The Rumour Thread

[sandlemad]

10 hours ago, Neverchosen said:

I am always so confused why everyone seems to make their Fyreslayers have no internal diversity. Like I can't even remember if I have seen someone paint a Runefather with a white or even greying beard. 

Edit: I did a quick little attempt with photoshop and think they already look much better with just a bit of varation in hair and skin tones. Even with my bad photoshop skills:

Subtle variation in naturalistic beard and skin tones are well and good and do reduce the ‘clone’ effect within units (which is more a matter of generally poor sculpt quality for the FS infantry rather than the larger design issue) but they don’t do much for the issue of there being no substantial difference between FS units and heroes. So internal within the army, not within the unit.

Otherwise it’s veering close to the meme where the dude paints his hearthguard with green beards, his vulkites with blue beards, etc. Individual minis within units are homogenous in terms of pose/face/random gear but also there’s far less distinguishing a hearthguard from a vulkite compared… pretty much any two units in any other range.

[Nezzhil]

55 minutes ago, Xil said:

Those aren't in the shop anymore, are they?

They don't count if they aren't. 😝

 

We should move this to the Random Chat that we have now, i derailed the thread

They are not gonna be renewed. They will stay FOREVER.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

That thing needs to jog on back to 40k. Doesn't fit with any AoS Chaos styles at all. 

As I understand, not even 40k players like the Soul Grinder.

[Ejecutor]

18 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

They are not gonna be renewed. They will stay FOREVER.

They will have their own sub faction. A new clan. The clan Mounk-ey.

[Grunbag]

1 hour ago, Xil said:

Fyreslayers are easily the most ugly models sold by GW 😅

Sorry for you FS weirdos 😉

They are not . They lack variety but models themselves looks good . Ogor yhetees or sabertoof for exemple are way more ugly 

Edited June 4 by Grunbag

[Sarouan]

The Warcry Fyreslayer band is a great example how to have more diversity, IMHO. I'd like GW to make new kits with that same design, but I'm not sure replacing the old models is that interesting for them financially speaking (I mean, most of Fyreslayer players with an existing collection don't have any real incentive to buy berserkers again).

The first edition models did have that "Warhammer Battle relation" problem : GW tried too hard to make them feel like "AoS slayers but with a helmet". That's why a lot of people use classic Warhammer Battle slayer paint scheme, IMHO.

[Grungnisson]

2 hours ago, Xil said:

Fyreslayers are easily the most ugly models sold by GW 😅

Sorry for you FS weirdos 😉

What is the actual point of posting ****** like this? Trying hard to be funny?

Some GW sculpts are divisive, sure, and FS are definitely included in that category, but I, for one, don't find them ugly at all. They have some of my favourite poses. Their sculpts captushe their character absolutely perfectly - zealous berserkers, without a care for anything else than their holy quest. It's perfectly fine to admit they're not your cup of tea and you, personally, don't like them.

But who gave you the authority to proclaim any models as 'the most ugly', as if it was an objective judgement?

And that's before we even get to the second line of your post, which is even more problematic. 

[Snarff]

13 hours ago, Beliman said:

Btw, a customizable warmaster seems to be perfect for FS, but for Grimnir's sake, they need a wave 2 asap with Bael-Grimnir at the front.

Or his daughter! I wouldn't mind the Vostarg lodge being reformed

[Xil]

22 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

What is the actual point of posting ****** like this? Trying hard to be funny?

Some GW sculpts are divisive, sure, and FS are definitely included in that category, but I, for one, don't find them ugly at all. They have some of my favourite poses. Their sculpts captushe their character absolutely perfectly - zealous berserkers, without a care for anything else than their holy quest. It's perfectly fine to admit they're not your cup of tea and you, personally, don't like them.

But who gave you the authority to proclaim any models as 'the most ugly', as if it was an objective judgement?

And that's before we even get to the second line of your post, which is even more problematic. 

Whats the actual point of this ****** reply? Trying hard to judge me (and others that agreed with me)

If you don't like my opinion, you are free to ignore it. And i did not proclaim anything. MY posts will always be MY opinion and nothig else.

Stop being easily offended.

[Snarff]

23 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

What is the actual point of posting ****** like this? Trying hard to be funny?

Some GW sculpts are divisive, sure, and FS are definitely included in that category, but I, for one, don't find them ugly at all. They have some of my favourite poses. Their sculpts captushe their character absolutely perfectly - zealous berserkers, without a care for anything else than their holy quest. It's perfectly fine to admit they're not your cup of tea and you, personally, don't like them.

But who gave you the authority to proclaim any models as 'the most ugly', as if it was an objective judgement?

And that's before we even get to the second line of your post, which is even more problematic. 

Yeah, I don't know why people feel the need to put other people's favourite armies down. Is it to make themselves feel better?

There are quite a few armies whose aesthetics and models are not my personal cup of tea. That doesn't mean I want those armies to be discontinued/completely overhauled. It means I want to see more releases for them and continue to see them supported for their fans, because it's amazing to have a setting with such a wide range of aesthetics that people can care about!

[Snarff]

5 minutes ago, Xil said:

Whats the actual point of this ****** reply? Trying hard to judge me (and others that agreed with me)

If you don't like my opinion, you are free to ignore it. And i did not proclaim anything. MY posts will always be MY opinion and nothig else.

Stop being easily offended.

It's the rumour thread, not the 'my personal opinion about this faction' thread. Calling people weirdos for liking an army and just chiming in to put an entire army down is completely out of place, especially when the thread is normally friendly and supportive.

It's not about being offended, it's about the comment being completely unnecessary. I could just as easily say 'stop trying to be edgy'.

Edited June 4 by Snarff

[Xil]

9 minutes ago, Snarff said:

Yeah, I don't know why people feel the need to put other people's favourite armies down. Is it to make themselves feel better?

There are quite a few armies whose aesthetics and models are not my personal cup of tea. That doesn't mean I want those armies to be discontinued/completely overhauled. It means I want to see more releases for them and continue to see them supported for their fans, because it's amazing to have a setting with such a wide range of aesthetics that people can care about!

I actually wish FS would get a refresh like Skaven. 

 

6 minutes ago, Snarff said:

It's the rumour thread, not the 'my personal opinion about this faction' thread. Calling people weirdos for liking an army and just chiming in to put an entire army down is completely out of place, especially when the thread is normally friendly and supportive.

Well, go back in the thread, you will see i just chimed in with the comments before me.

I guess i was just the more convenient target 😅

 

And you are free to dislike the models i like. Couldn't care less 😄

 

Let me quote Neil here:

 Fits perfectly

17 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

 

Edited June 4 by Xil

[Snarff]

6 minutes ago, Xil said:

Well, go back in the thread, you will see i just chimed in with the comments before me.

I guess i was just the more convenient target 😅

I don't like putting down people's armies or preferences either way, but there is still a big difference between 'these models look kind of homogenous' or 'this is how I think the models can look better' and your 'these sculpts are the ugliest things ever produced by this company and everyone who likes them is a weirdo'.

6 minutes ago, Xil said:

And you are free to dislike the models i like. Couldn't care less 😄

Good for you. That doesn't make it any less annoying that certain people like to turn every AoS discussion into 'let's put down this particular army!'. I come here for rumours/leaks/speculation and general discussion, not to spread negativity about other people's armies and call them names for liking those armies.

Anyways, sorry mods that I took the bait, back to rumours.

Since the FS faction focus included hints to Fyrequeens and Magmadroth tamers that weren't really featured that prominently on the site before, and the 'It is a good year to be a scion of Grimnir!', this could indicate a new wave. I hope IDK get something similar! Can't wait to see what they've done with the ethersea rules

Edited June 4 by Snarff

[Snarff]

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

The first edition models did have that "Warhammer Battle relation" problem : GW tried too hard to make them feel like "AoS slayers but with a helmet". That's why a lot of people use classic Warhammer Battle slayer paint scheme, IMHO.

The initial models just didn't lean into the 'Fire' aspect that hard yet, and the best way to make the models look like fire dwarves is the orange hair. GW has a more refined direction for them now though, more droth-hide armor and kilt-like bottoms on some units instead of only loincloths, but they're still keeping the crazed-out half naked gold-hungry flaming berserker look that I personally adore.

[Ejecutor]

27 minutes ago, Snarff said:

I don't like putting down people's armies or preferences either way, but there is still a big difference between 'these models look kind of homogenous' or 'this is how I think the models can look better' and your 'these sculpts are the ugliest things ever produced by this company and everyone who likes them is a weirdo'.

Good for you. That doesn't make it any less annoying that certain people like to turn every AoS discussion into 'let's put down this particular army!'. I come here for rumours/leaks/speculation and general discussion, not to spread negativity about other people's armies and call them names for liking those armies.

Anyways, sorry mods that I took the bait, back to rumours.

Since the FS faction focus included hints to Fyrequeens and Magmadroth tamers that weren't really featured that prominently on the site before, and the 'It is a good year to be a scion of Grimnir!', this could indicate a new wave. I hope IDK get something similar! Can't wait to see what they've done with the ethersea rules

I agree maybe the wording and the message is not the best, but he has a point.

Why would you care about what is said by someone you don't even know? It is not like the one saying it is the GW CEO and this will be translated into FS being cut from the game. And I have the feeling this is cultural. There are some countries where you have to be more careful about what you say than others, and not everyone is aware when writing. In the end, we are a multicultural forum.

My advice, if permitted, we have to learn to laugh about those moments. In the end, if I like an ugly bucket-like helmet from my Steelhelms and you say they are the worst helmet ever because they look like a bucket, why would I be offended? They are just toys and that won't make me change my opinion about something I like.

[Snarff]

14 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

I agree maybe the wording and the message is not the best, but he has a point.

Why would you care about what is said by someone you don't even know? It is not like the one saying it is the GW CEO and this will be translated into FS being cut from the game. And I have the feeling this is cultural. There are some countries where you have to be more careful about what you say than others, and not everyone is aware when writing. In the end, we are a multicultural forum.

My advice, if permitted, we have to learn to laugh about those moments. In the end, if I like an ugly bucket-like helmet from my Steelhelms and you say they are the worst helmet ever because they look like a bucket, why would I be offended? They are just toys and that won't make me change my opinion about something I like.

Okay then, my final comment on the matter.

I don't care about what they say, I just care that any discussion involving Fyreslayers inevitably goes down into 'let's bash this faction'. It makes it extremely tiresome to discuss my favourite army when any type of excitement and positivity starts to get drowned out by unnecessary negativity. 'Just laugh at it' is fine and dandy, but it's not even a funny joke or anything. It's just 'haha your preferred army is ugly'. In addition, this time it wasn't just aimed at the army, it was aimed at the players (FS weirdos).

Over the last few years, in Fyreslayers specific discussions or on the AoS subreddit there have been threads about both old and new FS players just getting absolutely tired of the bashing people receive for liking Fyreslayers, and some people not even wanting to start the army because of it. It finally started getting better with the Warcry warband, but it seems like we're back at picking on less popular armies.

I normally ignore it and just don't visit threads or other fora where negativity starts to drown out any form of excitement, but I like the Rumour Thread and don't want it to become yet another 'let's bash each other for preferring different armies' place. I just wanted to be excited and discuss the rules and implications of the faction focus article. Instead, it's multiple pages of negativity about my preferred army completely drowning out any rumours or initial excitement about the rules. Yay, fun.

Every other faction focus so far was discussed without having to put down an army or its players. The focus was on the rules, the synergies, the nerfs and buffs, not the models that have existed for almost 10 years now. Why can't Fyreslayers get the same treatment?

 

To give an example:

Imagine trying to talk about Cities of Sigmar anywhere, and having any discussion or talk going on completely drowned out by 'HAHA STEELHELMS SUCK' 'EW THIS ISN'T THE EMPIRE' 'UGLY HORSES' etc even though it's not remotely the point of the thread (not that that's my opinion at all, I'm quite excited for CoS players). It's not about what people are saying, it's that you can't even discuss the rules of a faction without that discussion just being drowned out by negativity.

Edited June 4 by Snarff
Added an example

[Grungnisson]

16 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

Why would you care about what is said by someone you don't even know? 

Because we care about the tone of the discussion on a forum we grew to expect to be positive, open and supportive?

I don't care if someone disagrees with me, personally.

But when they come in here and just drop meaningless neg-bombs just for lolz, then it's just not cricket, guv.

[Xil]

4 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Because we care about the tone of the discussion on a forum we grew to expect to be positive, open and supportive?

I don't care if someone disagrees with me, personally.

But when they come in here and just drop meaningless neg-bombs just for lolz, then it's just not cricket, guv.

Then please go ahead and quote all the others laughing about the artistic style of FS and quote them here too. Equallity right.

 

[sandlemad]

I think it’s very reductive to put all criticism of the FS range into ‘bashing’ and ‘negativity’. There’s a bit of that, true, but overwhelmingly it appears to be earnest critique and frustration with a flawed miniature range which suffers from being done in 1st ed. FS could really, really do with more attention in order to live up to the brilliant art and the solid concept (or solid elements of the concept) behind the faction.

We don’t need to enforce something whereby if you are not 100% onboard with how the FS miniature range is now, you’re not a Real Fan.

[Snarff]

3 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Because we care about the tone of the discussion on a forum we grew to expect to be positive, open and supportive?

I don't care if someone disagrees with me, personally.

But when they come in here and just drop meaningless neg-bombs just for lolz, then it's just not cricket, guv.

Especially when the discussion was initially about the just revealed 4th edition rules, the (lore) implications of the article (Fyrequeens, A good year to be a Scion of Grimnir!, etc.) That was fun for about 1.5 page before the negativity about the faction started yet again and drowned out any actual discussion.

For every other faction so far, the discussion actually stayed focused on the rules and was not drowned out by negativity.

[Snarff]

Just now, sandlemad said:

I think it’s very reductive to put all criticism of the FS range into ‘bashing’ and ‘negativity’. There’s a bit of that, true, but overwhelmingly it appears to be earnest critique and frustration with a flawed miniature range which suffers from being done in 1st ed. FS could really, really do with more attention in order to live up to the brilliant art and the solid concept (or solid elements of the concept) behind the faction.

We don’t need to enforce something whereby if you are not 100% onboard with how the FS miniature range is now, you’re not a Real Fan.

Of course there is valid criticism about the FS range, just like there is of every mini range out there. But is the place to give that criticism in the middle of a discussion on the faction focus? It's not about 'being a real fan' or not. Just for once, I'd like to have any sort of FS discussion without people dropping in just to say 'yeah but the models ugly lmao' which kills any further talk about the original subject

[Grungnisson]

10 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

I think it’s very reductive to put all criticism of the FS range into ‘bashing’ and ‘negativity’. There’s a bit of that, true, but overwhelmingly it appears to be earnest critique and frustration with a flawed miniature range which suffers from being done in 1st ed.

 

I think we have a VERY different perception of what constructive criticism is supposed to look like. 

[Ejecutor]

31 minutes ago, Snarff said:

Okay then, my final comment on the matter.

I don't care about what they say, I just care that any discussion involving Fyreslayers inevitably goes down into 'let's bash this faction'. It makes it extremely tiresome to discuss my favourite army when any type of excitement and positivity starts to get drowned out by unnecessary negativity. 'Just laugh at it' is fine and dandy, but it's not even a funny joke or anything. It's just 'haha your preferred army is ugly'. In addition, this time it wasn't just aimed at the army, it was aimed at the players (FS weirdos).

Over the last few years, in Fyreslayers specific discussions or on the AoS subreddit there have been threads about both old and new FS players just getting absolutely tired of the bashing people receive for liking Fyreslayers, and some people not even wanting to start the army because of it. It finally started getting better with the Warcry warband, but it seems like we're back at picking on less popular armies.

I normally ignore it and just don't visit threads or other fora where negativity starts to drown out any form of excitement, but I like the Rumour Thread and don't want it to become yet another 'let's bash each other for preferring different armies' place. I just wanted to be excited and discuss the rules and implications of the faction focus article. Instead, it's multiple pages of negativity about my preferred army completely drowning out any rumours or initial excitement about the rules. Yay, fun.

Every other faction focus so far was discussed without having to put down an army or its players. The focus was on the rules, the synergies, the nerfs and buffs, not the models that have existed for almost 10 years now. Why can't Fyreslayers get the same treatment?

 

To give an example:

Imagine trying to talk about Cities of Sigmar anywhere, and having any discussion or talk going on completely drowned out by 'HAHA STEELHELMS SUCK' 'EW THIS ISN'T THE EMPIRE' 'UGLY HORSES' etc even though it's not remotely the point of the thread (not that that's my opinion at all, I'm quite excited for CoS players). It's not about what people are saying, it's that you can't even discuss the rules of a faction without that discussion just being drowned out by negativity.

Nah, this is a safe place. Mods won't let this proliferate if it would be the case.

[Nezzhil]

Hey lads, help me looking hints that we have with the #newAoS articles:

- The factions that had announced removed warscrolls could be the first books.
- Gloomspite lore doesn't mention Spiderfang
- BoC doesn't exist anymore and Tzaangors are undefined mutants
- Ogors seems will receive an update of the lore with the DB content. Gutbusters are not anymore "big hungry orruks", they have a purpouse and their own rituals
- Fyreslayers advance a bit more the lore with the DB content with the Fyrequeen as the most new thing

The other factions doesn't seem to have something new so they don't seem to be in the radar.

[Flippy]

17 minutes ago, Snarff said:

For every other faction so far, the discussion actually stayed focused on the rules and was not drowned out by negativity.

Let’s wait for Lumineth.