Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Which Setting Is Easiest To Explain?

2

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,581

    Elements are taken directly from Dune, thats what i meant

    I would say it's equal parts Dune, Starship Troopers, and also just "What if WH Fantasy was in space!"
    That's literally it.

    That was the entire reason behind Squats and their subsequent removal. It was GW attempting to do Dwarfs in space. 40K originated as Fantasy races in a science fiction setting.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,581
    Cyresdog said:

    Aos is honestly just fantasy but times 100 and more high fantasy

    AoS is rather Sci-Fi than it is Fantasy. Atleast if you ask me.
    It's definitely fantasy over sci-fi. Take the Sky Dwarfs. They're flying ships, not space ships or anything "sci fi". Though I can see why you'd think that, it's not unfounded. That said AoS is still finding out what it is, it's still shallow and still needs to pick actual winners and losers from the bunch of factions it has.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • DarthEnderXDarthEnderX Registered Users Posts: 2,966

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    "Assassination's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it."
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,581

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 4,706

    Arsenic said:

    Warhammer Fantasy?

    "A group of Englishmen with a love of bad puns and innuendo took every fantasy trope going and made a setting out of it. Which became a bit awkward when they tried to make it a serious world with deep lore behind it decades later."

    Honestly I just ignore the attempts to make WHFB grimdark in 8th.
    With my blinkers on Bretonia and the Lizardmen are only just canon.
    BEARS, Beets, Battlestar Galactica 🧝‍♀️ Pandas too please CA!
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 6,737

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    It's really that easy. People can take it from there and get involved from there. Personally I'm a 40k fan first but each to their own.

    As to the implied topic I think AoS is overall pretty meh. It's as broad as the ocean and as deep as a puddle.

    You haven't kept up with the setting if you think it's shallow.
    I don't know why you're making a personal comment here and I feel zero need to defend my knowledge of the setting.
    You don't have much knowledge of the setting to begin with though. Back in 2015 it was definitely shallow but not anymore.
    It has gotten better, I would not call it great either.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,581
    Actually I didn't answer the question properly the first time, apologies OP.

    40K:
    I'd suggest it's a dark science fiction setting with fantasy elements. I'd then use Sisters of Battle as an example. Nuns that worship a dead emperor and can change the course of battle with the power of that fate. It's the most popular by far.

    WHFB:
    I'd explain this as fairly generic fantasy. I'd list off some races, say that Chaos is basically hell made real. Basically a dead setting, it is being revived but that probably won't be newb friendly.

    AoS:
    Basically some multiverse mumbo jumbo stuff. It's High Fantasy with things like immortal soldiers, Demons, and Pirate Dwarfs. Relatively new, still finding its feet. Reasonably popular but in general much less so than 40k in general.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,855
    edited May 12
    Its relativly easy to describe each setting in simple terms.
    Though because WFB relies so much on historical templates and classic fantasy tropes, its the easiest to grasp for newcomers, as everyone has some familiarity with this stuff. Even if they just know the clichees, as WFB uses them a lot too.

    In contrast AoS is the most complicated to explain I assume, due to its complicated make up and fewer "common knowledge" elements people can immediatly recognize.

    WFB: imagine our world but mixed with LotR and other fantasy tropes. E.g. medival germans but with magic fighting orcs and undead.

    40k: Imagine Star Wars but much darker and the Empire are the protagomists.

    AoS: Imagine the 9 worlds of norse mythology mixed with various fantasy tropes.
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • aMint1aMint1 Registered Users Posts: 1,202

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 4,706
    Fantasy is the easiest to explain.
    Then refer to it to explain the others: 40k is space version, AoS is ip wackiness version
    BEARS, Beets, Battlestar Galactica 🧝‍♀️ Pandas too please CA!
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,581

    I explain it all by saying the story is a generic stereotype to sell toy soldiers to kids.

    Realistically, yes. Though I'd say nerds and not kids. Everyone at my local store is a fairly stereotypical nerd, at least on the surface level. To be clear I don't use that as an insult, I'm unquestionably a nerd too.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,581
    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    I don't really have a definition.... I kinda don't care what something is defined as, I just like it or I don't. Categories are nice as a starting point to look for stuff, but pretty useless beyond that.

    That said I am looking at this from a casual conversation with a real person that doesn't know about Warhammer. Most actual people I know would consider LoTR Fantasy. If I'm discussing with a fellow nerd then yeah, probably High fantasy, but they almost certainly know about Warhammer at least casually.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • ladymissfitladymissfit Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,211

    Cyresdog said:

    Aos is honestly just fantasy but times 100 and more high fantasy

    AoS is rather Sci-Fi than it is Fantasy. Atleast if you ask me.
    It's definitely fantasy over sci-fi. Take the Sky Dwarfs. They're flying ships, not space ships or anything "sci fi". Though I can see why you'd think that, it's not unfounded. That said AoS is still finding out what it is, it's still shallow and still needs to pick actual winners and losers from the bunch of factions it has.
    genre and setting are two different things. space ships doesn't automatically make something sci-fi, themes do and themes can apply to any setting.

    which doesn't mean i disagree. AoS seems more backwards looking than forward-looking overall with a lot of focus on its own history and lore and how great heroes from the past are just replaying old wars. very fantasy. but there's also clear sci-fi elements in there as well.
    Chaos lords should be women

    Army painter plox
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,855
    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    There are no set in stone definitions as genre barriers are fluid.

    For example for some people low fantasy are fictious tales based om our world, and high fantasy is everything in a original setting. So Harry Potter low fantasy, GoT High Fantasy.

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.
    E.g. GoT is often called low fantasy due to how absent magic/fantasy elements are for the majority of the series. By contrast LotR is often called high fantasy.

    Though the latter is highly subjective. And many people would classify it hypocriticly.
    E.g. LotR would likley not be considered High Fantasy if released today.
    As the father of the genre it was HF when released but since then the fantasy genre has grown so much, that fantastical elements of LotR are dwarfed by the average fantasy works of today. The median has shifted.

    Indeed magic is very absent from the Tolkienverse and works in very subtle or metaphorical ways. And often magical artifacts referred to science or artisian ship in the Simarillion.
    Indeed for most of LotR itself the setting is very mundane, except orcs, elves and ents exist.
    One could make the argument that GoT uses magic more openly than LotR in many instances.

    By contrast warhammer as aztec space dinosaurs, undead egyptians with giant statues, nazi-ratmen with wunderwaffen-tech and nornal humans using magic left and right. So compared to LotR it is definitly High Fantasy.

    I think the gradient of fantastical elements is the best way to categorize low/high fantasy. As in WFB is more high fantasy than LotR, and AoS is more high fantasy than WFB.

    Kinda like:

    Low Fantasy<------GoT--LotR-------WFB----AoS---->High Fantasy
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,981

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    It does ultimately come down to a definition debate.

    Which, unfortunately, nobody agrees on the starting definitions to begin with.

    For some, it's not 'High' Fantasy until the focus is on realms and gods and dimensions and such.

    For others, 'High' Fantasy is simply any Fantasy with a heavy emphasis on magic, Races, and mythical creatures. As opposed to 'Low' Fantasy, where all magic/creatures/Races are present, but in a very "use sparingly" sort of way while the base operation of most characters in a day-to-day sense is very similar to our medieval world.

    Others I've seen argue that High Fantasy is any fantasy that takes place in a setting that isn't Earth. But if it's on Earth, then it's regular or low fantasy, regardless of how much magic or other things are being used on Earth vs 'not Earth'.

    I'm sure there are definitions as well, but those are just some examples off the top of my head that I've seen people use.

    Until you can get people to agree on a base operational definition of High/Low/Standard Fantasy, you'll never get people to agree on what 'type' of Fantasy any particular setting is.

    For my personal definition (which you do not have to accept) both Warhammer and AoS are High Fantasy. Just AoS is a whole other tier of High Fantasy. Not every type of High Fantasy has to be identically tiered. I guess if we made up a new category of 'Ultra High Fantasy' or whatever, then I would separate AoS into that, but failing that 4th category, the sheer preeminence of magic, prophecy, superhuman abilities, mythical weapons, and other things that do not operate around 'real world' laws and physics, makes all of that stuff High Fantasy to me.

    For me, mythical stuff is ofc allowed to EXIST in regular and low Fantasy. But it shouldn't be the focus or be present in every single story/mcguffin/plot arc/character, etc. And in Warhammer, it really is fairly omnipresent everywhere you look. And Warhammer STILL even has Realms and avatars and demigods, they just aren't featured as prominently as they are in AoS. So for me, while AoS is definitely HIGHER Fantasy than Warhammer, Warhammer still meets the benchmark of High Fantasy as far as I'm concerned.

    But again, that's just because of how I define it. If you define it differently, then that's fair and perfectly allowed.
  • ladymissfitladymissfit Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,211
    I like that Warhammer fantasy can easily be both high and low fantasy depending on framing. where the main warhammer game is solidly in high fantasy, the more individually focused RPG for example is very solidly low fantasy because life in the empire simply isn't. magic is for big, larger than life figures and battles but normal people barely ever, if at all, interact with magic.
    Chaos lords should be women

    Army painter plox
  • cabans33cabans33 Registered Users Posts: 1,168
    You just have to explain Warhammer and then:

    40K: WH in space

    AoS: WH on LSD
  • TotalWar78TotalWar78 Registered Users Posts: 620
    cabans33 said:

    You just have to explain Warhammer and then:

    40K: WH in space

    AoS: WH on LSD

    Haha exactly. I love all Warhammer, but for some reason nothing matches Fantasy, for all its flaws, it is simply amazing
  • DarthEnderXDarthEnderX Registered Users Posts: 2,966
    edited May 12

    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.

    Well, yes, because "fantasy" applies to all of it. But when you describe one setting as "high fantasy" it implies that you're trying to place the settings on a scale of high to low fantasy. And WHFB is an extremely Hight Fantasy setting. Not quite as high as AoS, but it's still way up there.

    Supernatural creatures are everywhere. Pretty much every army has wizards throwing comets and **** at people. And the immaterium routinely washes across the world, constantly threatening to eat away the edges of it.
    sykall said:

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.

    It's this one.
    cabans33 said:

    You just have to explain Warhammer and then:

    40K: WH in space

    AoS: WH on LSD

    AoS: "It's WHFB, but all the races live on separate islands floating in space instead of a planet."
    "Assassination's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it."
  • aMint1aMint1 Registered Users Posts: 1,202
    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    There are no set in stone definitions as genre barriers are fluid.

    For example for some people low fantasy are fictious tales based om our world, and high fantasy is everything in a original setting. So Harry Potter low fantasy, GoT High Fantasy.

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.
    E.g. GoT is often called low fantasy due to how absent magic/fantasy elements are for the majority of the series. By contrast LotR is often called high fantasy.

    Though the latter is highly subjective. And many people would classify it hypocriticly.
    E.g. LotR would likley not be considered High Fantasy if released today.
    As the father of the genre it was HF when released but since then the fantasy genre has grown so much, that fantastical elements of LotR are dwarfed by the average fantasy works of today. The median has shifted.

    Indeed magic is very absent from the Tolkienverse and works in very subtle or metaphorical ways. And often magical artifacts referred to science or artisian ship in the Simarillion.
    Indeed for most of LotR itself the setting is very mundane, except orcs, elves and ents exist.
    One could make the argument that GoT uses magic more openly than LotR in many instances.

    By contrast warhammer as aztec space dinosaurs, undead egyptians with giant statues, nazi-ratmen with wunderwaffen-tech and nornal humans using magic left and right. So compared to LotR it is definitly High Fantasy.

    I think the gradient of fantastical elements is the best way to categorize low/high fantasy. As in WFB is more high fantasy than LotR, and AoS is more high fantasy than WFB.

    Kinda like:

    Low Fantasy<------GoT--LotR-------WFB----AoS---->High Fantasy
    Regardless of which of the two definitions you use, LotR is high fantasy. The presence of orcs, goblins, dwarves, hobbits, elves, the story being about a magic ring, and a million other reasons make LotR, unquestionably, high fantasy. It's not a question of how many times a character waves a wand to cast magic-missle, it's about how laden the book is with fantastical elements. Or use the other definition which still puts it firmly in the high fantasy category.

    Take the fantastical elements of LotR out and you have Aragon walking around with a sword for three books.
  • KhmarachesKhmaraches Registered Users Posts: 47

    fight most of the stuff from the fantasy games but with most of the names changed to make it a lot dumber

    To male them copyrightable, not dumber ^^

  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,855
    edited May 12
    aMint1 said:

    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    There are no set in stone definitions as genre barriers are fluid.

    For example for some people low fantasy are fictious tales based om our world, and high fantasy is everything in a original setting. So Harry Potter low fantasy, GoT High Fantasy.

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.
    E.g. GoT is often called low fantasy due to how absent magic/fantasy elements are for the majority of the series. By contrast LotR is often called high fantasy.

    Though the latter is highly subjective. And many people would classify it hypocriticly.
    E.g. LotR would likley not be considered High Fantasy if released today.
    As the father of the genre it was HF when released but since then the fantasy genre has grown so much, that fantastical elements of LotR are dwarfed by the average fantasy works of today. The median has shifted.

    Indeed magic is very absent from the Tolkienverse and works in very subtle or metaphorical ways. And often magical artifacts referred to science or artisian ship in the Simarillion.
    Indeed for most of LotR itself the setting is very mundane, except orcs, elves and ents exist.
    One could make the argument that GoT uses magic more openly than LotR in many instances.

    By contrast warhammer as aztec space dinosaurs, undead egyptians with giant statues, nazi-ratmen with wunderwaffen-tech and nornal humans using magic left and right. So compared to LotR it is definitly High Fantasy.

    I think the gradient of fantastical elements is the best way to categorize low/high fantasy. As in WFB is more high fantasy than LotR, and AoS is more high fantasy than WFB.

    Kinda like:

    Low Fantasy<------GoT--LotR-------WFB----AoS---->High Fantasy
    Regardless of which of the two definitions you use, LotR is high fantasy. The presence of orcs, goblins, dwarves, hobbits, elves, the story being about a magic ring, and a million other reasons make LotR, unquestionably, high fantasy. It's not a question of how many times a character waves a wand to cast magic-missle, it's about how laden the book is with fantastical elements. Or use the other definition which still puts it firmly in the high fantasy category.

    Take the fantastical elements of LotR out and you have Aragon walking around with a sword for three books.
    I did not say, that LoTR was not high Fantasy. That was never my point.
    Instead I said that all fantasy works can be placed on a gradient of low and high fantasy. But as definitions for low/high fantasy are swamy at best. There is not an objective definition for either.

    So the best we can do is make a gradient and say what setting is more low fantasy than others. Which is where I used my gradient to compare how my example works behave to each other. But if I had taken other examples, the list placement have looked different.

    In this spirit I said, that LotR is currently on the lower end of the spectrum compared to other standard fantasy works, or warhammer settings, as the median of fantastical elements in fantasy books shifted since LotR initial release.

    And I wanted to point out, that this gradient is often used hypocriticly by many people. For this I used the example of LotR being roughly equal to GoT in terms of fantastical content, despite the GoT being often considered low fantasy and LotR is often considered high fantasy.
    For example GoT has children of the forest as quasi elves, giants, dragons, undead, shadow demons and others running around, pluis various magic like skin-changing, fire/shadow magic etc.pp. Many of these elements are more active or equally active for the overall story than their relatives in LotR.
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,981
    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    There are no set in stone definitions as genre barriers are fluid.

    For example for some people low fantasy are fictious tales based om our world, and high fantasy is everything in a original setting. So Harry Potter low fantasy, GoT High Fantasy.

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.
    E.g. GoT is often called low fantasy due to how absent magic/fantasy elements are for the majority of the series. By contrast LotR is often called high fantasy.

    Though the latter is highly subjective. And many people would classify it hypocriticly.
    E.g. LotR would likley not be considered High Fantasy if released today.
    As the father of the genre it was HF when released but since then the fantasy genre has grown so much, that fantastical elements of LotR are dwarfed by the average fantasy works of today. The median has shifted.

    Indeed magic is very absent from the Tolkienverse and works in very subtle or metaphorical ways. And often magical artifacts referred to science or artisian ship in the Simarillion.
    Indeed for most of LotR itself the setting is very mundane, except orcs, elves and ents exist.
    One could make the argument that GoT uses magic more openly than LotR in many instances.

    By contrast warhammer as aztec space dinosaurs, undead egyptians with giant statues, nazi-ratmen with wunderwaffen-tech and nornal humans using magic left and right. So compared to LotR it is definitly High Fantasy.

    I think the gradient of fantastical elements is the best way to categorize low/high fantasy. As in WFB is more high fantasy than LotR, and AoS is more high fantasy than WFB.

    Kinda like:

    Low Fantasy<------GoT--LotR-------WFB----AoS---->High Fantasy
    Regardless of which of the two definitions you use, LotR is high fantasy. The presence of orcs, goblins, dwarves, hobbits, elves, the story being about a magic ring, and a million other reasons make LotR, unquestionably, high fantasy. It's not a question of how many times a character waves a wand to cast magic-missle, it's about how laden the book is with fantastical elements. Or use the other definition which still puts it firmly in the high fantasy category.

    Take the fantastical elements of LotR out and you have Aragon walking around with a sword for three books.
    I did not say, that LoTR was not high Fantasy. That was never my point.
    Instead I said that all fantasy works can be placed on a gradient of low and high fantasy. But as definitions for low/high fantasy are swamy at best. There is not an objective definition for either.

    So the best we can do is make a gradient and say what setting is more low fantasy than others. Which is where I used my gradient to compare how my example works behave to each other. But if I had taken other examples, the list placement have looked different.

    In this spirit I said, that LotR is currently on the lower end of the spectrum compared to other standard fantasy works, or warhammer settings, as the median of fantastical elements in fantasy books shifted since LotR initial release.

    And I wanted to point out, that this gradient is often used hypocriticly by many people. For this I used the example of LotR being roughly equal to GoT in terms of fantastical content, despite the GoT being often considered low fantasy and LotR is often considered high fantasy.
    For example GoT has children of the forest as quasi elves, giants, dragons, undead, shadow demons and others running around, pluis various magic like skin-changing, fire/shadow magic etc.pp. Many of these elements are more active or equally active for the overall story than their relatives in LotR.
    GoT gets its Low Fantasy from how it was portrayed in the earlier books in the series.

    Magic had largely faded from the world. Magical beasts are largely regarded as extinct and people who talk about them in a contemporary sense are accused of spreading superstitious myths and anyone pretending to be a wizard or sorceress is met with heavy skepticism as a charlatan.

    There are a few magical events and characters that happen, but what makes their scenes impressive is just how unusual and rare that power feels in the setting. For 90+% of it, it feels like a fictional medieval Europe. With small doses of magic tipping the scales.

    ^I'd say this holds true for about the first 3 books. Ish.

    As the books progress, yes, the magic in the world is stirring. Prophecies that earlier seemed to be a coinflip between true magic and superstitious drug induced rituals get confirmed to be 100% true magic and the number of magical prophecies that characters interact with starts multiplying. People start being raised from the dead, more characters start acquiring magical creatures, powers, and artifacts that are supernatural. Things definitely start shifting mid-series. The writing quality also just starts to diminish as well in both the books and the show.

    Also! Those latter books and shows were released a full 8 years to 1 decade+ AFTER the first 3 books were published. So many readers had this low fantasy impression ingrained as their understanding for many years before they came into contact with any other material.

    ^For many readers, their true affection for the series resided in those opening 3 books. It's where their headcanon for the series is strongest and most of the stuff after that is considered a bloated decline or an unwelcome shift.

    So that is why GoT is frequently regarded as Low Fantasy.....because it was! Then it started to not be anymore....but that transition wasn't handled well so many fans have been reluctant to include the latter material into their "true" perception of the setting.

    ^Sort of akin to how many Warhammer fans dismiss or are dismayed by the writing of the End Times.
  • aMint1aMint1 Registered Users Posts: 1,202
    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    There are no set in stone definitions as genre barriers are fluid.

    For example for some people low fantasy are fictious tales based om our world, and high fantasy is everything in a original setting. So Harry Potter low fantasy, GoT High Fantasy.

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.
    E.g. GoT is often called low fantasy due to how absent magic/fantasy elements are for the majority of the series. By contrast LotR is often called high fantasy.

    Though the latter is highly subjective. And many people would classify it hypocriticly.
    E.g. LotR would likley not be considered High Fantasy if released today.
    As the father of the genre it was HF when released but since then the fantasy genre has grown so much, that fantastical elements of LotR are dwarfed by the average fantasy works of today. The median has shifted.

    Indeed magic is very absent from the Tolkienverse and works in very subtle or metaphorical ways. And often magical artifacts referred to science or artisian ship in the Simarillion.
    Indeed for most of LotR itself the setting is very mundane, except orcs, elves and ents exist.
    One could make the argument that GoT uses magic more openly than LotR in many instances.

    By contrast warhammer as aztec space dinosaurs, undead egyptians with giant statues, nazi-ratmen with wunderwaffen-tech and nornal humans using magic left and right. So compared to LotR it is definitly High Fantasy.

    I think the gradient of fantastical elements is the best way to categorize low/high fantasy. As in WFB is more high fantasy than LotR, and AoS is more high fantasy than WFB.

    Kinda like:

    Low Fantasy<------GoT--LotR-------WFB----AoS---->High Fantasy
    Regardless of which of the two definitions you use, LotR is high fantasy. The presence of orcs, goblins, dwarves, hobbits, elves, the story being about a magic ring, and a million other reasons make LotR, unquestionably, high fantasy. It's not a question of how many times a character waves a wand to cast magic-missle, it's about how laden the book is with fantastical elements. Or use the other definition which still puts it firmly in the high fantasy category.

    Take the fantastical elements of LotR out and you have Aragon walking around with a sword for three books.
    I did not say, that LoTR was not high Fantasy. That was never my point.
    Instead I said that all fantasy works can be placed on a gradient of low and high fantasy. But as definitions for low/high fantasy are swamy at best. There is not an objective definition for either.

    So the best we can do is make a gradient and say what setting is more low fantasy than others. Which is where I used my gradient to compare how my example works behave to each other. But if I had taken other examples, the list placement have looked different.

    In this spirit I said, that LotR is currently on the lower end of the spectrum compared to other standard fantasy works, or warhammer settings, as the median of fantastical elements in fantasy books shifted since LotR initial release.

    And I wanted to point out, that this gradient is often used hypocriticly by many people. For this I used the example of LotR being roughly equal to GoT in terms of fantastical content, despite the GoT being often considered low fantasy and LotR is often considered high fantasy.
    For example GoT has children of the forest as quasi elves, giants, dragons, undead, shadow demons and others running around, pluis various magic like skin-changing, fire/shadow magic etc.pp. Many of these elements are more active or equally active for the overall story than their relatives in LotR.
    LotR is no where near the low fantasy end of your spectrum. Pretty much every page involves a hobbit, dwarf, elf, orc, wizard, ent, or other random non-human being. The whole story is about a magical ring. The setting is not earth. LotR is solidly on the right of your spectrum, twisting nipples with Wfb and AoS.
  • b_tookb_took Registered Users Posts: 72
    So far as I can tell:

    Warhammer is Dark Fantasy Steampunk
    Warhammer 40K is Psychological Horror Sci Fi
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,855
    edited May 12
    aMint1 said:

    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    There are no set in stone definitions as genre barriers are fluid.

    For example for some people low fantasy are fictious tales based om our world, and high fantasy is everything in a original setting. So Harry Potter low fantasy, GoT High Fantasy.

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.
    E.g. GoT is often called low fantasy due to how absent magic/fantasy elements are for the majority of the series. By contrast LotR is often called high fantasy.

    Though the latter is highly subjective. And many people would classify it hypocriticly.
    E.g. LotR would likley not be considered High Fantasy if released today.
    As the father of the genre it was HF when released but since then the fantasy genre has grown so much, that fantastical elements of LotR are dwarfed by the average fantasy works of today. The median has shifted.

    Indeed magic is very absent from the Tolkienverse and works in very subtle or metaphorical ways. And often magical artifacts referred to science or artisian ship in the Simarillion.
    Indeed for most of LotR itself the setting is very mundane, except orcs, elves and ents exist.
    One could make the argument that GoT uses magic more openly than LotR in many instances.

    By contrast warhammer as aztec space dinosaurs, undead egyptians with giant statues, nazi-ratmen with wunderwaffen-tech and nornal humans using magic left and right. So compared to LotR it is definitly High Fantasy.

    I think the gradient of fantastical elements is the best way to categorize low/high fantasy. As in WFB is more high fantasy than LotR, and AoS is more high fantasy than WFB.

    Kinda like:

    Low Fantasy<------GoT--LotR-------WFB----AoS---->High Fantasy
    Regardless of which of the two definitions you use, LotR is high fantasy. The presence of orcs, goblins, dwarves, hobbits, elves, the story being about a magic ring, and a million other reasons make LotR, unquestionably, high fantasy. It's not a question of how many times a character waves a wand to cast magic-missle, it's about how laden the book is with fantastical elements. Or use the other definition which still puts it firmly in the high fantasy category.

    Take the fantastical elements of LotR out and you have Aragon walking around with a sword for three books.
    I did not say, that LoTR was not high Fantasy. That was never my point.
    Instead I said that all fantasy works can be placed on a gradient of low and high fantasy. But as definitions for low/high fantasy are swamy at best. There is not an objective definition for either.

    So the best we can do is make a gradient and say what setting is more low fantasy than others. Which is where I used my gradient to compare how my example works behave to each other. But if I had taken other examples, the list placement have looked different.

    In this spirit I said, that LotR is currently on the lower end of the spectrum compared to other standard fantasy works, or warhammer settings, as the median of fantastical elements in fantasy books shifted since LotR initial release.

    And I wanted to point out, that this gradient is often used hypocriticly by many people. For this I used the example of LotR being roughly equal to GoT in terms of fantastical content, despite the GoT being often considered low fantasy and LotR is often considered high fantasy.
    For example GoT has children of the forest as quasi elves, giants, dragons, undead, shadow demons and others running around, pluis various magic like skin-changing, fire/shadow magic etc.pp. Many of these elements are more active or equally active for the overall story than their relatives in LotR.
    LotR is no where near the low fantasy end of your spectrum. Pretty much every page involves a hobbit, dwarf, elf, orc, wizard, ent, or other random non-human being. The whole story is about a magical ring. The setting is not earth. LotR is solidly on the right of your spectrum, twisting nipples with Wfb and AoS.
    As I said if I would have used other works as reference my gradient would have looked different, with LotR or GoT being more centric or right. But I did not for convience sake, to keep my example small.

    Because there is ni objective definition of high/low fantasy. So watching works in reference to each other is one of the best things one can do to determine the low/high fantasy nature of a setting.

    Its a bit like temperature. E.g. wearing a pullover and jeans may be to warm or to cold, depending on the external temperature you are confronted with. Similarly whether a work is more low or more high fantasy depends on which other works you confront it with.
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,855
    edited May 12
    Valkaar said:

    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    sykall said:

    aMint1 said:

    AoS - High Fantasy
    WHFB - Fantasy
    40K - Science Fiction.

    The idea that WHFB isn't also high fantasy is laugable.
    You can argue definitions, but WHFB is fairly accurately described as fantasy. In the sense that if you consider LoTR as fantasy you would be familiar with the level of WHFB's fantasy.

    That said if you wanted to describe it as High Fantasy I wouldn't debate it. That's just how I would personally describe it in a very casual sense.
    Idk what definition you use for high fantasy but WFB, AoS, and LotR are all unquestionably high fantasy.
    There are no set in stone definitions as genre barriers are fluid.

    For example for some people low fantasy are fictious tales based om our world, and high fantasy is everything in a original setting. So Harry Potter low fantasy, GoT High Fantasy.

    For others the first is urban fantasy, and low/high fantasy are a gradient to measure the prominence of fantastical elements.
    E.g. GoT is often called low fantasy due to how absent magic/fantasy elements are for the majority of the series. By contrast LotR is often called high fantasy.

    Though the latter is highly subjective. And many people would classify it hypocriticly.
    E.g. LotR would likley not be considered High Fantasy if released today.
    As the father of the genre it was HF when released but since then the fantasy genre has grown so much, that fantastical elements of LotR are dwarfed by the average fantasy works of today. The median has shifted.

    Indeed magic is very absent from the Tolkienverse and works in very subtle or metaphorical ways. And often magical artifacts referred to science or artisian ship in the Simarillion.
    Indeed for most of LotR itself the setting is very mundane, except orcs, elves and ents exist.
    One could make the argument that GoT uses magic more openly than LotR in many instances.

    By contrast warhammer as aztec space dinosaurs, undead egyptians with giant statues, nazi-ratmen with wunderwaffen-tech and nornal humans using magic left and right. So compared to LotR it is definitly High Fantasy.

    I think the gradient of fantastical elements is the best way to categorize low/high fantasy. As in WFB is more high fantasy than LotR, and AoS is more high fantasy than WFB.

    Kinda like:

    Low Fantasy<------GoT--LotR-------WFB----AoS---->High Fantasy
    Regardless of which of the two definitions you use, LotR is high fantasy. The presence of orcs, goblins, dwarves, hobbits, elves, the story being about a magic ring, and a million other reasons make LotR, unquestionably, high fantasy. It's not a question of how many times a character waves a wand to cast magic-missle, it's about how laden the book is with fantastical elements. Or use the other definition which still puts it firmly in the high fantasy category.

    Take the fantastical elements of LotR out and you have Aragon walking around with a sword for three books.
    I did not say, that LoTR was not high Fantasy. That was never my point.
    Instead I said that all fantasy works can be placed on a gradient of low and high fantasy. But as definitions for low/high fantasy are swamy at best. There is not an objective definition for either.

    So the best we can do is make a gradient and say what setting is more low fantasy than others. Which is where I used my gradient to compare how my example works behave to each other. But if I had taken other examples, the list placement have looked different.

    In this spirit I said, that LotR is currently on the lower end of the spectrum compared to other standard fantasy works, or warhammer settings, as the median of fantastical elements in fantasy books shifted since LotR initial release.

    And I wanted to point out, that this gradient is often used hypocriticly by many people. For this I used the example of LotR being roughly equal to GoT in terms of fantastical content, despite the GoT being often considered low fantasy and LotR is often considered high fantasy.
    For example GoT has children of the forest as quasi elves, giants, dragons, undead, shadow demons and others running around, pluis various magic like skin-changing, fire/shadow magic etc.pp. Many of these elements are more active or equally active for the overall story than their relatives in LotR.
    GoT gets its Low Fantasy from how it was portrayed in the earlier books in the series.

    Magic had largely faded from the world. Magical beasts are largely regarded as extinct and people who talk about them in a contemporary sense are accused of spreading superstitious myths and anyone pretending to be a wizard or sorceress is met with heavy skepticism as a charlatan.

    There are a few magical events and characters that happen, but what makes their scenes impressive is just how unusual and rare that power feels in the setting. For 90+% of it, it feels like a fictional medieval Europe. With small doses of magic tipping the scales.

    ^I'd say this holds true for about the first 3 books. Ish.

    As the books progress, yes, the magic in the world is stirring. Prophecies that earlier seemed to be a coinflip between true magic and superstitious drug induced rituals get confirmed to be 100% true magic and the number of magical prophecies that characters interact with starts multiplying. People start being raised from the dead, more characters start acquiring magical creatures, powers, and artifacts that are supernatural. Things definitely start shifting mid-series. The writing quality also just starts to diminish as well in both the books and the show.

    Also! Those latter books and shows were released a full 8 years to 1 decade+ AFTER the first 3 books were published. So many readers had this low fantasy impression ingrained as their understanding for many years before they came into contact with any other material.

    ^For many readers, their true affection for the series resided in those opening 3 books. It's where their headcanon for the series is strongest and most of the stuff after that is considered a bloated decline or an unwelcome shift.

    So that is why GoT is frequently regarded as Low Fantasy.....because it was! Then it started to not be anymore....but that transition wasn't handled well so many fans have been reluctant to include the latter material into their "true" perception of the setting.

    ^Sort of akin to how many Warhammer fans dismiss or are dismayed by the writing of the End Times.
    I started reading GoT around Books 5 release, but to me there were many fantastical elements creeping themselves into the story from the early chapters.

    From Brans visionary dreams (starting in the second half of book 1 I think), to Melisandres magic (which started in Book 2),to the proper showing of the wildlings and in turn more contact with giants and greenseers (which was around book 3 I think). and many others in between.
    I agree, that in book 1 fantastical elements were the most sparse. But after that there had been a gradual build up with many more submissive fantastical elements (e.g. dreams which may or may not be visions) to outright major stuff (e.g. the shadow assassin baby).
    These are all just some fragments of the fantastical elements of the earlier books of course, just to indiciate that these leanings existed from the very beginning.

    Of course I did not have the gap between book 3 and 4+5. But in my mindset it was always an organic growth of the setting to become ever more fantastical.
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • mw51630mw51630 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,165
    WFB: Really more Dungeons & Dragons X 1000. Concepts like Dark Elves vs. High Elves, Norse/Northern raiders from the north, and anything New World/Aztec are way more D&D than LotR.

    WH40k: Dune, Starship Troopers, Alien, and even D&D again (the Webway and Commoragh are sci-fi versions of D&D's Underdark), X 10000.

    Age of Sigmar: A lot of Moorcock (Elric of Melnibonne), a lot of Norse mythology, and a lot of D&D cosmology all thrown together, the aesthetic supposed to be like heavy metal album cover bands.


  • DarthEnderXDarthEnderX Registered Users Posts: 2,966
    Real answer

    WHFB: Metal
    40K: Metal
    AoS: Metal
    "Assassination's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it."
  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 9,706
    I dont think 40K is particularly hard to explain.
    Glory matters not.

Sign In or Register to comment.