The Rumour Thread

[JackStreicher]

37 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

or gouts of flame out of their mouths and eyes

Fyreslayers live in volcanoes, they don’t consist of flames though

 

I agree that a female unit would‘ve been nice or a chariot with female riders.

Edit: Overall there‘s still a lot of design space to be explored. Here’s a list of some I‘ve read about:

- A remake of the Slayer Axe-Thrower

- Demidroth Cavalry

- female Slayers (Sisters of Valaya?)

- A return to the slayer tier system (troll slayer->giant slayer etc.)

- Flame cannons

- Valkyries

- Pyromancers

- Some kind of mini-flame monster pack, driven to battle by a beastmaster

- Destroyers: Elite Heartfuards, clad in ur-gold rune armour (so much Power it‘d kill them if they had all runes inside their flesh)

- Avatar of Grimnir

- Forge sons/sisters - numerous, hammer-wielding battle smiths

- a doom anvil of sorts

- Also miners, someone has to build all those volcano keeps

- Spear throwing infantry

- Fire bola hurlers

- Pike warriors

- Pyro Moles

- Chariots (fits their Greek theme)

- Hoplites 

 

 

As for Idoneth: The potential is endless. I hope for a Kraken since I am not a fan of crabs (and they don’t suit the Idoneth imo)

Edited December 29, 2021 by JackStreicher

[Clan's Cynic]

I think this will be an unpopular opinion here, but whilst I'd be okay with a Magma Queen and/or a female Doomseeker (or just literally any new Fyreslayer models), I think the patriarchal society of Fyreslayers contrasting strongly with the very egalitarian Kharadron is better kept in place so that the two groups have some distinct cultural differences between them - it goes further to show how different and in many ways progressive the Kharadron are.

Although I do fully expect GW will probably retcon that side of the Fyreslayers.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[Durgin]

15 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Fyreslayers live in volcanoes, they don’t consist of flames though

 

I agree that a female unit would‘ve been nice or a chariot with female riders.

Edit: Overall there‘s still a lot of design space to be explored. Here’s a list of some I‘ve read about:

- A remake of the Slayer Axe-Thrower

- Demidroth Cavalry

- female Slayers (Sisters of Valaya?)

- A return to the slayer tier system (troll slayer->giant slayer etc.)

- Flame cannons

- Valkyries

- Pyromancers

- Some kind of mini-flame monster pack, driven to battle by a beastmaster

- Destroyers: Elite Heartfuards, clad in ur-gold rune armour (so much Power it‘d kill them if they had all runes inside their flesh)

- Avatar of Grimnir

- Forge sons/sisters - numerous, hammer-wielding battle smiths

- a doom anvil of sorts

- Also miners, someone has to build all those volcano keeps

- Spear throwing infantry

- Fire bola hurlers

- Pike warriors

- Pyro Moles

- Chariots (fits their Greek theme)

- Hoplites 

 

What really perplexes me about Fyreslayers is this. Their potential is clear (ok, maybe I'm biased because I love Dwarfs..), and it would be extremely easy to make them shine, with just some care from GW designers.

I think they are probably the worst designed miniatures made in GW, please don't get me wrong if you like them, but there are a lot of technical issues that hurt my eyes: mirrored beards, almost 2 face expressions in the whole range (very lazy 3d sculptors...), weird poses and a general army of clones effect that really makes me sad.

 

The question is: is GW willing to make something with them? Judging the latest addition, I fear it doesn't. The new character is basically an auric runesmiter with less spikes, it's not a bad miniature, but it adds almost nothing to this range, aesthetically speaking.

Ok, Fyreslayers take their visual look to the old dwarf slayers, but I think that GW seems stuck in a kind of crative limbo with them, and this despite they indeed have enormous potential!

Strictly limiting the designers to the dwarf slayer look is weird, because in my opinion Fyreslayers should better incarnate the war aspect of Dwarfs, so there is plenty of stuff to work with, like runic altars, ur-gold/armoured troops (what is the difference between basic troops and elite troops, in the actual range? Only a different weapon.. a bit sad), war machines (a new thematic version of the flamethrower cannon?). GW overcame the "no cavalry" taboo of old dwarfs with the Magmadroth, and it has been a very good move, but then they didn't exploit it as they could: monstrous cavalry of medium sized Magmadroth (maybe a different kin of Magmadroth), or even a gigantic magmadroth bigger than the actual, that acts in game as the chaos mammoth, carrying troops and arrogance all around the tabletop.

 

It seems like, at the moment, GW just gave up with them, and it's really sad.

 

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Clan's Cynic said:

I think this will be an unpopular opinion here, but whilst I'd be okay with a Magma Queen and/or a female Doomseeker (or just literally any new Fyreslayer models), I think the patriarchal society of Fyreslayers contrasting strongly with the very egalitarian Kharadron is better kept in place so that the two groups have some distinct cultural differences between them - it goes further to show how different and in many ways progressive the Kharadron are.

Although I do fully expect GW will probably retcon that side of the Fyreslayers.

I would love female Kharadron even more than Fyreslayers, but alas, none there either.

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

Fyreslayers live in volcanoes, they don’t consist of flames though

 

I agree that a female unit would‘ve been nice or a chariot with female riders.

Edit: Overall there‘s still a lot of design space to be explored. Here’s a list of some I‘ve read about:

- A remake of the Slayer Axe-Thrower

- Demidroth Cavalry

- female Slayers (Sisters of Valaya?)

- A return to the slayer tier system (troll slayer->giant slayer etc.)

- Flame cannons

- Valkyries

- Pyromancers

- Some kind of mini-flame monster pack, driven to battle by a beastmaster

- Destroyers: Elite Heartfuards, clad in ur-gold rune armour (so much Power it‘d kill them if they had all runes inside their flesh)

- Avatar of Grimnir

- Forge sons/sisters - numerous, hammer-wielding battle smiths

- a doom anvil of sorts

- Also miners, someone has to build all those volcano keeps

- Spear throwing infantry

- Fire bola hurlers

- Pike warriors

- Pyro Moles

- Chariots (fits their Greek theme)

- Hoplites 

 

 

As for Idoneth: The potential is endless. I hope for a Kraken since I am not a fan of crabs (and they don’t suit the Idoneth imo)

Going deeper into the fire theme would be possible because they apparently are immune/very resistant to fire so imbibing and then spraying fire would make sense, and a group a few sounds like an awesome visual. Eyes is admittedly stretching it.

[KingBrodd]

So do we think there will be some sort of Preview or reveal on New Years Day? Nothing was mentioned in This Week Warhammer from Sunday.

[Ogregut]

9 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

So do we think there will be some sort of Preview or reveal on New Years Day? Nothing was mentioned in This Week Warhammer from Sunday.

If they didn't mention it I doubt there will be. They could announce one this Sunday for the following week tho. 

[Noserenda]

Yeah the FS model range is awfully executed but i think the flaws go deeper, they took an iconic unit (army even) and completely missed the point of why it was good and popular and went in almost the opposite direction. I mean there is a reason Gotrek is disgusted by them after all. 

Cavalry/Chariots/Warengines are well and good but i really think they need to sort out the rot at the core of the range primarily.

[Ogregut]

I like the fyreslayer models. More variety of poses are needed but ultimately what can you do with short, naked bearded dwarves with mohawks? 

 

[Sigmarusvult]

Fyreslayers are short but strong, they have prominent mustaches, they are always near a big pizza oven and they are fighting Idoneth who have mean turtles.

Fyreslayers are basically a bunch of angry Marios on steroids and that's why you should play them like I do. *End of sale pitch*

[Jator]

8 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

I like the fyreslayer models. More variety of poses are needed but ultimately what can you do with short, naked bearded dwarves with mohawks? 

 

You could bring some expression to their faces. They could be watching TV for what is worth.
I think their concept is neat, and Realmslayer really warmed me up towards them (horrible pun intended) but the soulless models dissuaded me about it (well, and the money/model count).

[Public Universal Duardin]

3 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

I think this will be an unpopular opinion here, but whilst I'd be okay with a Magma Queen and/or a female Doomseeker (or just literally any new Fyreslayer models), I think the patriarchal society of Fyreslayers contrasting strongly with the very egalitarian Kharadron is better kept in place so that the two groups have some distinct cultural differences between them - it goes further to show how different and in many ways progressive the Kharadron are.

Although I do fully expect GW will probably retcon that side of the Fyreslayers.

I know not everything needs to be tailored to my tastes (and shouldn't), but it's that patriarchal system that has been a dealbreaker for me heh

I feel you could look at female Fyreslayers from two angles:

A) Out of lore. Unlike 40K, AoS isn't so established (Malerion, Tyrion etc no screentime yet, just as an example) to make retcons unbearable. And AoS community doesn't froth at the mouth from the thought, unlike 40K fans at fem Astartes.

B) In lore. Life magic surges through the Realms, maybe the Fyreslayer birthrate explodes, or a million other reasons to explain the change. All trans duardin change into their identified gender? Fyreslayers get 'cloned' by life magic? Have a 40K-esque 'There's plenty of theories, we don't know' mystery box? The sky is the limit. I also think you could still contrast FS with KO--please correct me @zilberfrid if my interpretation is wrong--as the latter's egalitarianism stems from a libertarian/capitalist 'It's just bigger hiring pool for us!'. A full retcon of valkyries and Fyrequeens always existing could easily be framed from a conservative 'What do you mean "We should be a patriarchy"? The Runemother's line has reigned ever since me great-great-great-grandfather was a wee beardling! Hmph. Youth and their fanciful ideas...' POV. If pulled off well it could be a real fun subversion. Maybe harder to do with my life magic example, but I think a skilled writer could pull it off and let KO and FS remain their own niches.

[Kaleb Daark]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

Yeah the FS model range is awfully executed but i think the flaws go deeper, they took an iconic unit (army even) and completely missed the point of why it was good and popular and went in almost the opposite direction. I mean there is a reason Gotrek is disgusted by them after all. 

Cavalry/Chariots/Warengines are well and good but i really think they need to sort out the rot at the core of the range primarily.

I couldn't agree more.

They are lacking chaos.

Chaos I say.

Chaos dwarfs.

[Kaleb Daark]

48 minutes ago, Public Universal Duardin said:

I know not everything needs to be tailored to my tastes (and shouldn't), but it's that patriarchal system that has been a dealbreaker for me heh

I feel you could look at female Fyreslayers from two angles:

A) Out of lore. Unlike 40K, AoS isn't so established (Malerion, Tyrion etc no screentime yet, just as an example) to make retcons unbearable. And AoS community doesn't froth at the mouth from the thought, unlike 40K fans at fem Astartes.

B) In lore. Life magic surges through the Realms, maybe the Fyreslayer birthrate explodes, or a million other reasons to explain the change. All trans duardin change into their identified gender? Fyreslayers get 'cloned' by life magic? Have a 40K-esque 'There's plenty of theories, we don't know' mystery box? The sky is the limit. I also think you could still contrast FS with KO--please correct me @zilberfrid if my interpretation is wrong--as the latter's egalitarianism stems from a libertarian/capitalist 'It's just bigger hiring pool for us!'. A full retcon of valkyries and Fyrequeens always existing could easily be framed from a conservative 'What do you mean "We should be a patriarchy"? The Runemother's line has reigned ever since me great-great-great-grandfather was a wee beardling! Hmph. Youth and their fanciful ideas...' POV. If pulled off well it could be a real fun subversion. Maybe harder to do with my life magic example, but I think a skilled writer could pull it off and let KO and FS remain their own niches.

So female skinnydip dwarves but in respectable and non controversial ur gold beard bikinis?

Honestly I'd like to see the magma dragon for these guys as the big beastie thingamybob, and some mobile artillery mounts as has been mentioned, after all, cannons and static artillery are great, but in tight caverns riding your cannon is even greater.

Obviously they're not allowed magma golems as that's stepping on to Kdaai territory.... actually let them have magma golems, that too would be brillballs  - you could have a variant of the old burning bright rule where they do daft damage but actually burn themselves out over a number of rounds and then stay in place as static lava terrain pieces.

Chaos Dwarves still get the kdaai and the destroyer obvs. Because better at burny stuff.

[Neverchosen]

I still think a Valkyrie cult of Valya would be a good contrast to the Fyreslayers, and could easily share the book like Sisters of Silence and Adeptus Custodes. Then we can have a Matriarchal duardin faction to contrast the Patriarchal system of the Fyreslayers. Then the narrative can actually address the rigid social structures of both and represent certain Lodges and Valya sects that are more inclusive leading to special releases. Then we can have releases like a female fyreslayer underworlds unit or male valkyrie warcry warband. They could make unique characters like named Magmaqueens and named Male Valkyries... With the right releases Games Workshop can then provide a rich narrative world in which social systems do exist and are also challenged.

Despite calling them Valkyries they could also maintain a unified aesthetic with their Fyreslayer brothers. Have the sprues be compatible but with different load outs so you can give fyreslayer units spears and crossbows and give Valkyrie units axes and magma pipes. Then you can make an army that still maintains a rigid traditional structure with separate male and female units or contradict it by mixing units together however you see fit.

I think I prefer this secondary option as it can give a lot more interesting narrative options like creating several armies with different generals. Have a Runesmitter lead a traditional army with distinct fyreslayers and valkyrie units then have a Magmadaughter leading an army with mixed units.

But mostly I want Donkey, Goat or Pony themed Pegasus riders with mohawks and spears!

[Rachmani]

I don’t wanna ruin the party, but first, I wanna see some female Kharadron.

[Public Universal Duardin]

8 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

So female skinnydip dwarves but in respectable and non controversial ur gold beard bikinis?

I fully acknowledge that there is a reason why I'm not a miniature designer 😄

5 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

I still think a Valkyrie cult of Valya would be a good contrast to the Fyreslayers, and could easily share the book like Sisters of Silence and Adeptus Custodes. Then we can have a Matriarchal duardin faction to contrast the Patriarchal system of the Fyreslayers. Then the narrative can actually address the rigid social structures of both and represent certain Lodges and Valya sects that are more inclusive leading to special releases. Then we can have releases like a female fyreslayer underworlds unit or male valkyrie warcry warband. They could make unique characters like named Magmaqueens and named Male Valkyries... With the right releases Games Workshop can then provide a rich narrative world in which social systems do exist and are also challenged.

Despite calling them Valkyries they could also maintain a unified aesthetic with their Fyreslayer brothers. Have the sprues be compatible but with different load outs so you can give fyreslayer units spears and crossbows and give Valkyrie units axes and magma pipes. Then you can make an army that still maintains a rigid traditional structure with separate male and female units or contradict it by mixing units together however you see fit.

I think I prefer this secondary option as it can give a lot more interesting narrative options like creating several armies with different generals. Have a Runesmitter lead a traditional army with distinct fyreslayers and valkyrie units then have a Magmadaughter leading an army with mixed units.

But mostly I want Donkey, Goat or Pony themed Pegasus riders with mohawks and spears!

I have run out of daily reactions, so take this 🏆 and let it soothe your soul

I'm duardin agnostic, I care not whence duardin women come

[Mutton]

5 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Although I do fully expect GW will probably retcon that side of the Fyreslayers.

The lore literally talks about holds ruled by Fyrequeens and warriors from all types and castes. They've simply chosen not to make any models for female dwarfs because early AoS just didn't think about inclusivity and they haven't been in a hurry to sculpt more models for their least popular faction. And no, I don't think we need another Warhammer race that's exclusively ruled by men, featuring only men. It actually goes against what we've been told in the worldbuilding, and that aside, it's boring and dumb. Hell, I'm still waiting for female ogres to show up.

Give me warrior women or give me death.

[Durgin]

I agree for what concerns fyreladies, but without linking them to Valaya cult.

Valaya is a goddess that doesn't match well with war, I would prefer simply to see female warriors devoted to Grimnir.

Moreover, I think that fyreslayers desperately need to include also "average"/civilian dwarfs, merging some concepts of the old dwarfs armies like miners and clansmen, with the actual caste of warriors.

A  society in which there are non-professional (yet stubborn and tough, as proper dwarfs are) warriors (clansmen and miners, obviously redesigned to fit the theme of fyreslayers, so maybe with a more tribal-aggressive look), that rally in case of war to protect the stronghold (after all, I suppose that a stronghold of fyreslayers might include also normal workers and civilians, to survive), side by side with proper professional soldiers, the fyreslayers caste, let's call them the Spartiates of the fyreslayer society.

The civilian militia brings on the battlefield regiments of core troops and warmachines, while the fyreslayers caste provides elite troops of fiery warriors, magmadroth cavalries and chariots.

This way, not only you would have more variety (both in terms of gameplay, but also for what concerns the visual aesthetic of the range), but the fyreslayers would aesthetically pop out, as slayers did in old dwarfs armies, and gain a more specific role that fit well their abilities.

I know that these are just wishlisting, but I confess that every time I see one of the minis of this army, my dwarf heart cries because it's weird how GW failed to give justice to a badass concept like fyreslayers.

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Durgin

[Chaos Shepard]

Conspiracy time.

You know that new Fireslayer model's face and chest are well covered, and the beard could just be long hair braided into a beard shape. Maybe this is a female Fireslayer.

[Aleser]

Check at 19:46. Vince is saying he is working on something that will come out february/march, he is very exicted about it and other people will be, and will prob lead him to start that army. Could that be something bigger for Deepkin or Slayers. We expect their tomes then. He is mostly painting bigger models for Warhammer Community articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuPgwI2q1dA&ab_channel=VinceVenturella

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Aleser

[Noserenda]

50 minutes ago, Mutton said:

The lore literally talks about holds ruled by Fyrequeens and warriors from all types and castes. They've simply chosen not to make any models for female dwarfs because early AoS just didn't think about inclusivity and they haven't been in a hurry to sculpt more models for their least popular faction. And no, I don't think we need another Warhammer race that's exclusively ruled by men, featuring only men. It actually goes against what we've been told in the worldbuilding, and that aside, it's boring and dumb. Hell, I'm still waiting for female ogres to show up.

Give me warrior women or give me death.

Definitely this, i dont think the answer to misogyny is misandry, the answer is to kick that gear to equality. Especially in species like Dwarves and Ogres where even their weakest examples can typically out  armwrestle the vast majority of humans

27 minutes ago, Durgin said:

I agree for what concerns fyreladies, but without linking them to Valaya cult.

Valaya is a goddess that doesn't match well with war, I would prefer simply to see female warriors devoted to Grimnir.

Moreover, I think that fyreslayers desperately need to include also "average"/civilian dwarfs, merging some concepts of the old dwarfs armies like miners and clansmen, with the actual caste of warriors.

A  society in which there are non-professional (yet stubborn and tough, as proper dwarfs are) warriors (clansmen and miners, obviously redesigned to fit the theme of fyreslayers, so maybe with a more tribal-aggressive look), that rally in case of war to protect the stronghold (after all, I suppose that a stronghold of fyreslayers might include also normal workers and civilians, to survive), side by side with proper professional soldiers, the fyreslayers caste, let's call them the Spartiates of the fyreslayer society.

The civilian militia brings on the battlefield regiments of core troops and warmachines, while the fyreslayers caste provides elite troops of fiery warriors, magmadroth cavalries and chariots.

This way, not only you would have more variety (both in terms of gameplay, but also for what concerns the visual aesthetic of the range), but the fyreslayers would aesthetically pop out, as slayers did in old dwarfs armies, and gain a more specific role that fit well their abilities.

I know that these are just wishlisting, but I confess that every time I see one of the minis of this army, my dwarf heart cries because it's weird how GW failed to give justice to a badass concept like fyreslayers.

 

Also this Flesh those nations out a bit. It actually occurs to me that FS are like a horrible caricature of OW slayers, guessing no dwarf fans on the first lot of designers? 


But what to do with the range on top of that? Ditch the silly helmets, bring back mowaks and loads or room to sculpt a really characterful gurning face, look at the original metals and they still hold up today! Id also go back to more dwarven weapon designs, the FS ones are weird and spindly half the time.

Then bring in a unit or two of civvie FS militias maybe and give them the helmets mimicking the warriors crests, crew some war machines, crossbows or form defensive shield lines. Like proper dwarves. Contrasting strongly with the KO and their mad engineering. 

[Beliman]

KO 💗 Tau Weapons?

Edited December 29, 2021 by Beliman

[YoghurtKobold]

58 minutes ago, Aleser said:

Check at 19:46. Vince is saying he is working on something that will come out february/march, he is very exicted about it and other people will be, and will prob lead him to start that army. Could that be something bigger for Deepkin or Slayers. We expect their tomes then. He is mostly painting bigger models for Warhammer Community articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuPgwI2q1dA&ab_channel=VinceVenturella

 

Finally some rumour-like information. And it sounds great. Given the time frame it is most likely linked with those two armies.

[HollowHills]

1 hour ago, Aleser said:

Check at 19:46. Vince is saying he is working on something that will come out february/march, he is very exicted about it and other people will be, and will prob lead him to start that army. Could that be something bigger for Deepkin or Slayers. We expect their tomes then. He is mostly painting bigger models for Warhammer Community articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuPgwI2q1dA&ab_channel=VinceVenturella

 

This is cool, but I personally expect the battlebox and tomes to be a single week release in January. A bit like the aetherwar box that featured KO vs Tzeentch at the start of this year.

I could be wrong, the existence of the Gotrek novel could mean a larger focus on these two.

However, I am expecting a bigger aos release either for a new army or a major update. For instance, chorfs, skaven or the arrival of umbraneth. 

[Neverchosen]

1 hour ago, Aleser said:

Check at 19:46. Vince is saying he is working on something that will come out february/march, he is very exicted about it and other people will be, and will prob lead him to start that army. Could that be something bigger for Deepkin or Slayers. We expect their tomes then. He is mostly painting bigger models for Warhammer Community articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuPgwI2q1dA&ab_channel=VinceVenturella

 

6 minutes ago, YoghurtKobold said:

Finally some rumour-like information. And it sounds great. Given the time frame it is most likely linked with those two armies.

This is exciting but does Vince Venturella have knowledge of upcoming minis and armies. Because a live video of his predictions for 2022 is coming out later today. Might be worth watching if he has more knowledge than us... although it would obviously not reveal anything that he can't disclose under an NDA.