• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

To be honest I think that you both did a fair bit more generalizing than would probably have been appropriate.
I do get his point that the phrasing of your argument looked a bit hypocritical because Nighthaunt and Fyreslayers share those traits. Depending on what one might call minor differences or major differences the outcome changes a lot, and that's where the argument started I think.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Precisely!

This is what I've been trying to tell him for the past couple of posts...
Click to expand...

I get it, but @NIGHTBRINGER was saying a different thing (a thing i agree with, btw).
If you look at Fyreslayers models and Nighthaunts ones, the models' range of the Nighthaunt is, from an objective point of view, wider and with far more variants and differences between each unit.

from a subjective pov, their concept may be old, unimaginative and "boring"... but from an objective pov, their models offer a great variability. Certainly greater than Fyreslayers.
 
Killer Angel said:
I get it, but @NIGHTBRINGER was saying a different thing (a thing i agree with, btw).
If you look at Fyreslayers models and Nighthaunts ones, the models' range of the Nighthaunt is, from an objective point of view, wider and with far more variants and differences between each unit.

from a subjective pov, their concept may be old, unimaginative and "boring"... but from an objective pov, their models offer a great variability. Certainly greater than Fyreslayers.
Click to expand...

That is correct, but I have acknowledged this already as simply because GW released one in First Edition in a rush and the other in Second Edition with a lot more attention paid to it after GW hit a right note by bringing back the grimdarkness and the number of haters decreased, not because one is any more or less original than the other. I imagine if Nighthaunt had been released in First, and Fyreslayers had been released in Second, it could easily have been the other way around in terms of range size.
 
Killer Angel said:
I get it, but @NIGHTBRINGER was saying a different thing (a thing i agree with, btw).
If you look at Fyreslayers models and Nighthaunts ones, the models' range of the Nighthaunt is, from an objective point of view, wider and with far more variants and differences between each unit.

from a subjective pov, their concept may be old, unimaginative and "boring"... but from an objective pov, their models offer a great variability. Certainly greater than Fyreslayers.
Click to expand...
Well, sure. The range is bigger. How different they are is based on how strictly you look at them. They have been criticized quite often for being very similar.
I understood that @NIGHTBRINGER's argument mostly was that this is true for both Fyreslayers and Nighthaunt.
Those different types of Nighthaunt ghosts share a lot of visual traits, and so do the various Fyreslayers.
I sometimes have trouble telling them apart on the table, probably as much as the Stormcast.
 
meh, nighthaunt at least also have some variation to the backgrounds to their units. They're all some form of tormented spirit, but they're tormented in different ways and for different reasons. Fyreslayers are all just berserkers. On top of that they've lost their honour in favour of being just greedy for ur-gold (seriously dislike that story in forbidden power), and the slayer's oath is still only a marginal thing done by outcasts. Which where kind of the two things that made slayers really stand out from regular berserkers. So even as berserkers they're not very unique. At least nighthaunt vary in what they were and how they're tormented.
 
Canas said:
meh, nighthaunt at least also have some variation to the backgrounds to their units. They're all some form of tormented spirit, but they're tormented in different ways and for different reasons. Fyreslayers are all just berserkers. On top of that they've lost their honour in favour of being just greedy for ur-gold (seriously dislike that story in forbidden power), and the slayer's oath is still only a marginal thing done by outcasts. Which where kind of the two things that made slayers really stand out from regular berserkers. So even as berserkers they're not very unique. At least nighthaunt vary in what they were and how they're tormented.
Click to expand...
I don't own the Fyreslayers Battletome so I don't know, but I would assume that they do have a bit of a richer background story there, don't they? I mean: those names they have seem to suggest that.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that the models themselves are very similar to each other. GW really didn't do much for them in that regard. The main thing you can distinguish them by are their weapons.
 
Aginor said:
I don't own the Fyreslayers Battletome so I don't know, but I would assume that they do have a bit of a richer background story there, don't they? I mean: those names they have seem to suggest that.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that the models themselves are very similar to each other. GW really didn't do much for them in that regard. The main thing you can distinguish them by are their weapons.
Click to expand...
O I'd assume they do have a bit more. Some lodges will be a bit more honourable, some a bit more greedy. There's bound to be some cool stories somewhere about a fyreslayer doing something heroic or whatever. But ultimatly they all stay berserkers, fighting and thinking like berserkers. Even their priests and thanes aren't exactly level headed. They're all obsessed with ur-gold, sacrificing nearly anything and everything for it. And there isn't much more to them as far as I can find. Even their religion doesn't seem to be fleshed out all that much more than "grimnir is ur-gold now, go collect the bits so we can put him back together. Also grimnir was a berserker, so we'l emulate that".
 
So if I'm correct the debate was mainly based upon misunderstandings lol. I will say in my opinion I was never that big on nighthaunt though I don't know why. Also I must say most Fyreslayers stuff looks very similar but I do still like them as I like dwarves. I personally think the Ossiarch Bonereapers are pretty cool and I really hope they make them a super elite faction. This may be wishful thinking but I think it would be awesome if the base infantry had like 2 wounds or something. That would make the army a highly elite army which I like.
 
Similar thinking here. I probably won't paint a horde of those guys as they are pretty complex and detailed so I'd feel the urge to paint them very precise.
If they are somewhat compatible with my play style and sufficiently elite I think I might paint some. I definitely enjoyed painting my Morghasts and Arkhan's mount, which are similar.
...and my LoN army could use some allied artillery...
 
"Nighthaunt are one of the least original and most boring armies GW has ever made for AoS." (emphasis mine)


My point remains simple and more importantly, ironclad:

Using the phrases "least original" and "most boring" to discredit the Nighthaunt army while at the same time promoting and celebrating the Fyreslayer army is a hypocritical stance.

You are either wrong in the application of those two criteria to discredit Nighthaunt or you are wrong for not applying them with equal vigor against the Fyreslayers.
 
Canas said:
O I'd assume they do have a bit more. Some lodges will be a bit more honourable, some a bit more greedy. There's bound to be some cool stories somewhere about a fyreslayer doing something heroic or whatever.
Click to expand...

You're correct here - as a possessor of the first Battletome I can say that not all Fyreslayers are the same. Some lodges such as the Greyfyrd have adopted the whole mercenary idea as their way of life, and are less reliable than others like the Vostarg who are much more like the old Dwarfs in that they always keep to their oaths. Some even turn evil such as one lodge that became addicted to Ur-Gold and started attacking other Fyreslayer lodges for their Ur-Gold, and one of the sons of the Vostarg Lodge who was presumed dead after remaining to protect the Vosforge as a diversion to allow the others to escape but has since become a Chaos Dwarf, but then the regular Dwarfs in Fantasy had the same problem, because like humans they are not flawless demigods.

Aginor said:
I don't own the Fyreslayers Battletome so I don't know, but I would assume that they do have a bit of a richer background story there, don't they? I mean: those names they have seem to suggest that.
Click to expand...

For those of you who don't know, I'll give you a quick summary of the place of all the Fyreslayer units in the lore:
Auric Runefathers: The leaders of the Fyreslayer Lodges
Auric Runesons: The sons and heirs of the Runefather. Only the strongest and wisest Runeson gets the chance to succeed his father when the Runefather dies - all the others go off to found their own lodges.
Vulkite Berzerkers: Mainstream infantry, pretty much a combination of Dwarf Warriors and old Slayers lorewise.
Hearthguard: Protectors of the Forge Temples and the Lodges
Hearthguard Berzerkers: Bodyguards of the Runefather and his royal family - think Saxon Huscarls
Auric Runesmiters: Bog-standard priests of the Forge-Temples - responsible for forging the Ur-Gold Runes and distributing them to warriors
Auric Runemasters: Highest-ranking priests of Grimnir - responsible for governing the Forge Temples, advising the Runefather and searching for new strands of Ur-Gold
Grimwrath Berzerkers: Essentially the champions of the Lodge - these chaps have so many Ur-Gold Runes hammered into them that they have strength and resilience unmatched even by other Fyreslayers.
Doomseekers: Pretty much the AoS equivalent of Dragon Slayers and Daemon Slayers in Fantasy - they wander around seeking the biggest enemies to kill for the biggest payouts.
Battlesmiths: Fyreslayer Bards who recite the deeds of the ancestors to inspire their fellows in battle.

An additional nugget (see what I did there?) of wisdom about Ur-Gold Runes:
To paraphrase Obi-Wan, “Ur-Gold is what gives a Fyreslayer his power” - when an Ur-Gold Rune is hammered into his skin, the power of Grimnir from these runes supercharges the Fyreslayer’s strength and also supplements his life force so that he can endure wounds that would otherwise kill him. However, each rune only gives out so much power, and when the power in one or more runes is used up and dissipates into the ether to rebuild a bit more of Grimnir, the Fyreslayer has to have new ones to replenish his strength, so whereas regular Dwarfs gather gold simply to display their wealth, Fyreslayers gather Ur-Gold to ensure their hold’s survival. Without it, they are unable to lift their heavy Fyresteel weapons and are as unarmoured as a Slayer of old - that’s why they are so desperate to get it.

Hope that makes things clearer for all you Seraphon players out there who are new to Fyreslayer culture!
 
Last edited:
In other news, Beastsgrave looks as though it’ll be coming next week, as a tutorial video was released yesterday and a third warband is to be previewed tomorrow at 4:00, probably for Death or Destruction as Order and Chaos warbands are in the starter set. The fourth warband will also probably be previewed soon as GW have always liked to release a warband for each Grand Alliance in the release of a new season.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Which raises an interesting thought. Is there such a thing as too many releases or is more always better? Previously (under WFB), we were starved for releases, now it appears that we are over satiated.


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Depends on what it is.

If it’s loads of releases that are either rubbish like Primaris Marines or Stormcast, or lazily done like Cities of Sigmar, that’s definitely a case of being oversaturated (indeed there’s more Space Marine crap coming this weekend).

If on the other hand there are a lot of new and interesting releases like Beastsgrave (no Sigmarines whatsoever in the starter set), the oversaturation I would say is less keenly felt.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Which raises an interesting thought. Is there such a thing as too many releases or is more always better? Previously (under WFB), we were starved for releases, now it appears that we are over satiated.


Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think that franchise fatigue is a very real thing!
Marvel and Star Wars are examples.

And I think it can apply to miniature games even more.
I could not keep up with all the releases GW has, even if I wanted to. There is not enough time to learn the rules, play some games with people, and paint the minis.

Army releases are different as most people don't play as many armies (two or three for most people it seems). That's more manageable. But all those board games....
I mean: I am happy for GW that they can release a lot of stuff and find enough people who buy it. It is just me personally who cannot keep up.
 
I’m honestly amazed by this - the next Beastsgrave warband to be previewed is none other than three Goblin Wolf Riders:
WHUWBeastgravePreview-Sep15-Snarlfangs7idfev.jpg


Bearing in mind that GW originally got rid of all the bog-standard Orcs and Goblins in January when the Gloomspite Gitz arrived, does this mean bog-standard Goblins will be seeing a resurrection? Perhaps GW are even thinking of making them part of a Hobgoblin army with the Mongol-inspired lore from Warhammer Fantasy?

Love that they’re giving some old minis a new lease of life!
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
I’m honestly amazed by this - the next Beastsgrave warband to be previewed is none other than three Goblin Wolf Riders:
WHUWBeastgravePreview-Sep15-Snarlfangs7idfev.jpg


Bearing in mind that GW originally got rid of all the bog-standard Orcs and Goblins in January when the Gloomspite Gitz arrived, does this mean bog-standard Goblins will be seeing a resurrection? Perhaps GW are even thinking of making them part of a Hobgoblin army with the Mongol-inspired lore from Warhammer Fantasy?

Love that they’re giving some old minis a new lease of life!
Click to expand...
The sculpts are lovely. They are reminiscent of old fantasy models but have good poses, good level of detail and are all but overdone (Weirdreaper Bonearch-things I'm looking at you).Simple but very effective.
 
These are pretty nice wolves, however those cuts made on the legs ruin the fur effect a bit. I wonder its that's a specific paint job or they come with the cuts in the model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top