Age of Sigmar Army Popularity Survey (Results)

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

It seems to me that there is not a single thing about Fyreslayers that explains why they are so unpopular. I think it's a combination of their aesthetic, price point and playstyle.

I think an appealing price point and playstyle can do a lot for an army. Compare Fyreslayers to Flesh Eater Courts in this graphic:

 

Objectively, the two armies are pretty similar: A small unit range and kind of samey looking. But FEC is massively more popular. Why?

I don't believe the FEC aesthetic is inherently more appealing than the Fyreslayers aesthetic. In fact, I would expect dwarf spartans to have an inherently stronger appeal than cannibalistic ghouls.

Instead, I think if we look at the price point and play style, we see where FEC has an advantage. FEC can build basically every unit in their army out of their Start Collecting box. What's more, you can actually run three of your big centerpiece models (Zombie Dragon kit) and it's a valid play style. The Fyreslayers box is not nearly as good, by contrast. It has the worse of their battleline choices (Vulkite Berzerkers) and the Magmadroth kit is not nearly as useful in multiples as the zombie dragon kit. And the Fyreslayers box is more expensive, as well.

There is also a big difference in play style for these two armies. FEC skews offensive. An average FEC list is about going out there and smashing things, and there are several fun, distinct lists that can do this. Fyreslayers are best played as a defensive army, with a big blob of Hearthguard that ideally does not move from their chosen objective for the whole game.

For me, FEC (along with BCR) are always in the back of my mind as a potential pick-up for a second (third...) army, just because they are so easy to get into and have a pretty fun, stress free playstyle. That even overcomes their unappealing aesthetic to a degree. I think that is what the graphic above shows, as well, since the survey it is based on asked people to name all the armies they play, not just their main army. FEC does much worse if that's what you ask people about (5th from the bottom):

So, in my mind, Fyreslayers have a lot to overcome. Ideally, the faction should probably get a bunch of new units to help with their samey look, and give them more viable (and more appealing) play style options. If they have to be an expensive army, they should at least be properly elite (not semi-elite like they currently are).

Alternatively, I think souping Fyreslayers together with another dwarf faction Warclans style would not be the worst solution possible (not Kharadron Overlords, though). Maybe let Dispossesed cross over into that faction, too. I think if we had KO, an "all dwarves" faction and Cities of Sigmar as options, that would be a pretty good place for dwarves in AoS.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Joseph Mackay]

30 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Objectively, the two armies are pretty similar: A small unit range and kind of samey looking. But FEC is massively more popular. Why?

 

Because Flesh-Eaters were the overpowered flavour of the month army at the time of their new book that everyone jumped on. That didn’t happen with fyreslayers as they’re easy to counter.

additional, any army that consists of mostly old fantasy models has higher representation in these things than the new purely AoS armies 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Because Flesh-Eaters were the overpowered flavour of the month army at the time of their new book that everyone jumped on. That didn’t happen with fyreslayers as they’re easy to counter.

additional, any army that consists of mostly old fantasy models has higher representation in these things than the new purely AoS armies 

Not sure about that, I think Fyreslayers have been consistently powerful for at least, like, one and a half or two years. They show up in tournaments pretty frequently, and do pretty well. I really think the problem is that people are just not as enthusiastic about their defensive play style. That only goes for people how have enough in-depth knowledge to decide whether or not to pick up an army based on game play considerations, of course.

[Joseph Mackay]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Not sure about that, I think Fyreslayers have been consistently powerful for at least, like, one and a half or two years. They show up in tournaments pretty frequently, and do pretty well. I really think the problem is that people are just not as enthusiastic about their defensive play style. That only goes for people how have enough in-depth knowledge to decide whether or not to pick up an army based on game play considerations, of course.

Originally there was no counter to the Gristlegore always strikes first + Feeding Frenzy + the fact it didn’t count as an ‘activation’ so you still got to pick another unit to fight + Feeding Frenzy combo, until Slaanesh and the eventual errata

I don’t really think Fyreslayers have that same level of op uncounterable stuff going on, and sadly what’s considered op seems to have higher sales and therefore higher player representation (not always the case and I’m not saying everyone buys the newest powercreep book just because it’s op)

i agree about the defence playstyle, it’s why I sold the army originally because any victories I acquired were done so exactly the same regardless of opponents army or mission (previous battletome). I eventually bought the army again because I just love the models   

Edited February 22, 2021 by Joseph Mackay

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Just now, Joseph Mackay said:

sadly what’s considered op seems to have higher sales and therefore higher player representation (not always the case and I’m not saying everyone buys the newest powercreep book just because it’s op)

If we look at the statistics from Warhammer Weekly, it does not seem like being OP makes people pick up an army significantly more. Especially in the green "what armies do you play" graphic, we have to go down quite a few places before we find any of the current top tiers, and that survey is only a few weeks old.

I do think, though, that an OP book will have a short term sales spike and be overrepresented in tournaments for a while. But I also believe that people who are willing to buy an army for tournament purposes will not feel especially bad for selling it again later when a new top tier army establishes itself.

The participant base from the Warhammer Weekly survey is probably self-selected to be mostly people who are pretty deep into AoS already (enough to listen to podcasts and fill out surveys). At least for those people, OP rules do not seem to translate into them buying the army and sticking with it long term. And for more casual players, I think they will frequently just not know enough about the game to go for OP armies specifically. I think they will be more likely to get an army that looks good or is cheap and convenient to start.

But it would be nice to have better data on this point. I wonder if GW have internal data that suggests writing OP rules increases sales.

[Doko]

Maybe fyreslayers be middle in sales. That datas are too much small.

Only around 1000 samples. If we get 100000+ then we can know.

Tournament data show around 3'5% representation for fyreslayers that is middle or better .

Fyreslayers only need new units or any battleforce to be even more popular

[Clan's Cynic]

Fyreslayers seemingly sold badly enough that it made even GW of all companies realise they'd priced them too high - it's only with Lumineth some five years later that prices caught up and even some of the Slaanesh stuff doesn't reach Fyreslayer prices. Hell, the Doomseeker released later than the rest of the line and he was £17.50 as opposed to £19/£20 despite being another Naked Dwarf Hero(tm) model like the rest of their characters.

Granted, Primaris are proof enough that if the concept is popular enough (see: Marines) then price isn't really a factor for overall sales, but FS' were such a perfect storm of being released during AoS' lowest point, at eyewatering prices, for a horde army and nearly-identical models. About the only thing they didn't do was coat their sprues anthrax.

It does however baffle me that it's been so long since they've seen a new model that wasn't an Endless Spell/terrain. I know GW isn't necessarily all that bright, however much they've improved, but it's not exactly a secret that the most bemoaned issue people have is the lack of any visual diversity in the range. Just one or two units could go a really long way.

I don't think Fyreslayers are going to be squat'ed any time soon though just because they appear too much in visual media. They're pretty prominent in Soulbound's artwork, the little cute comics on the Community site feature them a good deal, they rarely go a Battletome without being mentioned in some "they fought the Redshyrt Lodge" form and feature a decent amount in Black Library content. 

However I don't necessarily think they're going to be put into a combined Battletome. Both in terms of lore and visuals, Kharadrons and Fyreslayers contrast one another too much, whilst Dispossessed feel like they're waiting in the wings to be replaced by either an AoS-only creation and/or Gholemkind... although Gravelords being Legions of Nagash 2.0 might toss some water on 'WHFB models are inevitably doomed' theory. I'd not have an issue with it per say but I don't think it's as open-and-shut as Mawtribes and Warclans were.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[Aesir Doomaxe]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It seems to me that there is not a single thing about Fyreslayers that explains why they are so unpopular. I think it's a combination of their aesthetic, price point and playstyle.

I think an appealing price point and playstyle can do a lot for an army. Compare Fyreslayers to Flesh Eater Courts in this graphic:

 

Objectively, the two armies are pretty similar: A small unit range and kind of samey looking. But FEC is massively more popular. Why?

I don't believe the FEC aesthetic is inherently more appealing than the Fyreslayers aesthetic. In fact, I would expect dwarf spartans to have an inherently stronger appeal than cannibalistic ghouls.

Instead, I think if we look at the price point and play style, we see where FEC has an advantage. FEC can build basically every unit in their army out of their Start Collecting box. What's more, you can actually run three of your big centerpiece models (Zombie Dragon kit) and it's a valid play style. The Fyreslayers box is not nearly as good, by contrast. It has the worse of their battleline choices (Vulkite Berzerkers) and the Magmadroth kit is not nearly as useful in multiples as the zombie dragon kit. And the Fyreslayers box is more expensive, as well.

There is also a big difference in play style for these two armies. FEC skews offensive. An average FEC list is about going out there and smashing things, and there are several fun, distinct lists that can do this. Fyreslayers are best played as a defensive army, with a big blob of Hearthguard that ideally does not move from their chosen objective for the whole game.

For me, FEC (along with BCR) are always in the back of my mind as a potential pick-up for a second (third...) army, just because they are so easy to get into and have a pretty fun, stress free playstyle. That even overcomes their unappealing aesthetic to a degree. I think that is what the graphic above shows, as well, since the survey it is based on asked people to name all the armies they play, not just their main army. FEC does much worse if that's what you ask people about (5th from the bottom):

So, in my mind, Fyreslayers have a lot to overcome. Ideally, the faction should probably get a bunch of new units to help with their samey look, and give them more viable (and more appealing) play style options. If they have to be an expensive army, they should at least be properly elite (not semi-elite like they currently are).

 

This is a very good point.

The Fyreslayer Start Collecting Box originated in First Edition when the most commonly-played list was hordes of Vulkites, so at that time it was seen as a decent buy. Sadly at this time Hearthguard Berzerkers, which were supposed to be elite troops, weren’t elite enough to outclass even their own faction’s Battleline unit, so they were left on the shelf in favour of the Vulkite horde.

When the Second Edition Battletome came out, on one hand Hearthguard Berzerkers were hugely buffed, which was a great move and made them properly elite compared to their Vulkite brethren. However, the fact that Vulkites were given  a correspondingly huge nerf combined with Hearthguard being allowed to be a Battleline choice with a Runefather general meant that instead of fixing the problem of one unit being spammed and the other being left to rot, GW inadvertently simply switched the two units around, so that now whole armies of Hearthguard Berzerkers  were being made and Vulkites were being left on the shelf.

Not only did this make the Start Collecting Box much less appealing (with the Magmadroth being the only reason to consider buying it), but it also meant Fyreslayers became even  more expensive to build a competitive army out of, as Hearthguard Berzerkers are £25 for 5 models (£50 for 10) compared to £35 for 10 Vulkites. I think it’s these reasons that have made the army less popular than it should be.

However, there’s a way out of this - Kharadron don’t suffer from this problem because if you play any Sky-Port other than the cheese Barak Zilfin your only Battleline unit is Arkanauts, meaning a Kharadron player has to have at least 2 units of Arkanauts in their army, making their Start Collecting Box a worthwhile purchase because that gives them one of their Battleline choices straightaway. They are then free to add as many of the superior elite units into their army as they wish, providing the other army list restrictions aren’t broken. I think Fyreslayers should go along this route by doing the following:

1. Remove the clauses that allow Hearthguard and Hearthguard Berzerkers to be Battleline choices under specific circumstances, so that players have to take at least 2 units of Vulkites in their force (making the Start Collecting Box more appealing again), and can then add however many Hearthguard, Hearthguard Berzerkers and Magmadroths they want to add some muscle into the army.
2. Give Vulkites a little bit more of a buff (even if it was just a 6+ Ward Save) so that they are a competitive Battleline choice (though avoid making them as strong as Hearthguard so we don’t go back to the First Edition problem) so players are more enthusiastic about taking those compulsory Vulkites.

These two steps can be done with minimal financial investment on GW’s part, and would allow the army to make maximum use of it’s (very limited admittedly) unit variety. 

Then of course the next logical step would be to add some more (and different-looking) units and some named characters as mentioned before, to increase the size of that unit variety and attract more new players into collecting the army. 

[sandlemad]

The FEC/Fyreslayers comparison is a good one and there's certainly a bunch of reasons why one has been a success and the other hasn't. @Neil Arthur Hotep's analysis is solid re: cost, army composition, competitiveness, but I'd throw in two other reasons as well.

1. The FEC aren't quite as visually homogenous as Fyreslayers. Sure, they're largely naked troglodytes but you at least have a distinction between little troglodytes, big troglodytes, winged big troglodytes, and two types of moderately distinguished flying monster. That's a range of different model sizes and silhouettes, even if by and large you're sticking to pallid skin and bone. Fyreslayers by contrast have nothing going on visually besides three nearly identical infantry kits, nearly identical heroes, and one monster. Neither are on the level of e.g. kharadron or lumineth but there's still a gulf between the two forces.
2. The core conceit of deluded cannibals that think they're noble knights is an absolute banger. Even if FEC are a relic of those early "who cares about worldbuilding, these guys fight those guys" AoS army design days, this particular high concept approach seems to have been embraced by the community with open arms. It's direct, you can get it across in a line, it's both fun and appropriately dark.  By contrast Fyreslayers... well, you have to explain them. They're slayers but not like they used to be, they're mercenaries but not really, sort of a cult, sort of a warrior-society, I guess fire's their 'thing' and also runes, which is why they're naked, actually they have this quest, see... There's potential there but they're simultaneously hindered by their WHFB links and their newness. That they came out so early didn't help either.

I don't think it's that between deluded cannibals and 'spartan dwarves', one concept is inherently better than the other but former is concise and has appeal both as a meme and a thought-through background, while the other is muddy and needs some digging to get to.

Other than that Fyreslayers definitely have a lot to overcome. Merging them with Dispossessed could help but it would be no means address the full suite of problems that range has and could seriously preclude those problems being fixed.

Edited February 22, 2021 by sandlemad

[Clan's Cynic]

When it comes to Vulkites I'd go a step further than the 2.0 Tome and make them even more elite. Maybe not to the degree of Hearthguard/Aurics just because it would never happen - GW obviously wants to sell you less plastic for a higher margin - but when we know the biggest obstacle to people getting into FS' is both the real-world cost and sameiness of their design, you can strongly mitigate both by reducing the overall amount of both required. GW clearly isn't adverse to this when it comes to FS' considering they consciously did this once already.

Nobody bemoans Custodes models being almost identical (with the occasional expensive FW Dreadnaught) because you need so few of them. I'm not suggesting that they go down to Custodes levels of minimal of course, but as dead as the Fyreslayer thread here is compared to others, it's a lot less dead than it was before they were buffed to be more elite and the response to that was universally positive.

Plus it doesn't hurt the fluff depiction - they're hardly described as THE BESTIST WARRIORS EVER FORGED BY GRIMNIR'S OWN HANDS or anything like that, but they don't 'feel' like they're depicted as a horde of chaff who drown their enemies in sheer numbers either, but as individually very skilled warriors (they presumably have trained all/most of their life for this afterall).

Obviously the real cure for Fyreslayers is more units with different aesthetics but every little helps right?

Edited February 22, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[sandlemad]

I like that idea. If you're going to make them super-Saiyan dwarves, why not go all out?

[Beliman]

@Clan's Cynic Really like the concept of hiper-elite dwarfs. They have parts of their god carved in their own skin!!

[Aesir Doomaxe]

2 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

When it comes to Vulkites I'd go a step further than the 2.0 Tome and make them even more elite. Maybe not to the degree of Hearthguard/Aurics just because it would never happen - GW obviously wants to sell you less plastic for a higher margin - but when we know the biggest obstacle to people getting into FS' is both the real-world cost and sameiness of their design, you can strongly mitigate both by reducing the overall amount of both required. GW clearly isn't adverse to this when it comes to FS' considering they consciously did this once already.

Nobody bemoans Custodes models being almost identical (with the occasional expensive FW Dreadnaught) because you need so few of them. I'm not suggesting that they go down to Custodes levels of minimal of course, but as dead as the Fyreslayer thread here is compared to others, it's a lot less dead than it was before they were buffed to be more elite and the response to that was universally positive.

Plus it doesn't hurt the fluff depiction - they're hardly described as THE BESTIST WARRIORS EVER FORGED BY GRIMNIR'S OWN HANDS or anything like that, but they don't 'feel' like they're depicted as a horde of chaff who drown their enemies in sheer numbers either, but as individually very skilled warriors (they presumably have trained all/most of their life for this afterall).

Obviously the real cure for Fyreslayers is more units with different aesthetics but every little helps right?

This is a great idea, though if we are to buff Fyreslayers we still need to think about how well they should be able to do against the other races - would a Fyreslayer be able to beat a Stormcast one on one for example? Given Stormcast should really be considered as fantasy Custodes, I’d be sceptical about that.

Then when we’ve established how elite they should be, we can define an updated points value for them and then boost their stats accordingly to fit those new points values.

I certainly feel they should all have an extra Rend on their weapons - in lore Fyresteel can barely be lifted by an ordinary Dwarf, let alone a human, and is only at it’s most effective when wielded by a Fyreslayer who has been augmented by his Runes, so such heavy weapons wielded by such strong guys should be nastier than Rend - or Rend -1. Additionally Throwing Axes should be returned to their original profile plus with Rend -1, because given they have such pitiful range they are going to see most action in melee anyway. Given Fyreslayers are primarily melee specialists, this extra melee attack should at least be a decent one.

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Fyreslayer thread to give it some more activity, given that it has essentially become ‘make Fyreslayers great again’?

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Aesir Doomaxe

[SirSalabean]

Last day to enter into the price change survey! What would everyone like to see next? 

[Doko]

My changes to do good vulkites are:

Unit of 5 for 60 points(so the box is now two units for same money)

Range extended to 2" as a base of 30 makes them useless in big numbers

Delete the throwing axe and give them a extra attack with the double axe or pick(as fyreslayer player the 90% of the time i even dont use them,i dont wanna do 1 or damage and so the rival remove closest models to me and i have a worse chance of charge now)

Also the auric hearthguard could use the same buff than the snakes got and double his damage because they are useless out of bodyguard duty.

 

But all this only gonna bring the competitive players,release a battleforce to bring players that are dubious about start the army due to the cost or new units and fyreslayers gonna be popular and great.

[NinthMusketeer]

16 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Because Flesh-Eaters were the overpowered flavor of the month army at the time of their new book that everyone jumped on. That didn’t happen with fyreslayers as they’re easy to counter.

additional, any army that consists of mostly old fantasy models has higher representation in these things than the new purely AoS armies 

A cheesed out Fyreslayer army is exceedingly difficult to counter; one of the hardest armies in the game to counter when played properly. It'll also cost something in the $750 range and you will be more or less locked into one list.

$500 of FEC will give you all you need to run a wide range of tourney or casual builds, including the extras needed for summoning.

[Indecisive]

16 hours ago, Doko said:

Maybe fyreslayers be middle in sales. That datas are too much small.

Only around 1000 samples. If we get 100000+ then we can know.

Tournament data show around 3'5% representation for fyreslayers that is middle or better .

Fyreslayers only need new units or any battleforce to be even more popular

100,000?
We'll need to have a shop clerk in every LGS force a survey on everyone that wanders in