Topic: AoS Naming Conventions: Sensible or Gilding the Lily, a spirited discussion

[GamesPoet]

We get it, you like AoS, some of us do not.

You're quick to dismiss anyone who's bashing AoS as a cretin who's stuck in the past, but I think you need to consider that a lot of the older players and collectors (I don't know how old you are Old Stoney) grew up with WFB, it kind of mirrored other things that we grew up with too like maybe Robin Hood, King Arthur, LOTR, dare I say all conventional, somewhat grounded versions of fantasy mixed with historical realism, and this is what WFB was born out of in the beginning.

I do fully understand why GW made such the monumental shift. IP was difficult to protect, their fanbase for Fantasy was maybe stagnating and ageing and the rule set (I don't play so can't be 100% certain) was I believe getting more and more complex, putting off the younger generations as it was too difficult to get into. The youth of today has grown up with technology and Marvel superheroes, not swords and bows so yeah pseudo dwarves with lightning rifles and massive beefcake golden boys are maybe a little more relatable to them. Bright lights and colours and all that.

It's the fact that it was so massive a gulf between the old and the new, nothing is familiar anymore, silly names included, probably what GW were going for. It is aimed at the youth and if you are into it then that's great, more power to you, but it understandably closed the door on a lot of other people. You can't replace LOTR with Flash Gordon and expect your fans to lap it up and not rip it to shreds.

Finally the comments on the new Old World are entirely valid, what's the point in reviving the Old World if any new models are a full head and shoulders above their counterparts from yesteryear? Why bother going back in time if everything you produce is going to be more magical and whimsical than it previously was?

Rant over

Good rant jmash. AoS is here and has its fanbase. To bring back the old world is going after that fanbase - speak to it. There’s room for everyone as long as people keep sending cash their way.

And we at W-E even gave W:AoS it's own forum, excluding it would have less than appropriate.  From my view, W:AoS is just an extension of the Warhammer Fantasy product, designed to allow folks an alternative fantasy world that folks can choose to enjoy if they'd like or not, while GW is able to more centrally control and give reasons for folks to buy their product, even inventing new words for further differentiating them self.  However, it was so dramatic of a change, and humans being what they are, it really isn't surprising that some would respond as they have.  Some are and will fully embrace it, some are and will partially embrace it (sort of like me with my interest in Warcry, and now buying Beastgrave for the figures, although I am reading the Beastgrave rules for perhaps a go at them), and some won't embrace it at all.

As for the point of reviving the Old World, GW must see value in it, or they wouldn't do it if they didn't see an ability to make money.  They've got a crowd of folks that have grown up or grown into W:AoS, and either way they go with the size of new figures, there will be some who buy new figures.  But I digress, perhaps that was the idea that Stonebeard was referring regarding splitting this thread.  And this thread really is about W:AoS, and it's naming conventions.

Perhaps we'll see the new GW naming system move into the Old World as well.  Perhaps that brings my post back on track.  Perhaps.

[Jmash]

Apologies for the slightly off topic rant but the debate did start with the silly names and I guess it's just one of many interlinking factors that continue to create division and lively debate between the two camps.

Perhaps we'll see the new GW naming system move into the Old World as well...

I for one really hope it does not but I suspect it probably will.

Really I think it all comes down to IP, and GW being of course a business, it wants to protect and control it's IP. Anyone can wield a sword or an axe, regardless of where the figures originate from, but as soon as it's a Manripper axe or God forbid a Thwackwheezer Puffshroom then it instantly locks down any 3rd party reproductions. Though the 3rd parties can of course... call it an axe, or a mushroom... and still be ripping off GW IP.

[Jmash]

Also does this mean there's no point using a Manripper axe against Orruks (Orcs)? Are they no good at ripping greenskins?

What about vampires and other undead? they're kinda men, or at least were? Can they rip bone? hmm... 

[GamesPoet]

No need to apologize.  Maybe three camps ... full embrace, partial, no way.

Regardless, bringing the new names, like Orruks, into the Olde World seems a bit much.  Leave it in W:AoS seems fine to me, none of us with strong opinions are likely going to change what GW decides anyway.  Besides, if they take orruks into the Olde World returning, I'm still going to call them orcs.  And don't forget the goblins!  And as for "mortsilver bullets", if I ever have the need to use such terminology, will still be called silver bullets.

(There you go GP ... ya brought it back around to the original post.)

Aw shucks.

[Artobans Ghost]

Quote Jmash: Thwackwheezer Puffshroom

Sorry to say it but that name is growing on me. I think we all need to repeat this numerous times like a mantra and it will join the lexicon 😺

[GamesPoet]

Also does this mean there's no point using a Manripper axe against Orruks (Orcs)? Are they no good at ripping greenskins?

What about vampires and other undead? they're kinda men, or at least were? Can they rip bone? hmm... 

Ah, a ripper axe!  Could be a Jackripper Axe?  Terrible ideas, I know.

[Old Stonebeard]

And the idea that your viewpoint here would be moderated by me into a separate thread, isn’t making much sense to me, so feel free to explain.  So far it has convinced me that you're not familiar with where the topic came from.

I have to admire the way in which you so often mask condescension behind self-deprecation 

And it is interesting to see that you seem to point out your disappointment in them naming some of these weapons one way, and others another.  Yes, the inconsistency does exist.

The inconsistency is that you're happy to take the piss at "thwackweezer puffshroom" while a counter-point of normal naming conventions is sitting in your own home...

What is WarCom?  Is it affiliated with GW?  Or maybe it is some other hobby website?

Warhammer-Community.com. I keep forgetting that you don't engage with the community outside of W-E 

We get it, you like AoS, some of us do not.

And we at W-E even gave W:AoS it's own forum, excluding it would have less than appropriate.

One needs only compare the descriptions for 9th age and KoW bracketing the AOS subforum to see it exists solely as a place for bitter WHFB players to take potshots at Sigmar 

However, it was so dramatic of a change, and humans being what they are, it really isn't surprising that some would respond as they have.

It's the fact that it was so massive a gulf between the old and the new, nothing is familiar anymore, silly names included, probably what GW were going for. It is aimed at the youth and if you are into it then that's great, more power to you, but it understandably closed the door on a lot of other people. You can't replace LOTR with Flash Gordon and expect your fans to lap it up and not rip it to shreds.

And I get that. I really, really do. When WHFB died in 2015, I spent a year raging at AOS because, at the time, it was hot garbage, full stop. In fact, the AOS product lead used to follow me on Twitter; he softblocked me after I made my feelings known about the AOS launch during last summer's 5 year anniversary festivities. The scars of that needless debacle continue to surface in this very conversation, and former GW designer James Hewitt provides some wonderful insight into that fustercluck in a Goonhammer interview. Read the supercut yourself:
https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/25603-interview-with-james-hewitt-about-designing-aos-1st-ed/

But, as you say, it's something new. Where I get frustrated is when WHFB players won't judge AOS on it's own merits, but instead get off mocking it because "why new thing not exactly like old thing!!!11".

grew up with WFB, it kind of mirrored other things that we grew up with too like maybe Robin Hood, King Arthur, LOTR, dare I say all conventional, somewhat grounded versions of fantasy mixed with historical realism, and this is what WFB was born out of in the beginning.

NewGuy- for those of you who remember him- and I had many conversations about this back around 2016. WHFB was quite literally Tolkien smashed into actually history. It was familiar, comfortable, accessible. By those same parameters, it was boring. Opportunities for storytelling were limited. There's a reason why Animosity Campaigns went about exploring the rest of the ignored Warhammer World just to find room to breathe. Yes, maybe the trade-markable names are silly, but the opportunities for interesting storytelling are legion.

pseudo dwarves with lightning rifles

Case in point- they aren't pseudo dwarfs, they are dwarfs, but exploring the question of "what if WHFB's dwarfs needed to embrace change to survive?" Where dwarfs- and even their cousins, the Fyreslayers- have oaths and traditions, the Kharadron have their contracts and their code, and like your classic dwarfs, they will go to great lengths to honor a contract that wasn't fulfilled, and punish those who broke a contract with them.

Also- their guns don't shoot lightning. Contrary to popular belief, they aren't steampunk, they're aetherpunk; all their technology uses pressurized gas. In the case of their rifle, the gas is used to fire bullets instead of black powder. Considering gas piston rifles exist IRL, it's not too big of a jump.

massive beefcake golden boys

This character was, in her mortal life, an inkeeper who fought to the death to defend her home. Although not a warrior in life, Sigmar recognized her bravery and reforged her to fight again. The Stormcast provide many interesting opportunities for storytelling, and explore the moral and ethical conundrums of Sigmar's war effort.

You're quick to dismiss anyone who's bashing AoS as a cretin who's stuck in the past,

Sorry- call it a kneejerk reaction to being treated like a cretin by vitriolic WHFB players I've had to suffer to this day, including my FLGS owner actively disparaging and discouraging AOS players in his store in favor of WHFB 4th Edition, which was his idea of grounded, gritty, old-fashioned Warhammer...



Anyway, a timely update from WarCom about Total War: Warhammer 3 and The Old World, mashing the new Kislev designs into the old setting:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/02/03/watch-kislev-battle-a-bloodthirster-in-the-first-trailer-for-total-war-warhammer-iii/

Alex

[GamesPoet]

Breaking my reply into multiple posts … 1 of 2 ...

So, I checked the AOS Warscrolls for Skaeth's Wild Hunt and Grashrak's Despoilers, the two Underworlds warbands in the Beastgrave set GamesPoet just bought, and despite being satyr/centuar aelves, I realize we're not talking about the wild, wacky weapon names they have, like... "Javelin of the Hunt"? That's not so bad, but they also carry "Seeker Bows"! Atrocious! And what's this? A "hunting weapon"? Will this violence done upon our youth's pasttime never end!
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos_skaeths_wild_hunt_en.pdf

Shall we see what miscarriage of conventionality they've done to the Beastmen, then, these staples of gritty, low-fantasy Warhammer? Ah, there it is! A "ripper axe"! Not to mention their "shortbows" and "flint weapons":
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos_grashraks_despoilers_en.pdf

Beastgrave is certainly proving to be quite the education.  Thankfully they haven’t started molding the figures to the bases for us yet.  And it is interesting to see that you seem to point out your disappointment in them naming some of these weapons one way, and others another.  Yes, the inconsistency does exist.

Splitting off topic discussion into its own thread is called moderating a lost art I know...

Ya'll sure do have curious notions about what needs moderating 

Now, I wouldn't want GP to have to moderate this down into yet another thread, so I'll close by putting us back on topic with another comment from that Kislev article…

Super stoked about this. I do worry that every new unit will have a ridiculous bloody magic-the-gathering-card name like the units in AoS. You can just call a miner a miner or a halberdier a halberdier GW.

We’re aware ya don’t like the moderating here, so “curious” seems an understatement.

And the idea that your viewpoint here would be moderated by me into a separate thread, isn’t making much sense to me, so feel free to explain.  So far it has convinced me that you're not familiar with where the topic came from.

I have to admire the way in which you so often mask condescension behind self-deprecation 

Skipping some, and no explanation, more reason to further seem there is a lack of knowledge in where the posts were before.  Meanwhile, humility and kindness can be powerful, even if confused for self-deprecation and condescension.

And as long as we’re at it ...

That's ok, suffice it to say for the moment that the topic of this thread started with one post on another thread, and developed into a discussion of many posts on the other thread.  The digression seemed worth enough and different enough, to have it's own thread for folks to debate and enjoy, without cluttering the topic of the other thread.  And as you can see, the new thread topic has continued here accordingly.

And it is interesting to see that you seem to point out your disappointment in them naming some of these weapons one way, and others another.  Yes, the inconsistency does exist.

The inconsistency is that you're happy to take the piss at "thwackweezer puffshroom" while a counter-point of normal naming conventions is sitting in your own home...

Yes, that is being viewed by yourself as one inconsistency, although the idea that there doesn’t seem to be an understanding of it is unfortunate.  It could require to go beyond the concept of things being merely black and white (gray).

What is WarCom?  Is it affiliated with GW?  Or maybe it is some other hobby website?

Warhammer-Community.com. I keep forgetting that you don't engage with the community outside of W-E 

This is showing another one of those hot vs. cold situations, when actually the world is so large that sometimes warmth is also an option, if one chooses to recognize it.

[GamesPoet]

2 of 2 ...

We get it, you like AoS, some of us do not.

And we at W-E even gave W:AoS it's own forum, excluding it would have less than appropriate.

One needs only compare the descriptions for 9th age and KoW bracketing the AOS subforum to see it exists solely as a place for bitter WHFB players to take potshots at Sigmar 

Possibly an unfortunate misinterpretation, yet I wasn’t involved in choosing the order of the subforums.  Perhaps that was Midaski’s choice since he did the work, and I doubt he was out to slight W:AoS, not his style.  Maybe at some point we’ll learn for sure, although that was years ago, and Midaski currently isn't around.  However, your coming here to post in the W:AoS threads to advertise your online campaign might show at least a little respect for the community that exists here.

However, it was so dramatic of a change, and humans being what they are, it really isn't surprising that some would respond as they have.

It's the fact that it was so massive a gulf between the old and the new, nothing is familiar anymore, silly names included, probably what GW were going for. It is aimed at the youth and if you are into it then that's great, more power to you, but it understandably closed the door on a lot of other people. You can't replace LOTR with Flash Gordon and expect your fans to lap it up and not rip it to shreds.

And I get that. I really, really do. When WHFB died in 2015, I spent a year raging at AOS because, at the time, it was hot garbage, full stop. In fact, the AOS product lead used to follow me on Twitter; he softblocked me after I made my feelings known about the AOS launch during last summer's 5 year anniversary festivities. The scars of that needless debacle continue to surface in this very conversation, and former GW designer James Hewitt provides some wonderful insight into that fustercluck in a Goonhammer interview. Read the supercut yourself:
https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/25603-interview-with-james-hewitt-about-designing-aos-1st-ed/

But, as you say, it's something new. Where I get frustrated is when WHFB players won't judge AOS on it's own merits, but instead get off mocking it because "why new thing not exactly like old thing!!!11".

Some may, some may not, and others also buy Warcry and Beastgrave (that murkey sometimes seemingly misunderstood area in the middle).

grew up with WFB, it kind of mirrored other things that we grew up with too like maybe Robin Hood, King Arthur, LOTR, dare I say all conventional, somewhat grounded versions of fantasy mixed with historical realism, and this is what WFB was born out of in the beginning.

NewGuy- for those of you who remember him- and I had many conversations about this back around 2016. WHFB was quite literally Tolkien smashed into actually history. It was familiar, comfortable, accessible. By those same parameters, it was boring. Opportunities for storytelling were limited. There's a reason why Animosity Campaigns went about exploring the rest of the ignored Warhammer World just to find room to breathe. Yes, maybe the trade-markable names are silly, but the opportunities for interesting storytelling are legion.

Ok, yet GW couldn’t have only switched to W:AoS due to story telling, although I can see how for some it can provide new ground for such, GW included.  After all, they seem to be coming back to the Olde World as well, and suspect it isn’t just for the storytelling.

pseudo dwarves with lightning rifles

Case in point- they aren't pseudo dwarfs, they are dwarfs, but exploring the question of "what if WHFB's dwarfs needed to embrace change to survive?" Where dwarfs- and even their cousins, the Fyreslayers- have oaths and traditions, the Kharadron have their contracts and their code, and like your classic dwarfs, they will go to great lengths to honor a contract that wasn't fulfilled, and punish those who broke a contract with them.

Also- their guns don't shoot lightning. Contrary to popular belief, they aren't steampunk, they're aetherpunk; all their technology uses pressurized gas. In the case of their rifle, the gas is used to fire bullets instead of black powder. Considering gas piston rifles exist IRL, it's not too big of a jump.

We can learn something new every day.

massive beefcake golden boys

This character was, in her mortal life, an inkeeper who fought to the death to defend her home. Although not a warrior in life, Sigmar recognized her bravery and reforged her to fight again. The Stormcast provide many interesting opportunities for storytelling, and explore the moral and ethical conundrums of Sigmar's war effort.

Good to learn, thanks!

You're quick to dismiss anyone who's bashing AoS as a cretin who's stuck in the past,

Sorry- call it a kneejerk reaction to being treated like a cretin by vitriolic WHFB players I've had to suffer to this day, including my FLGS owner actively disparaging and discouraging AOS players in his store in favor of WHFB 4th Edition, which was his idea of grounded, gritty, old-fashioned Warhammer...



Anyway, a timely update from WarCom about Total War: Warhammer 3 and The Old World, mashing the new Kislev designs into the old setting:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/02/03/watch-kislev-battle-a-bloodthirster-in-the-first-trailer-for-total-war-warhammer-iii/

And thanks for the link.

[Gankom]

I do look forward to the day I can log into a warhammer forum and not find everyone arguing about how much they hate/don't hate AoS. Especially in the AoS section.

I think a lot of folks pretty clearly forget how ridiculous Warhammer was for years, or the way people thought it was crazy (and many thought it was pretty silly) when Tolkien came out with his fantasy world.

As for the topic of the thread, personally it all comes down to a base problem in my opinion. Humans are just bad at naming things. How many New [locations] are there? My home town had a river gate. river street, river pass, river avenue, and more all in one block. GW meanwhile has been wolf wolfing for years. Plus in my nearly 25 years of warhammer fantasy I remember the ridiculous lizardmen names and other things. Remember 90% of the Ogre faction using gut or maw everywhere?

Like come on guys. They're small plastic soldiers. Stop blowing up at each other.

[Gankom]

I stopped in here against my best judgement, but I'm here now and do just want to point one thing out in the spirit of discussion. Jsmash, I personally found your rant post a bit insulting. I've been into warhammer fantasy for nearly 25 years as I said above, so to have your giant rant, in the AoS section for those who enjoy it to CONSTANTLY be referring to it as bright shiny lights for kids, rubbed me kinda the wrong way.

It's the fact that it was so massive a gulf between the old and the new, nothing is familiar anymore, silly names included, probably what GW were going for. It is aimed at the youth and if you are into it then that's great, more power to you, but it understandably closed the door on a lot of other people. You can't replace LOTR with Flash Gordon and expect your fans to lap it up and not rip it to shreds.

This also ties into a bit of GP saying how much he learned this day kind of thing, in that I think it shows how little a lot of folks have actually attempted to learn about the game. For example, there is a TON of stuff familiar about the setting if you take a comment to look. Heck there's a major novel series with Gotrek wandering around complaining/discussing this same thing. I also strongly disagree that its aimed at the youth any more then previous warhammer fantasy was. Warhammer became so big because it ripped off everything popular about every other franchise as is, and I think you'd be surprised how much you'd find with even a cursory delve into it.

I also think its NUTS to compare warhammer fantasy to LORD OF THE FREAKING RINGS. There is a gulf of difference between those two.

But its attitudes like this that drive folks out of the hobby. And I mean this both sides. The constant arguing, the constant shitting on the new stuff/stuff you don't like/stuff that changed/etc. Look at this. A bunch of folks showed up in the AoS section to shit talk its silly names, totally ignoring the equal silly names in Fantasy, and quite clearly rile up the folks who like it. What was the point there beyond starting an argument?

[S.O.F]

What was the point there beyond starting an argument?

Right well this has devolved to where it wasn't intended so as the original poster I shall apologize. "Sanctified mortsilver" however was a trigger only in one part the silly name convention. I would even argue that my biggest gripe with that sentence is the wanton destruction of the perfectly good alliteration of simply saying 'sanctified silver'. Adding the mort bit is as my title suggests 'gilding the lily', it doesn't contribute and in doing so might actually make it worse.

Sorry- call it a kneejerk reaction to being treated like a cretin by vitriolic WHFB players I've had to suffer to this day, including my FLGS owner actively disparaging and discouraging AOS players in his store in favor of WHFB 4th Edition, which was his idea of grounded, gritty, old-fashioned Warhammer...

Bizarre that, 4th and 5th were very much more light hearted editions rife with terrible rules problems.

[GamesPoet]

All the various tangents this thread is moving thru is why it got moved from the original thread where it started.

Folks are going to make their opinions known, and it really isn't surprising that these various tangents bring up old and new topics, lines of argument, disagreement, discussion, etc.  Sometimes not taking things personally, and instead staying with the topic oriented spouting isn't a completely bad way to go.  And because we are emotional creatures, sometimes we're going to complain about things like WFB vs. AOS, and still turn around to add a viewpoint anyway, or digress off into something that is semi related in our own minds.

As for learning about W:AoS, and choosing where we get our info from or not, sometimes this comes down to prioritizing one's time and energy.  Plus, if it wasn't for folks who are open to contributing, reading, and sharing in such threads as this, and being open minded enough to be willing to learn along the way too, I might not have the knowledge being provided because my time and energy is limited.  Which also includes how time and energy are chosen to spend on the entire hobby across it's scope.

(GP ... are you on topic?)

See, there we go again.

[Jmash]

I stopped in here against my best judgement, but I'm here now and do just want to point one thing out in the spirit of discussion. Jsmash, I personally found your rant post a bit insulting. I've been into warhammer fantasy for nearly 25 years as I said above, so to have your giant rant, in the AoS section for those who enjoy it to CONSTANTLY be referring to it as bright shiny lights for kids, rubbed me kinda the wrong way.

Sorry you feel that way Gankom, I never intended to cause any insult, I'm not here to make enemies or start arguements was simply spouting in defence of my opinion. Wrongly so in hindsight, I actually regretted it shortly after.

The topic started about silly names, and as far as I was concerned was all in good humour but people clearly take these sorts of things to heart and so the slagging match begins which has played out so many times previously.

For the record, if something has a hilariously bad name I will continue to jest regardless of what game or setting it originates from, maybe AoS just has the worst form for it right now hence the ribbing, but I guess from now on as with in every other walk of life I'll just keep my opinion to myself as it's not worth the fallout.

Goodnight.

[Gankom]

All the various tangents this thread is moving thru is why it got moved from the original thread where it started.

Folks are going to make their opinions known, and it really isn't surprising that these various tangents bring up old and new topics, lines of argument, disagreement, discussion, etc.  Sometimes not taking things personally, and instead staying with the topic oriented spouting isn't a completely bad way to go.  And because we are emotional creatures, sometimes we're going to complain about things like WFB vs. AOS, and still turn around to add a viewpoint anyway, or digress off into something that is semi related in our own minds.

As for learning about W:AoS, and choosing where we get our info from or not, sometimes this comes down to prioritizing one's time and energy.  Plus, if it wasn't for folks who are open to contributing, reading, and sharing in such threads as this, and being open minded enough to be willing to learn along the way too, I might not have the knowledge being provided because my time and energy is limited.  Which also includes how time and energy are chosen to spend on the entire hobby across it's scope.

(GP ... are you on topic?)

See, there we go again.

The thing is GP, if you complain about stuff without really knowing anything about it, it makes the whole community look pretty shitty. Its fine if it doesn't interest you, but to then show up and hassle the people who are interested with half informed opinions gets pretty tiring. Which gets to the other thing of the constant disparaging, in the section for the people who like it. I haven't done a count, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a single page on any thread that didn't have someone complaining about AoS, in the AoS section (This is unfair, and I take it back. its exaggeration, although it feels like it somedays.). Its hit a point where its just getting pretty rude. These threads aren't a discussion, they're a circle jerk. And there's a difference between a bunch of people sitting around going "Ha, this game we play is silly!" vs "Ha this game you people like is silly and childish!". That second option is what the majority of these threads become.

For Jmash, I get it. I really do. Thats why I tried (politely I hope) to point out how this was going. Instead of everyone constantly coming down on things we don't like, maybe for at least a bit we can try and focus on things we do like. And let the people who like things enjoy it without constant negativity. If you don't like AoS flat out, then perhaps spend time in any of the dozens of other sections here. None of which I notice get filled up with variations of "How much I don't like this."

For the record, if something has a hilariously bad name I will continue to jest regardless of what game or setting it originates from, maybe AoS just has the worst form for it right now hence the ribbing, but I guess from now on as with in every other walk of life I'll just keep my opinion to myself as it's not worth the fallout.

I think its just easier to keep things in context. When you clearly see someone taking it personal, we can drop it. We can talk about how silly AoS names are, but lets remember this is the company that named a special character after tick tack toe, and that was in Warhammer Fantasy. So frankly no one should be throwing stones in here.

I also think in all honesty everyone can afford to take some honest, helpful criticism without throwing their hands up and saying they'll just never contribute again. Surely there are positive things that can get added to the conversation.

Ironically, I hopped over to a wargaming discord filled with historians after this to check the news there and jumped right into a conversation where all these credited historians were doing the exact same thing but talking about how WFB and 40k were silly, childish, racists and unrealistic. The ultimate example of different spokes for different folks. We can all like different things without seeking to bring down other peoples plastic toys.

[GamesPoet]

The first could presume someone knows how much needs to be delved into, in order for their comments to be ok. At the same time, how much does one really need to delve to have an opinion on mort silver?  Although not going to beat a dead horse down that path at the moment.  And as I recall, naming conventions of Warhammer have been critiqued for as long as I’ve been exposed to the game, so I doubt it’s going to go away anytime soon, and I've seen topics littered with critiques of GW all over this site and others, it is going to happen.  However, I can understand why it could be tiring for some.  Plus, I belong to a historical miniatures community, more than one, and yes, many of them trash on GW all the time, but I don't let it get me down, and periodically stand up for how much fun I have with this part of the hobby.  What ever the case may be, you're allowed to vent as well.

[Gankom]

While I agree with much of that GP, I would gently point out that this thread was not a critique of GW naming practices. With the exception of Stonebeard who first pointed it out, and then myself bringing it up later, this thread has very much been a critique of AoS and specifically its naming schemes. That's kind of what I meant by this line;

And there's a difference between a bunch of people sitting around going "Ha, this game we play is silly!" vs "Ha this game you people like is silly and childish!". That second option is what the majority of these threads become.

I'm all down for a big thread about GW's total lack of imagination when it comes to names in general, or the way they'll rip a name right out of history and mash it together. (How many folks knew warhammer had both a Marco Polare, who "discovered" Cathay AND a Marco Colombo, who discovered the New World?) Heck if we really want to take aim at low hanging fruit, I'd suggest the real target is Space Wolves and their wolf snarling wolf guard, riding wolf wagons to fight in the wolf time with their frost weapons.

[GamesPoet]

GW's management chose the path it did back then, seems to have corrected itself with some of the newer management to one degree or another, and evidently as I moved back through some threads from 2020, 2019, 2018, there seems to have been less negativity here than when the original moves were made away from Warhammer Fantasy Battle.  Folks across the entire hobby are going to still express their opinions good, bad, middle of the spectrum, and some will even migrate.  And although my use of the word "migrate" wasn't initially referring to 40K, we got an area for that on W-E as well.

[S.O.F]

How many folks knew warhammer had both a Marco Polare, who "discovered" Cathay AND a Marco Colombo, who discovered the New World?

Cathay changed to Ricco and Robbio by the 5th edition thankfully. Also the Lizardmen names have been an abomination for ages.

[GamesPoet]

Imagine if/when GW releases the return to the Olde World, there will be various opinions there too.  In the meantime, hobbyists are going to voice their views, and negativity does tend to stick out, both for those who are negative, and those who don't like the negativity. However, I see that SOF has brought this back around to the naming thing, and from the Marco stuff mentioned by Gankom as well.  A good combined bridge away from some of those other tangents. 

[Warlord]

I did not know about the naming for the explorer who went to Cathay.

I do agree about the callout for Ogre Kingdoms being all about gut or maw quite dumb too.

[Old Stonebeard]

I'd suggest the real target is Space Wolves and their wolf snarling wolf guard, riding wolf wagons to fight in the wolf time with their frost weapons.

Folks throwing shade at the Kislev teasers, but Space Wolves have been fighting with weapons made from frost hard enough to cut through adamantium for years now... because that makes sense.  Also re: Kislev frost weapons, I feel like Yhetees had that, too? And they're a 2005 design.

But yes- Space Wolves do wolf things, Blood Angels do blood things, and Dark Angels do dark things. It's definitely an old hat for GW, even if the Blades of Khorne names take the cake:

Bloodthirster
Bloodletters
Blood Warriors
Bloodcrushers
Bloodreavers
Bloodmaster
Bloodsecrator
Bloodstoker
Blood Throne
Skarr Bloodwrath
Valkia the Bloody
Skullcrushers
Skullgrinder
Skull Cannon
Skullreapers
Skulltaker

Alex

[Warlord]

I’m fine with the Kislev ice weapons.
I am curious to see what they say the effect of the ice weapons is though.
And yes, Yhetees had them.

[Gankom]

frost hard enough to cut through adamantium for years now... because that makes sense.

I'll also throw my hat in the ring of liking frost/ice weapons. Its actually a pretty ancient trope, going right back to folk tales. Plus pretty common in other series. So not only does it make sense, its got quite a literary background!

(Dresden Files does it best with the Winter Fae, don't @ me.)

[Spiney]

For what it’s worth I think there is a lot to like about AoS, I’d never have been able to field an army composed entirely of savage orcs or night goblins riding squigs in wfb and have any level of tactical success, but those kind of armies work in AoS.

I also feel the discussion regarding naming conventions is a little one-sided at present, I see your thwackwheezer puffshroom and raise you Tehenhauin (pron. Teenie-weenie), prophet of Sotek, Lord kroak the dearly departed slann and the skink DoW character ‘Tichi huichi’ (titchy-witchy).

There are more priceless examples of fine pedigree warhammer character names from the blood bowl too - “Glart Smashrip” is probably one of my favourites, and the one-time saurus star player “Lotl-Botl”.