as you remember them." This could mean that the Celestant Prime is the reincarnation of an existing character from the Warhammer Fantasy setting. The three main candidates I have in mind are;

  • Settra: He was king even as a mortal man, and was renowned as Nehekhara's greatest king. Though he was ruthless and almost tyrannical he did everything in his power to protect his people. In the End Times he spat in the face of BOTH Nagash and the Chaos Gods, and even then planned to rescue his people. Though "Settra does not serve" he does ally, and he could have accepted this for a chance to kick Nagash in the tailbone.
  • Louen Leoncouer: He was a king who cared for his people (somewhat, his peasants still lived in squalor). He was empowered with divine might and, though he was killed by Festus, he was taken by Lileath to her realm, so it's possible she helped him escape the Chaos Gods and Sigmar found him.
  • Karl Franz: Though Karl Franz is an emperor, not a king, he was a protector of his people and a devout servant of Sigmar. On a harsh note, Games Workshop not getting their facts straight such as the difference between an Emperor and a King would be unsurprising.

Personally, I prefer the idea that he's a re-forged Settra, because of the reasons mentioned above and that Settra is one of my favorite Warhammer characters (in Fantasy/Age of Sigmar or 40k).

Flufflion (talk) Actually, I think the Celestant-prime is more likely to be another character. There was one character in warhammer's universe who appears in tree different army book, was depicted as one of the greatest king of all times, and who beat Nagash twice: Alcadizaar the Conqueror. Moreover, he never have any model on the tabletop, unlike the other candidate, so his transformation onto celestant-prime won't bother any hardcore fan. Like you Settra is one of my favorite warhammer character (actually it is my number one favorite), but I don't think that game workshop will take the character n°1 of an army, and turn him into the n°2 character of a totally different army, with a totally different look and gameplay. It would be way to much risky.

  • Honestly, I find the theory that Karl Franz is CP the most compelling. He was "a great king and

guardian of men even in mortal life" Obvious, stated to be the greatest Statesman the Old World has ever seen and was dubbed "Defender of the Empire" But what I find most important is that CP was the first Stormcast, indicating that he has a speacial relationship with the first Soul he forged. Who if not Franz, they are so similar: Reiklanders, Emperors, hold Ghal Maraz, great Men in General, but most importantly, Sigmar posessed the recently deceased Karl Franz. It would just make the most sense.

Karl Franz died during the siege of Altdorf, killed by the Glottkin triplets, instants later, Sigmar's essence, now linked to Azyr, took over his body, restoring it to life but with Sigmar in control, the thing here is that it's not clear what happened to Karl's soul, one possibility is that it was subsumed into Sigmar's essence, another possibility is that it simply dissipated into WFB afterlife. Yet another possibility is that Karl's soul got stuck into the wind of Azyr or the Aetheric Void, and it may have reincarnated during the Age of Myth, and then died, staying in Shyish for some time until Sigmar decided to take him to start creating the Stormcast Eternals, this would not be too much of a problem since the new fluff states Sigmar has done this with the Anvils of the Heldenhammer. Among the reasons why I think this may be possible is the fact Karl Franz wielded Ghal-Maraz which may have created some sort of link, he may have been brushed by the wind of Azyr during his first death, and given how stubborn he was in opposing Chaos and trying to save the Empire even when the world was literally ending, well, yeah, he sounds like a good candidate, oh, and there is one more catch, he believed in Sigmar, so we add faith to the mix and he would make a great choice for the Celestant Prime. --McNash (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Settra has been turned into a Stormcast, a lord-celestant named Settrus of the Imperishable chamber, it's mentioned in Hamilcar: Champion of the Gods, and with Gelt brought back in Soul Wars it's not really farfetched to believe Karl is the Celestant Prime --McNash (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Many Issues[edit]

Setting: "Sigmar found the metal core of the planet which was in fact once the core of the twin-tailed comet that heralded his own birth" - Really? The core of the Old World was originally the core of the twin tailed comet? How did everyone see the twin tailed comet in the sky during the end times if it was at the core of their planet?

It also says in the same section that Dracothian creates the new setting, then it says Sigmar formed the Mortal Realms - the books just say Dracothian showed Sigmar how to get to them, not that either of them created them...

I don't know where the bit about a cloud of souls and them growing new bodies comes from... seems to all just be made up.

I'm going to make some edits.

Phantajisto (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Granted WFB was a pretty fantastical place anyway, but you could take it with a pinch of salt. The story of AoS seems to be totally fucking batshit crazy, out-of-wack fucking lunacy and not even a whole fucking bag of salt is enough for me.

Original Setting. Do No Steal.[edit]

Once again Games Workshop has shown us just how imaginative, creative and original they can be with their settings. Here we have a setting based around nine separate realms, each whit it's own unique flavour, and the central most important character is a Bearded, blond guy with a magic hammer. Well played GW.

So let's call them for what they are:

Chaos Realm- Jotunheim, Chaos allready had giants, why not make them Ice Giants

Realm of Aqshy - Muspelheim, I think this is where the Lizards will live

Realm of Chamon - Nidavellir, This is where the new dorfs will live. Five bucks say they will have steampunk robots.

Realm of Ghyran - Niflheim (but with forests and greenery) or maybe Vanaheim, here there be elves and forest-like potential old gods

Realm of Ulgu - Svartleheim, here there be dark elves, probably serving a half dead, scarred lord that doesn't remember his name

Realm of Shyish - Helheim, the new Brets and undead are here, prob serving Nagash/Rule 63 Not-Hel who will be tsundere for Sigmar/Not-Thor

Realm of Ghur - Vanaheim, new orks and Ogers here.

Realm of Azyr - Midgard/Asgard

Realm of Hysh - Alfheim, home of the light elves... ARE YOU EVEN TRYING, GW!?

--Dark Harlequin (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe Azyr is Asgard, tho - It is the Last Order City thing, with a large settlement which is basically a combination of a fortress and a city alla Valhal. I then belive Ghur is Midgard, being pretty average beside the beasts, and Hysh has a lot of the elements the Vanas where knew for (secrecy, magic, beauty).
Besides... GW being pretty unoriginal? Preposterous. TheWiseDane (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Valhalla isn't a city or a fortress. It's a Germanic king's hall. Anyway, I say that Chaos will be Asgard. For no other reason than the local Viking expies worship the Dark Gods. Also, I believe the leaks state that the Elves, golden Humans and Dwarfs all live on Sigmar's couch in Azyr. Ulgu, however, is divided into 13 regions. Now where have we heard that before?

Oh come on, NONE of GW's ideas are original, it's all incredibly derivative, total lack of imagination plundering left right and centre from all eras of history, and thinly disguised at that too.

On Bretonnia[edit]

Those are NOT undead Brets. They are in the same force which bears the markings of Noctilius from Dreadfleet, who may have been Bretonnian since his ship was composed of a castle island with a ship formed around it. --Thannak (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Brettonia is back, actually, as a full-fledged faction. Check the army books (link in the article).

The (previously) Squatted Crossover[edit]

So it seems Sigmar was a Primarch after all!

  • No, he really isn't. Primarchs are the clones of the lesser Emperor. Sigmar was born of woman, and attained true godhood. He's now more powerful than the God Emperor of Mankind. --Thannak (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Or at the very least, we can say for sure that he's a god now. That's more than can be said for the Emperor.--Newerfag (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • His godhood may be precisely one of the reasons why any record whatsoever about those two "lost" primarchs have been deleted: one of them being Sigmar the inquisition of Terra censored as heresy the fact that a primarch may have ascended to a status higher than the Emperor's. --Frank
      • Except its canon he came from a vagina with a biological father rather than a vat and a genetic template. --Thannak (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


Should we even have a tactics page for Age of Sigmar Tactics? I keep swirling it around my brain looking at these rules and abilities, and honestly I don't think its really worth it. Just slapping "Shits broken" on it and leaving it be may be the best possible course of action, because there is SO fucking much broken that it is unbelievable. I mean, come on. Are we going to recommend Skaven to people who sneeze a lot? We may as well have a tactics page for Pictionary at this point. --Thannak (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to say that, I don't feel there's any point at all in any kind of tactics page. "Put whatever you want on the field, and abuse rules until you win" would cover it for pretty much everything I think. -- Triacom (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe it's pointless when, for example, Fateweaver can summon 2 Bloodthirsters a turn only needing to roll a 4+ on one of 2d6 (and 2 Daemon Princes on a 3+) and the Blue Scribes can summon any Greater Daemon on a 2+ once a turn (and they have 1 casting per turn anyway), and that's without the Tzeentch-dedicated formation, which buffs Fateweaver even further.
I agree that a tactics page is pretty useless, but mostly because there is no real limits on what you can take. Even if you cut out the summoning cheese. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So I noticed somebody is creating Tactics pages anyway, should the delete tag just be slapped on them because there's no point? If you want to win just take as many of the high statline monsters you possibly can. -- Triacom (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. If they want to tackle it, no reason not to let them. I myself have no interest in the affair though. Currently its just linking the downloads, so unless they start working on it heavily then it should just gets an AoS tactics category and a stubtag. --Thannak (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tactics pages have a point since, believe it or not, game is mainly balanced on wounds. The summoning problem is nullified because of the minor victory condition.--Alfredoill (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The new Fluff[edit]

Is there any book with actual fluff yet? It appears that pretty much every death during the End Times has been undone. Also, the characters are all back in their respective armies. So does this mean, for example, that the Elves kicked Malekith out to split the race again, and that Tyrion has been forgiven, or is it like everyone is reset in time to a point before (or just at the start of) the End Times? For example, Tyrion has the Heart of Avelorn, which IIRC was destroyed when he was resurrected to become the Incarnate of Light. Not to mention guys like Grom the Paunch, dead for who knows how long, showing up.

  • There is a novella by Chris Wraight that is available for preorder. I truly doubt it will have much fluff beyond the starter, but at least there's a first step. - Redmaw
  • I'm assuming all the characters are dead unless otherwise mentioned as such, and same goes for the factions. --Newerfag (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We need to wait. End Times (especially End Times: Khaine) was skubbageddon, but Age of Sigmar...I'll give it a try, but I won't hope for anything.
PS: I really miss regiments. - Ben (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • According to a poster at who talked to the GW representative at Forge World's open day, many of the old models that got rules won't be produced any more, which is why many of them have all those zany special moves that require you to scream and shout and wave your arms. It's meant to be a "just for fun" send-off to those models, and going forward factions will have all new models and in some cases (such as Orruks), a completely revamped look. So I would assume that most characters would stay dead unless stated or revealed otherwise. The fact that those characters were given AoS rules was probably (probably) more just for fun (and for the vets who own those models to be able to continue to use those models just for fun) rather than any fluff indication of them still being alive. TiamatRoar (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I swear this is to punch people with Chainfists to the guts. I do wanted GW to take notes from such companies like Privateer Press, but not literally going into making Warhammer Fantasy into a Warmahordes clone and revamping all the setting with an asspull move like the End Times and Age of Sigmar. At least 40K is how it is...BUT HOW LONG? - Ben (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The main reason for these army books is probably just that GW wants to revamp the game, but as the creation of new fluff, units and army books takes a while, they just slapped these together so you can get a taste of the new game with your old armies. Of course, this being GW, they didn't take this seriously, and books without the slightest semblance of balance and lots of silliness resulted.
      • Here's something I'm willing to bet any old model with rules that aren't silly as fuck are going to be the ones that GW will just repacked with round bases.


This is now the fastest growing page in terms of pageviews 1d4 may have ever had.

  • People probably want to see how much WHFB get's screwed over by GW. Honestly I don't think there's a point any more. This isn't Warhammer Fantasy, this is a whole new setting ripping off names and characters FROM Warhmaer Fantasy. Don't see the point to it, don't see the appeal GW wants to sell.--Dark Harlequin (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speak for yourself, I come here to see how the old factions changed.
  • Not at all or gone worse so far as we can see. --Dark Harlequin (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Remember how the first section of Dante's Inferno ends with a demon farting, specifically "-made a trumpet of his arse."? That's what the latter half of ET and now AoS have been reminding me of. At this point, the amusement is not dissimilar to watching Cinema Sins take on Dragonball Evolution, or Shamwow's Airbender. You just want to see how bad it can get and have a good laugh while feeling a bit disgusted. Honestly, I'm just waiting with bated breath to see this cancer to spread to 40k. --Thannak (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's like observing an inside-out unicorn. Fascinating and entertaining, but also a bit sick and sad. There's a little bit of a masochist in everyone of us I guess. --Dark Harlequin (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncork the wine, twirl your mustaches, and spin your sun-parasols boys and girls, because the Age of Sigmar page is now officially more popular than the Skub page. We're even passing big 40k memes now. Good or bad, this shit is big. --Thannak (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm only mildly terrified that it might eventually become more edited than Codex: Knights Inductor. It seems that every day I wake up and check the recent pages only to see 10 or so edits from this page.Evilexecutive (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, most of those edits have been to the glorified rants at the bottom. The actual addition of lore and pictures is somewhat slow. --Thannak (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Now officially more popular than the Chaos page, and within sight of Space Wolves and Nurgle. Holy shit this page is exploding. --Thannak (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Not quite as edited as Codex: Knights inductor, but still pretty impressive that this page has been around for only a few months, and yet it's at close to 600 edits.Evilexecutive (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone remember...[edit]

...The mid-90s issue of WD which contained supplementary WHQ rules based on seaports and dockyards? Players were required to sing shanties and dance hornpipes. There really is no originality.

  • Those were silly optional rules in a supplement. Not core. --Thannak (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • These aren't core either.
    • Games Workshop probably doesn't consider the old models core in the first place (note that only the old models have those singing and dancing rules. A GW representative at Forge World's open day said this was intentional). It is perhaps intentional that the singing and dancing rules are thus a throwback to the old singing and dancing rules. Honestly, I think that hating GW for a lack of originality for the singing and dancing rules in AoS is kind of stretching it. Those rules were specifically put in as a just-for-fun send-off of the old models, not because GW was trying to be original or anything else. TiamatRoar (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In Conclusion: Alternate Alternate Thought[edit]

The claim it is not Warhammer Fantasy comes from GW itself, ditching the WFB logos and name. It is in fact its own thing within the "Warhammer" line. Much like how Transformers continuities run, where for example Beast Wars has a beginning and an end even though it started with existing canon and later series like Combiner Wars continued using its canon. So Warhammer Fantasy Battles really is over. Warhammer is not. Also, 40k is Bayformers. --Thannak (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, Warhammer has now changed beyond all recognition. It was based on a distored Earth, with only slightly ridiculous gods & monsters. Mordheim was it's own thing in the Warhammer line, set in the same universe. This iteration of 'Warhammer' tears everything up, shits on it, and makes some new utterly ridiculous nonsensical beyond high fantasy bullcrap. It's no way Warhammer, I'm sorry it just is not. Changing all the names, changing slayers to love gold it's like seriously wtf this is NOT Warhammer. Dwarves live under the fucking mountains. This monstosity turns slayers into fucking SPACE PIRATE MERCENARIES THAT WORK FOR HIGHEST BIDDER EVEN CHAOS .. it's not even remotely warhammer. The picture with the apples/oranges expresses it very well. This is not Warhammer, it's some terrible bastard child of devil fuckery.

Could not agree more. Was WFB a bit over the top and stupid? Sure. But it held it's horses most of the time, unlike 40k, which usually just goes all out with everything. Back in Fantasy, even Chaos Lords were described as mortal towards even the most average human spear, despite being the most powerful lords in the setting; the Empire is strong but is consistently under pressure of war. Everything about the Fantasy setting was down to earth, low-fantasy and something you could put your mind to. Age of Sigmar is deliberatly made without boundaries; nothing really dies, nothing is really permanent, the worlds has no physical boundaries; the people's lives have no significance, the factions has no flavour outside traits of battle. Things were held back, kept in check, so the really awesome and badass stuff really shined. Gitsnik, Grimgor's axe, is just a big axe, not a daemon-inbound superaxe of Orkiness and Waaghness, Karl Franz was just a single guy with a gryphon and even big guys like Archaeon is just a warrior with a badass sword and armour... Not a floating mess of heads, skulls and bullshit.
That, and how some of the new factions are made up. "What did people like about the Dwarves back in Fantasy?", "Erhm, everybody liked the Slayers...", "THAT'S IT, ENTIRE FACTION OF SLAYERS, FIRE EVERYWHERE, GOLD ON THEIR BODIES, MORE FIRE, NO ARMOUR, NOTHING ELSE, FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" TheWiseDane (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in creating a "For-AoS" segment of the article? I know rage is typically the order of the day on /tg/ (and for good reason), but I feel like there should be some concession for those who are actually fans of the game. Problem is, while I have come to like the setting and game quite a bit time and general apathy have kept me from putting forth the effort. If there's genuine interest amongst others for a more pro-AoS segment I can fnd the time and effort to start it. Redmaw (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Changing the names of existing articles[edit]

So when characters or things change names, how should we go about categorizing it? Should the Orcs & Goblins category be renamed Orcs & Goblins/Orruks & Grots, or should there be a separate Orruks & Grots page which may contain many of the same items, but will also have all the new Orruk and Grot only stuff that comes out during Age of Sigmar? How about Horned Rat now that he is Great Horned Rat? Should we add the info about Gorkamorka to the Gork and Mork/Mork and Gork pages, or should we have a separate Gorkamorka page which links to both of the preexisting pages in a three-way linkfest?

There really ought to be a discussion on how we are going to categorize this shit from now on since there's a few distinct options available. I for one would prefer more categories, with links saying "If you are looking for the Age of Sigmar/Warhammer Fantasy version, see here" at the top. --Thannak (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I think we should keep the pages separate with a link in the old pages to the Age of Sigmar version (and vice versa), since Warhammer and Age of Sigmar are very different games. I don't see having them bleed together helping anybody. -- Triacom (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you really sure about this?[edit]

"Seraphon got their first important lore in AoS when, in a battle between Be'lakor's personal army and Seraphon, Terradon Riders managed to kill him with rocks. Read that again; as revenge for End Times, Lizardmen made rocks fall until Cuck Undivided himself died."

I'm not exactly sure that is actually part of the AoS lore: the picture used is clearly coming from the battle report featured on the White Dwarf issue introducing the 7th edition Lizardmen armybook, where the Be'lakor model was used as a generic Daemon Prince. Notice the square bases and Tiktaq'to (which is no more in AoS)--Phantom Dusclops'92 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Story updating[edit]

Since this story will be updated throughout its run, should we do something similar to the horus heresy page and summerise the plot of each new book? Might help people keep track of all the trippy nonsense without having to necessarily buy ALL of the overpriced books.

  • Feel free. I'm not paying for this nonsense, just been parroting what anons on /tg/ were saying in Generals until I lost interest entirely. --Thannak (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Faulkner Quote[edit]

I have no problem with Faulkner but that quote is huge, unwieldy and entirely irrelevant to AoS. Is there anyone who can justify its inclusion? Redmaw (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone posted it in a thread about "Where GW went wrong", that post in particular about the writing in Age. Seemed appropriate, describing why Fantasy players that want a small scale where seventy militiamen fight for the fate of the village will dislike the large scale where thirty of the chosen lightbringers of the supreme god of good that were forged by his hands fight for an entire plane. Plus, Age is skubby enough it needed a less complimentary quote. Feel free to remove it if you feel its unfitting. --Thannak (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. I think that it might be more appropriate with a bit of context... maybe at the beginning of In Conclusion, to set the tone for explaining the community's reaction to AoS. Redmaw (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this article actually scaring people away from WFB?[edit]

I don't know, by this point I feel like this article is actually doing more harm to WFB playerbase than AoS, as the amount of bitterness and hatred poured into this one may get people to make the question, what kind of person uses an entire wiki entry to bash a setting he doesn't like? Or more to the point, what kind of gamers I would find if I ever want to give WFB a try? Correct me if I am wrong but this one is starting to feel like that video of the guy setting fire to his whole Dark Elves army. --McNash (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait, you mean someone actually reads this stuff? --Thannak (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think there are way, way worse things out there than this article when it comes to scaring away players. Any forum, for example. Natfka's comments section. By comparison I've always felt this article is pretty neutral. Redmaw (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this article will have any real impact on people's feelings about AoS to the point the vitrol will cause them to forsake WFB. Chances are, anyone going to this article who has any history with GW already has come into contact with AoS and its detractors/supporters. As for someone using an entire article to bash a product, its not that weird to me. I mean, FATAL is absolute garbage on every level and every examination is dunked in a liberal dose of vitrol and contempt for the source material. 1d4chan has many, many articles about things that are considered dumb.

AoS got a lot of hatred because the combination of the end times, general GW bullshit and "What the fuck is this, how do you play this game" meant it became a lightning rod for rage. Saladofstones (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


I've seen some leaked pictures of Dwarf models for AOS. Small rumour of them being Squats. But unconfirmed. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • If you are referring to these: then no they're the new faction, the Kharadron Overlords. There are many players on various forums who have stated an interest in using them as Squats, but nothing which seems to suggest there is a genuine possibility yet. Speaking of which, the quote that EvilDeadFan added to the beginning is enormous and irrelevant other than to say "Have a problem with the setting? DEAL WITH IT" which honestly adds nothing. I don't think it belongs. Thoughts, anyone? Redmaw (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that they don't belong (if you're saying the Dwarves don't belong). But nonetheless, the models look pretty cool. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, what was the quote you were talking about? Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • No, I was just saying there wasn't anything concrete on Squats at this juncture. The quote I'm talking about is the new one at the top of the page. "In a setting that-" Redmaw (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Fishy Elves[edit]

We have pics now. What do you guys think of them? --Super12345 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Covering a pile of shit with dead fish does not excuse the fact that there is indeed, a pile of shit infront of you.

There's a lot of division regarding the models, as you might guess. Personally I like them a lot.Redmaw (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop deleting the origin section.[edit]

There's no reason to delete the section that talks about Age of Sigmar's origin and why a lot of people weren't initially onboard with it. Currently that part's as neutral as possible and without the bitching that was present in its earlier edits. Claiming that it's just bitching and irrelevant is nothing but a lie. -- Triacom (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Why would we add useless information to the top of the page? All it serves to do is reinforce this retarded "beef" between Fantasy and AoS players that no one cares about because it basically doesn't exist anymore outside of a vocal, whiny minority. On top of that as I already pointed out, the "nicknames" aren't funny and no one uses them. It has been edited out many times before for months on end and the page hasn't suffered for it. It will continue to be deleted. -- Shoot_gun (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Vro, you need to calm the fuck down. Not being a big Sigmar fan myself, I can confirm that the nicknames are stupid, but no more so "Rawbutt Girlyman" or "Macha the Eternal Virgin." They aren't funny, but are an integrated part of the culture. Personally, I think the section you keep deleting should be entirely confined to a new section devoted to controversies and its problems when it first started, but for now, everyone just needs to fucking stop, take a breath, and let it be for a minute. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
A controversy section already existed and was pruned out like a year ago. No need for it to return. Controversy sections do not exist for 40k and Fantasy, and I hope we're not going to pretend that those games never had any or that people never tried to add them. --Shooter_gun (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The issue is, there are controversy pages. They aren't on the main pages, because each one is only for the "current" setting. Age of Sigmar is both a setting and a current edition of the game. The 40k editions page, much like the pages for the individual D&D editions, are full of controversies. Either way, you are being just as antagonistic as Anon is, and are perpetuating an edit war. Assuming Root doesn't get involved (since you fucking asked for him to get involved and are wasting his time too), I will make either a separate section or an entirely new page for some kind of fucking compromise. Until then, just fucking let it be vro. Remember, this is just a fan wiki based on an image board about toy soldiers. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
AoS is on its 2nd edition, the controversy comes from first edition. If historic 40k controversy is not relevant to the current edition of 40k, the same logic applies here. Making an AoS first edition page as a dump for old controversy is the best solution. I'll clear the request for resolution as it seems the guy gave up already. --Shoot_gun (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Cool, I can get behind that. I'll remove the edit war tab and make a first edition page tomorrow, until then, we should all just leave it alone. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Trying to pretend a controversy didn't exist by erasing any mention of it is a bitch move, acknowledging it as a part of the game's development is the opposite of useless. Also there's nothing in there that's controversial since it's remained very neutral, and sections like that do exist for both 40k and Fantasy, 40k even has two separate pages based on them as well (the blooper and cheese pages respectively). I'm not going to stop mentioning its wonky start just because you want the page to be all sunshine and rainbows. -- Triacom (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The page wasn't made for you to cry on. Again, the controversies were edited out by many before me for a reason. Controversies, as Kracked pointed out, are confined to their own pages - they're not shitting up the main articles. 27 nicknames for AoS and 3 for Fantasy is not neutral, that's dishonest and laughable. You can vent on the first edition page when it's up, that way you don't need to pretend you're being neutral about it. --Shoot_gun (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The page wasn't made for you to cry on. HAH! You're the only one who's crying here because the 'bad names' are in a collapsible section (so much so you had to lie to Root about it), these edits are not the same as the older edits which were outright bitching. The nicknames were also the same as those being used both on /tg/ and this wiki before so too bad for you if you don't like the fact that AoS players only came up with 3 names for Fantasy fags. I'm not letting a neutral mention of the game's launch remain gone from this page just because you want to cry about the mean names it was called in the past. -- Triacom (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah don't worry you can put the epic and hilarious nicknames on the first edition page once it's up. --Shoot_gun (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Is that what this is all about, you purely don't like the mean names and want to delete everything else just because they're there? -- Triacom (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, but that's half of the edit. --Shoot_gun (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well then too bad, I'm not letting the page go without mentioning the initial controversy. It was at the core of the game's launch and pretending it didn't happen is just as bad as slapping a delete tag on this page and trying to pretend AoS didn't exist as a whole. -- Triacom (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
1) We don’t do separate pages for editions unless its a Tactics page, for obvious reasons. Make each edition but the newest collapsible if you want, but the newest should be on the bottom. 2) If you want to bitch about 27 nicknames VS 3, come up with more for Fantasy instead of outing yourself as not having a sense of humor or any creativity. 3) I stand by my “PIGS IN SPAAAAAAAACE” joke. 4) Shit like this is why even 6.5AD&D players laugh at AoS players. --Thannak (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Rather than making a new edition page, I made an "initial launch page," which will include all errata and FAQ. I think having an "Issues and Controversies" section on the main page summarizing the skub might be good, but overall, there's too much butthurt and skub going on here for anybody not involved's liking. This is messing up 1d4chan's mildly good quality and trusted service to those outside of the /tg/sphere and is directly preventing shit from getting done.
The only one really assmad about it is Shoot_gun, as Newerfag said we don't do separate pages for multiple editions for obvious reasons, the only possible exception being 8th edition 40k, but that's because it's an entirely different game. Deleting the section Shoot_gun doesn't like from the main page accomplishes nothing, there's also nothing in the initial release that shouldn't be included on the main page, possibly under its own section. -- Triacom (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As long as that stops the skub, I'm happy with it. If there's anymore complaints, I'll make a new section just for it, and move the Initial Release page there (I think the drop down looks kinda messy at the beginning anyway; it is rather long, too).--Kracked Mynd (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

AoS creator twitter trashtalk[edit]

Apparently he's not afraid to show his joy for destroying nice things.

...okay, and? This tweet may or may not be dumb but it's like, 6 months old. -- 16:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I can see how it's relevant, especially with the argument about the origin section of the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding starting bit[edit]

It serves no real purpose. It's just needless derail.

Derail from what? The transition from one setting to another? That's staying on topic, not derailing it. -- Triacom (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
name calling (and really, that's what those listings are) have nothing to do with the transition. Hell, there shouldn't be a bit on the 'transition' (which again, that isn't) in what should be an introduction, which that starting bit isn't either.
I doubt you were here for the transition then, it wasn't what anyone would call a smooth one. There should definitely be a bit on the transition, since AoS didn't just pop up on its own. If you want to flesh out the introduction more then go right ahead, but that bit should stay, and if you're so upset about the name calling, you can't even see it without expanding a section and if that's still too much, then you need to grow a pair. -- Triacom (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Gotcha, wasted my time trying to speak with you.
If you want to bully your way through because you're not open to any kind of discussion, then why not just go to one of the admins and request a suspension? I'm going to tell you right now that if you're not going to discuss it or try to flesh out the opening any more than it is, and if you really are just upset at the names that are already hidden, then going to them and asking for your access to be suspended is the only option I'm left with. -- Triacom (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you at least explain why you're deleting mentions of the supplements, the General's Handbook and the old Warscrolls that are still available on GW's site and are still valid? -- Triacom (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's go over some other bits you're removing:

"On top of this you've got supplements for terrain, extra magic items, and so on and so forth. It's kinda like one of those shitty smartphone games you hear v bitch about constantly, but made of dead trees and costing ten times as much."
"Naturally, in order to have the up-to-date rules and therefore be able to play in any remotely competitive venue, you need to buy the newest GHB every year."
"While these warscrolls are technically still valid, good fucking luck trying to run an army with them as they have never been updated and good old fashioned Codex Creep means that any attempt to field a "Warscroll Compendium" army will be like fielding Witch Hunters against 7th edition Taudar."

All of these are valid points that you're removing for "serious discussion", and why? Does serious discussion suddenly become inconvenient at times? -- Triacom (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a terrain supplement, unless you mean the physical printing of the scenery warscrolls (which are freely available online), competitive venues generally do not require the purchase or ownership of the latest general handbook (they want lists done on warscrollbuilder, which is free) and tk and brets sit at around mid tier. The boxes fill no role whatsoever aside hurling and for damn sure they should not be the top element of the article given how utterly tangential, at best, they are. For damn sure I've not been the most communicative fellow, and you have my apologies there, but these are things that really do not deserve discussion and just be correctede.
Terrain supplements are any terrain not found in the main rulebook, there's a lot of it. Some of them being available online also doesn't change that they exist, seeing as how you were deleting warscroll mentions too. Competitive venues do require the latest rules because competitive venues use GW's policies, which require the latest General's handbook because they change more than just points in those. You're also the first and only person I've seen to claim Bretonnians and Tomb King's are mid-tier, got anything to back that up? The point of the origin section is to address how AoS had a really bad start, deleting that is the same as pretending it never happened. -- Triacom (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't even... 'terrain supplemnents are any terrain not found in the main rulebook' is an extremely misleading argument that misses the design ethos of AoS. By that token, you need 'unit supplements' because units have no rules on the 18-page rulebook. All the scenery warscrolls are available online for free. That's not just some, and that's without getting into the fact that no one really uses any advanced rules for terrain, despite being available in the 18 page leaflet. Leaving aside the two middle points (and it's the very first time I've ever heard of 'bring the newest ghb') the argument of 'this describes how bad the launch was' is also hilariously weak. Because it doesn't really do that much beyond, as another user mentioned, being basic nerd rage. Hell, even posterior paragraphs down the line do a better job. "Oh, I want to learn about AoS... why is this here?" It doesn't matter it's hidden in boxes, it's literally the first thing you are going to see. It's the literal heading, no amount of spoilers will mask this. Nevermind it's incredibly old stuff that shouldn't be the first thing that you know regarding a setting. You want to keep it for those that care? Send it to the bottom of the page, or lower into the page. Not the top and first thing.
Yes, you would need a unit army book, in addition to the terrain supplements, in addition to the magic supplements, in addition to the General's Handbook, in addition to the main rules. That's how AoS is designed, but it also means that it's more of a chore to gather and use all of it, which is why it's on the main page. If you never heard of using the latest General's Handbook when that's going to be a thing again very shortly then I doubt anyone can help you there. As for the launch, I already told you that you can improve it if you want, but don't pretend like it never happened, which is exactly what you're doing when you delete all reference to it. I'd also argue the first thing you should know about a setting is the setting itself, to which we get this: "What is Age of Sigmar?" "It's the continuation of GW's WHFB line of models." That's the core of what it is right there and immediately we have to address the transition from one to another, it doesn't matter how old that is, it's still relevant because it's what the entire game is jumping off from. If you want to see how it could actually be improved instead of just deleting it several times across the span of several months and hoping nobody would notice while claiming discussing it is a waste of time because you want to pretend the launch had no issues at all, then give me the weekend and I'll show you what you could've done instead. -- Triacom (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I've deleted that on two occassions. Sure, wanna increase the number? Go for it, you seem to be ultra one track mind on the matter and will not listen from how far up your rear your head is. Sure, people actually bother using any terrain rule, I'm positive virtually everyone owns dominion of chaos. Same goes for malign sorcery. No one could just note down the specific item they want, if they want anything from there at all. Same with online warscrolls for units or the fact that the core rules are also online. You're right. You totally need '5 fucking books' to play the game.
Aren't you an adorable little hypocrite, everything you've said about me here applies to you, except I wasn't the one who claimed talking was a waste of time. I can also count, you've deleted that section 8 times, not 2. If you're not talking about the opening despite it being what my post closed on, then that means you don't know how context works and as such, should definitely not be making those kinds of edits. As for your solutions, how do you note down what you want without first getting the material? You could scan in what you like and print out separate pages to cut down on the stuff you need to carry around, or even just write it down, however that doesn't get past the problem that you still need to get the materials first which is what's addressed in those posts. The fact that some of them are free doesn't change a thing in that aspect. -- Triacom (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, impersonating others sure as hell does have consecuences (not that I am without guilt on that matter, I'm also not fond of that opener, but we will see how you tweak it out). But the bit of 'you have to get the material first' is a tad disingenous. By the day they are on sale the internet know all the contents, with GW doing a fair share of the spoilering and screencapping. And that's just getting down to the item or endless spell you 'may' need. Reallistically, at worst, you will need a ghb and the battletome. That's not '5 books to do what the game advertises', nor it is anywhere close to it.
My mistake, I got your two IP's mixed up, you're not the one I meant to say the hypocrite bit to, but the other points stand. Let's address this though: "Reallistically, at worst, you will need a ghb and the battletome. That's not '5 books to do what the game advertises', nor it is anywhere close to it." You'll need the rules, then the GHB, then Malign Sorcery, then your army book, and now we're up to four before we've even gotten to any errata's GW might have released (which you will need) or other terrain pieces you might want to use that aren't in the books, and now we've sailed well past four. If you're having issue with the word 'books' because some are digital, it's the same difference, they're both documents that you have to get and sift through. You're also ignoring how the entry in question states that this is mainly for competitive venues (specifically knowing what you can do and what can be done against you), and for some reason I doubt they'd be happy that you've clearly pirated the documents you've needed. -- Triacom (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Anon above is somewhere in between right and wrong about the introduction. Everything above the ToC is ugly as sin and reeks of 2016 nerdrage instead of the usual 1d4chan shitposting gold (pun sold separately). A short list of things that are cancer: The logo is too fucking big and takes up half the screen, there's not a good picture to describe the setting of the game, the first paragraph is really the only thing that's correct but needs to be expanded upon, and the rest of it belongs in either a section titled 'History' that happens immediately after, or removed from existence (Looking at you, censorship of 'Names'). Beyond that, the intro is wrong because most WFB oldfags that were mad about AoS have moved on to other games, or have seen that it finally got out of the literal Live Beta Testing Rules it was originally designed with and have come back. It also looks radically different from other game front pages, like 40K, Infinity, Warmachine, DnD, Pathfinder, Magic, etc. Anon is correct in that it's a needless derail. But the page needs a facelift, and he's wrong because his response is to try and censor the truth of what had happened before, and how a poorly created game got flipped-turned upside down, and became the fresh prince of wargames (Since it's clearly not going to topple the 40King). -- SuperHappyTime (talk) 1:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a needless derail because the first thing mentioned, and that needs to be mentioned is that it's sprung out of the ashes of WHFB, mentioning that it tripped as soon as it did isn't derailing anything, however I agree that it is poorly fleshed out, and again that's not fixed by deleting it. It can easily be improved without pretending the early bit never happened, so give me the weekend and I'll show you exactly what I mean. -- Triacom (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I've now made the edit I promised, showing how you can acknowledge past mistakes beyond pretending they never happened. Hopefully that puts this issue to bed. -- Triacom (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with the bit at the end which heavily implies all WFB fans ended up playing AoS, which is far from the truth. --Thannak (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I know, I'm one of them, that's why I always said "many" instead of "all". In any case I added a bit more to make it clear that isn't the case. -- Triacom (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Reynolds bit is taking the piss of the people that went bonkers over warhammer adventures. Not warhammer fantasy fans as is, which is something he's addressed. He did have a quote on this in his now deleted too, pity I can't find it. Otherwise this is a much needed improvement and, while I'm not 100% sold on it, it seems acceptable. It actually does address the issue, rather than be a mere placeholder for namecalling.
You should look at the replies, he seems more than happy with people thinking that's his legit opinion, and so far I haven't seen anything from him that indicates it isn't. -- Triacom (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Some rando hit him about an 8th month tweet. Mocking derision is par for the course. But yeah, he's mentioned it in multiple occasions that's not the case, and it doesn't marry at all with how Lord of the End times was written. Nevermind that tweet is also 3 years after the launch time-mark, so it doesn't really have connection with the launch in itself, which the line kind of makes it think so. For reference:
Why are you ignoring the responses to the tweet he got in the same day, as well as the day after? Both of those are more telling to me than anything else. I also used him to show a general tone rather than single him out in the article himself, and the tweet also makes it look like he didn't actually give a shit after all. -- Triacom (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, first: Read the first post. "I bade Shiva" is not a phrase anyone utters unironically. Which makes sense since that tweet was part of ADB's rant in that people were going a bit to far (read: death threats) with the authors of warhammer adventures and it was his way (as stated on other forums) of saying: 'fuck, I've done worse, why are you not peeved about me again?'. Second, and to begin with Reynolds is not even part of the studio, he's a freelance novelist. He did novelize the end of the End Times, but that had been a thing before he got to write it. Secondly, no it doesn't reflect the general tone. You may have a point in that that kind of line would fit the kirby suits, but generally speaking the people working at gw that weren't Merrett or Kirby just didn't like it at all, how things were handled. Hewitt explained that much in his reddit AMA. Goulding too, when he got an interview after leaving. And that's without getting into the oblique commentaries others like Kelly or Jervis Johnson have done in the corporate apparatus.
I get that part's a joke, usually when you mock something you use a joke to do it. Secondly, I think we should pull back a bit. The general tone isn't just the writers, it's the company as a whole and their treatment during the transition from WHFB to AoS, Reynold's tweet sums up the tone of that towards their consumers and that's what I was referring to. A final thing I'll say on Jeremy is that when he says stuff like what's in that tweet, and especially in his replies, his earlier statements come off as being incredibly dishonest. I haven't seen anything from him past that tweet to make it seem like he wasn't just full of shit with his earlier posts, or that he wasn't taking schadenfruede from the fans at the time, since that's exactly what he said he was doing months ago. If he really wanted to just address the idiots taking Warhammer Adventures too far he could've easily done that before or after without making you need to assume that's what he's doing, since that's what you're doing right now. -- Triacom (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra Heresy[edit]

I just want to point out that this ridiculous bullshit is prime heresy. Its an obvious "we want to sell more Ultramarines" move by GW. But what makes 40k sell more than fantasy is the grim darkness, similarity to human extremist governments which is a precautionary tale in itself. What makes Space Marines sell is not only that they have big pauldrons and are kickass, its the whole Imperium of Man grimdark mythology. To illustrate my point, Dark elves are popular in fantasy but Dark Eldar are not in 40k, and the reason for this, imo, it that the lore of Dark Elves is awesome while the lore of Dark Eldar is retarded. I think its very evident to anyone that this was just a move to sell more models, and bigger ones that sell for more. Instead of revitalizing Fantasy with fresh characters and story arcs, they just fucking raped the lore as hard they could. This is the greatest Retcon known to mankind, and it is all because of corporate greed. And honestly if you play Age Of Sigmar at this point its because your a hopeless GW fanboy rather than a free willed neckbeard that wont accept lore-rape of this magnitude. And for those of you who think the models look cool, well I think they look retarded.

Oh shut up, AOS is fine and everyone who likes it likes it for what it is, not a GW sheep. What you think any of these opinions are new or something? Its the same nonsense spouted again and again from loser WHFB fanboys who can't quit crying in a corner like the losers they are over the end times. Don't post here looking for validation. No one cares about your opinions on GW after all that has been said over the years. Get over it or just shut up. You don't sound like a free willed neckbeard. You sound like a whiny fanboy without any real unique opinion on anything.
If you think nobody cares, would you appreciate it then if somebody else repeatedly deleted your reply to the anon like you kept trying to do to them? Apparently you cared enough about it to try removing it from the page twice and then you wrote a reply to it anyway, and this happened over the course of a few days. -- Triacom (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
One I try removing it yesterday. Not several quite making stuff up. And that was because it I don't feel that this should even be here at all, I deleted it all because it would look weird if reply existed with nothing else. This should be better off in a specific Reddit page designed specifically for this and you better believe I would be happy to have a debate with this opening. But since a couple people, you included seem to want it to stay I felt I might as well give my honest opinion on it, because why not, someone needs to tell it like it is to this guy taking shots at AOS players. And actually many have in the past, fortunately its easy enough to just undo stuff so no I don't feel bad for doing that. And this is barely an opinion at all, its just the same schlock that has been parroted around over the internet for like, what? Six years now? Like literally the same thing, Im pretty sure this same guy wrote an almost identical thing on other AOS message boards over the interent last month, And than has the nerve to imply AOS likers are sheep that only do what GW tells us too? Well if the gloves are coming off Im not holding back either.
My mistake, in my timezone you tried removing it once on the 31'st and once today, and I got the second notification when I woke up. In any case what you feel should or shouldn't be on a talk page is irrelevant, we should not be policing opinions and dictating which opinions are allowed on a wiki about a 4chan board of all things. It also doesn't help your case that you say nobody cares, and follow it with "I would be happy to have a debate with this opening." If you want to take shots at the anon then go ahead and do it, but don't pretend like nobody cares when you're a pretty big example of somebody who does, and plenty of other people do too; most of them have begun showing back up again since the Old World was announced as being in development. -- Triacom (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Happy debating was sarcasm, trust me I have no interest in actually debating this kind of person, trust me it gets you no where very fast when you have someone who decides to hate something on principle, me "debating" would just be pushback. Pretend im saying that in a sarcastic voice. And two, this is barely opinion, its venting at best and trolling at worst, and very likely an attempt to create an AOS bashing section on here. And no one cares is a reference to the fact that no "opinion" given is original or hasn't been said 100 times before, so he is neither informing or really even giving an unique perspective, its pure whining, if he wants to vent on AOS there are other pages on this site alone where it would be more appropriate, but no one really cares about AOS venting anymore, its been done to death, they should hear that for their own good. And If he wants to make a blanket statement about AOS players I will simply making a blanket statement right back about salty WHFB fanboys, and their need to move and stop complaining, its neither insightful or even that edgy anymore. Its my opinion and Im sticking by it. However im big enough to admit perhaps i may have came on a little to harsh as I have little respect for this type of barely concealed trolling and probably should have gone into more depth a little. I stand by what I said but yes it should have been worded differently at the very least.
If they wanted to create an AoS bashing section then they would've done it on the main page, and deleting their opinion on the talk page would've left them no other option. I'd also recommend you think it through before writing "nobody cares" because if that's what you were referencing, nobody besides you would have ever figured it out. Finally, I can't think of a better page to vent about AoS than the AoS page, so what would you suggest? -- Triacom (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
oh please deleting is a good idea as it would kill the skid that it would potentially open before it starts and you insisting on keeping it for the the sake of debate when we both know what it is and what it will lead too isn’t noble or anything, just shows a lack of foresight on your part, no ones giving you browny points for that. And no know one cares is accurate. No body in the AOS community brings these up, it’s only WHFB trolls who want to start things because there salty whiners. They don’t care and I don’t but will defend it from attack. WHFB trolls had there time to whine. Mourning periods over, you want to be a troll they get treated like one. No respect deserved or given. Fortunately I’m lucky that not a ton of people scroll this far diwn. The salt storm it would have opened needlessly would have caused whole edit wars, and troll campaigns.
What skid? Arguing on a discussion page? You realize that's the perfect place for it right? Nobody cares isn't accurate, if you think nobody cares then you don't visit /tg/, the board the wiki is based on, you don't visit natfka, you don't visit spikey bits, you don't visit bell of lost souls, etc. These issues get brought up in all of those places, and if you think everyone who brings it up is just a troll, then you're trying to write off everyone who has any sort of criticism because you don't like the setting to be given any kind of critical thought. Being passionate about a setting and saying what you think in the appropriate page is not trolling. -- Triacom (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
what criticism? It’s just mindless neck beard rage and a pure insult directed right at the fan base calling them shills. What skud? The literal post was skud aimed not at the game but at its players. Did you miss that or are you just having trouble reading it? And I know all those places and respond accordingly and others call this meaningless salt as well. Pure salty ness and spite get answered in there in turn. It was just for so long everyone cheered on the whiners because people felt sorry for them for losing there game. Or where just trolls themselves. Now I’m glad people are telling these idiots to shutoff or move on to other things. Besides they do themselves nor anyone else still being salty nevkneards all these years later. Shut up and move on if all they have to contribute is anger and butt hurt. You trying to perpetuate the same flawed argument these WHFB fan boys have been screaming these last 5 years is misguided and naive. Do t think your on the high ground, your just an enabler to these types of people who need to let go of their hurt feelings. What? We going to coddle them when still complaining about what GW did in 10 more years?
The criticism is that they're obviously trying to make their Fantasy setting more like 40k in a number of ways, such as how the (former) Dark Elves operate, how they've introduced their own version of Space Marines, and how the setting itself has become nebulous, in that the areas they fight in and the conflicts themselves are like the setting in 40k: it's now so big that they can do whatever they want without having any impact on the worlds/setting as a whole. "The literal post was skud aimed not at the game but at its players." And I'm sure you'd never do that yourself right? Let's take a look at what you wrote: "What you think any of these opinions are new or something? Its the same nonsense spouted again and again from loser WHFB fanboys who can't quit crying in a corner like the losers they are over the end times." Hey pot, meet kettle. You really should take your own advice though: "Shut up and move on if all they have to contribute is anger and butt hurt." -- Triacom (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
What GW did was bad. Inexcusable. It really is. Though even during the time of Fantasy, they still did moves like this (see Storm of Chaos). The End Times and the initial attempts of making AoS the “new” fantasy were horrendously bad. Though I think it’s important to separate the product from the creator at this point. AoS has evolved into its own thing. Yes it is effectively a retelling/sequel to fantasy though a lot of its fans enjoy it for its newer aspects. I could very well be biased since AoS was how I got interested in wargaming in general but I still feel that there is something there that draws people in. Not simply because we are mindless sheep to the corporate shepherd. GreySeerCriak (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)