Fyreslayers: discussing their design

[Baron Klatz]

I mean that's pretty much everything in the Mortal Realms. Things tend to change after 10,000+ years and relocated to a foreign setting. To say nothing of the god gaining an elemental plane.

2 hours ago, Kramer said:

but that would make them the actual progression rather then the spiritual successor. 

Yeah, that's why the original Slayers were name-changed to "Unforged" instead. Fyreslayers are their own thing under Grimnir while those are meant to be the lost dispossessed under Grungni, their name being a failing of metal which he is the god of.

[Noserenda]

Its a complete change though, which i think is why its less well received, though it does feel like GW recognises that somewhat though it remains to be seen where they go with it the contempt Gotrek has for the Fyreslayers is warming

[Kramer]

Curious to see how it stacks up if you do a straight yes no poll if people like the lumineth aesthetic. As that is the only other straight reimagining without taking older models with it. 

theycdo have that wider range. So I think it’s going to be a little better. But I know several old elf players who think they are slightly off. Just like some people seem to think about fyreslayers. 

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

3 hours ago, Kramer said:

Curious to see how it stacks up if you do a straight yes no poll if people like the lumineth aesthetic. As that is the only other straight reimagining without taking older models with it. 

I won't hear anything bad on Jerry Jones and the Cowboys.  They're Ymetrica's team!  😋

[Kramer]

11 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

I won't hear anything bad on Jerry Jones and the Cowboys.  They're Ymetrica's team!  😋

Okay my bad. Then I won’t mention things like multiple bowstrings, big hats, resting butch face, more big hats, cow theme, pike length, big hats again, and hammers.  
 

Edit (just to add, personally I only dislike one of those things but there would be a lot of people would struggle in a yes/no poll if they like the aesthetic)

Edited January 7, 2021 by Kramer

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

2 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Okay my bad. Then I won’t mention things like multiple bowstrings, big hats, resting butch face, more big hats, cow theme, pike length, big hats again, and hammers.  

Oh, that stuff is fine.  I was talking about them not making the playoffs this year.

[Popisdead]

On 1/6/2021 at 4:02 AM, Greybeard86 said:

My personal list for what I think "went wrong" with fyreslayers.

• No contrast, no joy: Frankly, I think the old sculpts are already quite dynamic and detail rich. What was awesome about the old slayers is that they really stood out in a dwarf army. They were raging naked lunatic berserkers in an army of disciplines well armored dwarves. The contrast was stark and made it look more iconic. Fyreslayers are all very samey within their army, if we take off the weapons most people probably can't tell the difference between the 3 units they have (outside of heroes, which do not stand out either).
• Weird helmets: Whereas old slayers "made sense" (dye your hair, get an axe, strip off your armor), the current slayers wear a helmet on top of a mohawk? Or is it weaved inside? What the heck is that?
• Scrawny beards: They also have lost "volume" to their beards, as if all that heat had dried them out, made they brittle and pointy looking.
• Faces have no expression: Whereas all slayers had a variety of "roaring" faces, fyreslayers have little to no expression.

 

 

I don't see an option for own voice or meh.  I guess,.. though being an old player, I feel the new Fireslayers lack dynamics and character which is the issue of classic 1980s models vs a lot of recent plastics.  GW had amazing character in the past.

I guess I feel Fyreslayers could have been AoS Slayer army and it doesn't feel like it?  I dunno.. they just don't inspire me but it was a novelty they did in the past.

I wonder how a few Slayers in a CoS army or another Order army, maybe allied in would look.  What's Gotrek like for standing out?  Generally a whole Slayer army didn't really stand out either, some of those unit sculpts in the late edition of WFB were kinda bad.  The 1980s models were expression-rich.

What are KO like to you for infantry?  Or Duardin that came out in 8th?  I mean plastics loose character.  I would be shocked to find anyone who felt the Minotaurs in plastic were better than the pretty bad dated minotaurs of 5th ed.  Universally hated kit.  And I've painted 24 of them by now...

[angrycontra]

Could fyreslayer models look better? Sure. Should they have more dynamic poses / faces? Absolutely. But as to their overall design, I like them a lot. The important thing to remember is that fyreslayers are not slayers in the same old style as old world slayers were. I also would massively resent if gw went and retcon changed them with pants and no helmets to please the nostalgics. I think a lot could be done for their popularity by simply updating some of their models and introducing some new ones.

[xking]

I view  fyreslayers  as a mix of the old slayers  and 330 spartans (AoS is big into the Greco-Roman)  with fire magic.

Edited January 8, 2021 by xking

[Baron Klatz]

Agreed. I'd also like more of their inventions for war. I mentioned before they have only one axe unit because they're pragmatic Duardin that know polearms are their best fit and so the axe unit makes up for it with fyresteel throwing axes and uniquely razor-tipped Sling-shields to break up enemies for the charge.

More cool ideas like that for their mercenary nature that combines pragmatic & berserker tactics would be lovely.

Oh, also some recent General Handbook lore has a lodge that uses a sapient volcano they make deals with so it forges them new weapons. More sentient fire realm entities like that mixed into their army beyon just the lore would be aces.

[Kramer]

43 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

odge that uses a sapient volcano they make deals with so it forges them new weapons. More sentient fire realm entities like that mixed into their army beyon just the lore would be aces.

If that happens we’re going to end up with a white dwarf mini game ‘mountain melee’. Which pitches all mountain entities against eachother 😂

[Greybeard86]

11 hours ago, Popisdead said:

 

I don't see an option for own voice or meh.  I guess,.. though being an old player, I feel the new Fireslayers lack dynamics and character which is the issue of classic 1980s models vs a lot of recent plastics.  GW had amazing character in the past.

I guess I feel Fyreslayers could have been AoS Slayer army and it doesn't feel like it?  I dunno.. they just don't inspire me but it was a novelty they did in the past.

I wonder how a few Slayers in a CoS army or another Order army, maybe allied in would look.  What's Gotrek like for standing out?  Generally a whole Slayer army didn't really stand out either, some of those unit sculpts in the late edition of WFB were kinda bad.  The 1980s models were expression-rich.

What are KO like to you for infantry?  Or Duardin that came out in 8th?  I mean plastics loose character.  I would be shocked to find anyone who felt the Minotaurs in plastic were better than the pretty bad dated minotaurs of 5th ed.  Universally hated kit.  And I've painted 24 of them by now...

Yes, 8th edition dwarf sculpts are where FS come from and, for my taste, the worst sculpts in the citadel/marauder/GW range for dwarves. They have better proportions but awful faces (as in almost no face or emotionless faces). Likely both things are connected. Is this a plastic limitation? I don’t think so. IMO this is a design choice. 

Now, I do think they went more than spartan than the  north berserker theme with fyreslayers. That’s a design choice, which we may like or not but it is what it is. The issue I see are the obvious but somehow unsatisfying connection with old slayers.

I dont think old all slayer armies look that nice, I guess FS armies are just reminding us that. Let’s see where GW takes hem, but I think that dispersing the dawi themes across armies has done more harm than good to them.

 

 

[EccentricCircle]

I don't think its the material per se. Rather as their sculpting technology has advanced, they've been able to do more lifelike models (see the Lord of the Rings line). That has started a general trend away from the more cartoonish style of older warhammer.

When you couldn't make a realistic face at that scale, it made sense to make a really exaggerated caricature of one, and make up for detail with expression and character. As they have shifted to digital sculpting, they can work with more realistic faces, and so the art style of the game has changed. It isn't, overall, the kind of realism you get in LOTR where they are making models of specific actors. Rather it has become over the top and exaggerated in different ways, but that means that some of the more realistically proportioned elements end up with a bit of an uncanny valley effect.

When everything is a cartoon you don't notice discrepancies in how the faces of the dwarves look. When they are going for something more naturalistic, even a slight lack of expression can make them look a bit dead.

[Greybeard86]

21 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

That has started a general trend away from the more cartoonish style of older warhammer.

[...]

When you couldn't make a realistic face at that scale, it made sense to make a really exaggerated caricature of one, and make up for detail with expression and character. As they have shifted to digital sculpting, they can work with more realistic faces, and so the art style of the game has changed.

Yes, Oldwhammer had plenty of "cartonoonish" sculpts. But I am not sure it has to do with technology. Look at Mordheim's frenzied mob. Old sculpts, no oversized heads / faces, still more expression than FS.

 

I don't think it is about realism. FS faces are not "more realistic", they just simply aren't there. They covered them with a helmet and beard in a way that leaves no room for expression. The only thing realistic about them is their aprox. size. All that to say, it is a design choice. One that makes for, IMHO, more boring miniatures.

As a final comment: realism is not equivalent to stoic expressions, and when you are working with perspective sometimes realism isn't the most effective tool. Many statues, or even buildings, are not truly well proportioned because they play with perspective.

[EccentricCircle]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

Yes, Oldwhammer had plenty of "cartonoonish" sculpts. But I am not sure it has to do with technology. Look at Mordheim's frenzied mob. Old sculpts, no oversized heads / faces, still more expression than FS.

 

I don't think it is about realism. FS faces are not "more realistic", they just simply aren't there. They covered them with a helmet and beard in a way that leaves no room for expression. The only thing realistic about them is their aprox. size. All that to say, it is a design choice. One that makes for, IMHO, more boring miniatures.

As a final comment: realism is not equivalent to stoic expressions, and when you are working with perspective sometimes realism isn't the most effective tool. Many statues, or even buildings, are not truly well proportioned because they play with perspective.

Agreed. I'm definitely not advocating more realistic minis, and I agree that the Fyreslayers aren't quite there.

I think there is a lot to be said for the more expressive style of the older models.

[NinthMusketeer]

I like them. I do find them to be overdone in the hat and weapon department; both are simply too big. Sidenote; the mohawks are threaded through the helms, its visible on the hearthguard models. I also wish the Vulkites had less 'bling' to indicate their status as basic infantry as compared to hearthguard. I never had problems with the posing that some people expressed, mainly an issue with price. The start collecting box helped a ton but they could really stand to have their infantry reboxed cheaper.

Having worked with the kits it is apparent that there was a gap between the design of the hearthguard and the design of the vulkites--the latter is a higher quality sculpt when it comes to a number of details. This and other details (for example; the runesmiter is supposed to be a junior runemaster, yet there is no visual indicator of that between the two) I actually think some of the fyreslayer stuff was originally going to be plastic slayers for an End Times re-release of the original slayer army from Storm of Chaos, since there is a clear distinction between the quality of details on 'first gen' and 'second gen' Fyreslayers. The easiest way to see it is to look at the mohawks--some have the older 'strip' design also seen on Slaanesh hellstriders and daemonettes, while others have a newer design that looks much better.

Edited January 8, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Kramer]

47 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

think there is a lot to be said for the more expressive style of the older models.

If only that they are so much fun to paint. Having looked at my painted list from the last few years slayers, metal daemonettes, metal executioners, boobsnake, Ogors they are the ones that stand out as being the most fun to paint. 

that’s not the same as most beautiful model btw

but those old ‘heroic’ scale models had real focus. This bit is important so we going to make it stand out. This is not, so nothing special here. 

it makes those exaggerated bits stand out even more. And that helps me paint, and makes it more enjoyable somehow. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Kramer

[Greybeard86]

25 minutes ago, Kramer said:

If only that they are so much fun to paint. Having looked at my painted list from the last few years slayers, metal daemonettes, metal executioners, boobsnake, Ogors they are the ones that stand out as being the most fun to paint. 

that’s not the same as most beautiful model btw

but those old ‘heroic’ scale models had real focus. This bit is important so we going to make it stand out. This is not, so nothing special here. 

it makes those exaggerated bits stand out even more. And that helps me paint, and makes it more enjoyable somehow. 

I'd say the reason for this is precisely the challenge with smaller scale models with realistic proportions.

Some oldhammer went with oversized features (old slayers), other sculpts managed to keep reasonable sizes but still expression (mordheim), but to a lesser extent. Fyreslayers inherit the worse design period, IMO: ~2014 dwarf sculpts.

[Kramer]

2 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I'd say the reason for this is precisely the challenge with smaller scale models with realistic proportions.

 

The metal deamonettes or executioners aren't that out of proportion. It's more that there is a kind of negative space on the model to draw the eye to the important bits. The stormcast I've painted, mainly vanguard and sacrosanct, are so bedecked with little details and bits and bobs that they are a pain. Same for the Eels i'm painting now, while the Reavers and Thralls were a lot beter. And don't get me started on all the KO rivets I painted two years ago 😂

I don't think that's anything to do with oversized parts or realism. It's more about allowing space to be empty. If anything smaller scale models (regardless of proportion) should be relatively clean. But they're becoming more and more detailed as well.  And Fyreslayers 'suffer' from that as well, but so do the stormcast so size isn't the issue  

2 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

Fyreslayers inherit the worse design period, IMO: ~2014 dwarf sculp

what are some specific 2014 sculpts?

[Greybeard86]

54 minutes ago, Kramer said:

I don't think that's anything to do with oversized parts or realism.

That's coming from an earlier discussion on how GW used to design cartoonish miniatures.

54 minutes ago, Kramer said:

what are some specific 2014 sculpts?

Enjoy the trip down memory lane (don't let nostalgia catch you with it sticky fingers ;)):

http://toyarmies.com/wiki/index.php/Dwarfs

[Lord Veshnakar]

 

Firstly, Vince is NOTORIOUS for actually hating Fyreslayers aesthetically. To the point it was almost a meme. So a lot of his viewer base shares the view because they hold his opinion in high regard, so take that poll with some HEAVY bias.

Secondly a lot of people on this thread seem to have the background on the Fyreslayers VERY wrong. The new book also did a lot more to flesh them out too. To call them just mercenaries would be a stretch, greed has zero influence over them. That is only a means to an end to get Ur-Gold, and it’s not out of desire for wealth.

They are the lost children of a fallen god. They seek out Ur-Gold because these are the pieces of their fallen god that coalesced with Vulcatrix in their final battle and was shattered across the realms . Often times they will pursue work  just for a single coin of Ur-Gold sniffed out by a Runemaster in a chest full of gold. The rest of the gold would typically be outright discarded as it’s of zero worth to them.

When the Ur-gold is formed into a rune it is then hammered into their flesh as a part of a coming of age ceremony (and again over time as the runes lose power)  and the moment this occurs they are given a vision of Grimnir in his final moments, FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE. They legitimately become Grimnir, if only for a moment, and a portion of his strength is imparted to them. The Runesmiters and Runemasters that oversee these ceremonies have to practice caution though not to impart too many runes, as these Duardin fervently love their god, and some Fyreslayers, namely the Grimwrath Berserkers, are duardin that become so addicted to these visions and power, that they take to hammering the runes into themselves and even go so far as to killing their own brothers and prying the runes from their dead flesh for themselves to use, and get exiled where they will continue to seek out ur-gold to feed their addiction.They practically ripple with power and are legitimately insane, most thinking they are actually Grimnir himself. 

And because the ur-gold is a melding of Grimnir and Vulcatrix they are also naturally and almost symbiotically attuned to the Magmadroths and the realm of Aqshy itself, able to manipulate fire/magma to some degree, especially the Zharrgrim priesthood, which is vaguely hinted at as being a cult of Vulcatrix, especially in some particular lodges like Lofnir.  

I’ll agree though, the range needs more love. There is so much opportunity to broaden the shared Salamander+Duardin aesthetic which IMO is what they should focus on. Packs of young Magmadroths goaded into battle, chariots pulled by adolescent Magmadroths, some type of medium Magmadroth cavalry, Gigadroths with a howdah or even just unmounted (these were described in the Sons of Behemat books and are essentially colossal Magmadroths), and Magma elementals summoned via the Zharrgrim priesthood. They could even add Vulcatrix cultists. All of this has foothold in the lore already and it was a real missed opportunity that the range is as small as it is because there is so much flavor and potential there.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Lord Veshnakar

[zilberfrid]

11 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

That's coming from an earlier discussion on how GW used to design cartoonish miniatures.

Enjoy the trip down memory lane (don't let nostalgia catch you with it sticky fingers ;)):

http://toyarmies.com/wiki/index.php/Dwarfs

I actually like most of the sculpts of that year, except Belegar and the face of the Dragonslayer.

My hand did stick to a few pictures, which should instantly be returned to the lineup:

As for the actual discussion. I like the concept of the fyreslayers, berserkers selling their services to rebuild the body of their broken god, but don't like the execution much.

Even within a set, the poses are too much like the others, the faces underneath the beards appear to be bland and emotionless (you'd see some difference in the cheeks and nostrils if the mouth would be doing something, and eyes are too neutral) and while I do like a few fine dwarven buttcheeks, the muscles don't seem to correspond all that well to what the dwarf is doing at that moment.

Then we get to the diversity.

There isn't any.

The full range of different faces and figures for all fyreslayer infantry and heroes would be enough diverity to fill a single 10 model box. 

Then go do the rest.

We have awesome artwork for them though, like this lady:

Now that's a lot better. These eyes have the expression of madness (the only expression I found on the Fyreslayer models was listless sadness), she looks fierce, her braids capped off to prevent frayed ends or clobber enemies into submission (or both) and wields half of the total diversity in weapons for the whole faction. Not to mention female dwarf. We need them.

Even just the bit of extra clothing she wears allows for more options, and while I would have preferred more metallic upper body garments, cloth does fine.

Edited January 9, 2021 by zilberfrid

[ian0delond]

They're fine, but they lack variety.

Except the Magmadroth they look like they all could be in the same unit. I don't know. Give them some shooty unit with some magma shooty axes. 

[JackStreicher]

9 minutes ago, ian0delond said:

They're fine, but they lack variety.

Except the Magmadroth they look like they all could be in the same unit.

That‘s pretty much the issue.

a lot of the poses are very 2D as well.

[Greybeard86]

3 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Even within a set, the poses are too much like the others, the faces underneath the beards appear to be bland and emotionless (you'd see some difference in the cheeks and nostrils if the mouth would be doing something, and eyes are too neutral) and while I do like a few fine dwarven buttcheeks, the muscles don't seem to correspond all that well to what the dwarf is doing at that moment.

Pretty much; they are children of 8th edition dwarve design. Those dwarves were pretty much sigmarines with beards, in the sense that they had very little skin and could mostly be drybrush painted with metallics.

3 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Then we get to the diversity.

There isn't any.

The full range of different faces and figures for all fyreslayer infantry and heroes would be enough diverity to fill a single 10 model box. 

I don't about about others, but I always felt that the unit-based approach of rank and file allowed me to personalize my regiments. I own the majority of the sculpts you picked, and GW had others that I also plan on using in my on-going dwarf project. A drunken dwarf, a camp-follower at the back of the regiment, a spruced up champion replacement (e.g. lord Drong for hammerers), those are all options that break the monotony of the units.  I have more trouble doing that with the current "skirmish" approach, as then it becomes confusing (does that model belong to the same unit?).

But even if I tried, within the FS range there is little to no variation. And even what we have is not very condusive to kitbashing, as they have no distinctive elements to them (at least that I can recognize without my nose touching the miniature). As an example, old slayers had troll slayers, giant slayers, daemon slayers and very destinct "special slayers". There were substantial differences between sculpts to represent their badass level.

To sum it up:

• Give them faces.
• Add significant sculpt variation between units.
• Make up your mind on whether these are slayers or not.
• Expand the range in a lore friendly manner, based on where you want to take the range (e.g. if they are slayers, maybe adding more monsters is not the best route; if they are more like chaos dwarves, then maybe allowing for a mixed race of salamander and dawi models would be a good move).