Tossed into the Mawpot! Soup Armies Thoughts and Feelings?

[Greybeard86]

Jeez! Have you even read my posts? I have no issue with people liking KO. I am just hypothesizing that this is a business decision coming from a company that has changed design and business plans around AoS factions. From fire and forget factions to continually supported. I think that’s a good move, overall!

I think we all need to realize that the lore is a reflection of what they want to sell, and written accordingly. They wanted to split apart hard dwarf factions so they made them very different in the lore. If they want to bring the, back, they ll smooth it out via lore too. 
 

I do not like this whole retconning business or weird lore bends to push models. But I do very much prefer to have factions that work for decades, over the planned obsolescence of model ranges. Among other things, because that forces them to be a bit more consistent with releases and plan ahead, rules, models, and lore wise. 

[Duke Eligos]

2 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Jeez! Have you even read my posts? I have no issue with people liking KO. I am just hypothesizing that this is a business decision coming from a company that has changed design and business plans around AoS factions. From fire and forget factions to continually supported. I think that’s a good move, overall!

I think we all need to realize that the lore is a reflection of what they want to sell, and written accordingly. They wanted to split apart hard dwarf factions so they made them very different in the lore. If they want to bring the, back, they ll smooth it out via lore too. 
 

I do not like this whole retconning business or weird lore bends to push models. But I do very much prefer to have factions that work for decades, over the planned obsolescence of model ranges. Among other things, because that forces them to be a bit more consistent with releases and plan ahead, rules, models, and lore wise. 

You're mistaking GW making small factions to see what sells and what doesn't for planned obsolescence.

They started by making smaller factions in order to populate the setting faster and to allow crazier ideas to come out. Then you see what sticks and build upon it later on. Unless you are considered a 'safer faction' like SCE (Space Marine).

At some point, the setting developed enough of an identity that they could build up meatier factions. Give it time for a Kharadron second wave... I wouldn't mind waiting another 3-5 years if I do get to keep my faction as it is. 

[zilberfrid]

7 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Jeez! Have you even read my posts? I have no issue with people liking KO. I am just hypothesizing that this is a business decision coming from a company that has changed design and business plans around AoS factions. From fire and forget factions to continually supported. I think that’s a good move, overall!

I think we all need to realize that the lore is a reflection of what they want to sell, and written accordingly. They wanted to split apart hard dwarf factions so they made them very different in the lore. If they want to bring the, back, they ll smooth it out via lore too. 
 

I do not like this whole retconning business or weird lore bends to push models. But I do very much prefer to have factions that work for decades, over the planned obsolescence of model ranges. Among other things, because that forces them to be a bit more consistent with releases and plan ahead, rules, models, and lore wise. 

I get that the only way to save Fyreslayers is to strap them to another faction.

I just think the best thing about Fyreslayers will get diluted when smeared over Kharadeon (their concept, chance of 2d art going to 3d), while the worst bit remains (their models).

Saving those models costs not only their identity, but also Kharadron's. With that loss, the only faction that is free from gods is gone.

As an added malus, neither of them will get more models (maybe a few heroes).

[RuneBrush]

Probably just worth reminding people where we came from so we can understand why we're at the point we are.  When AoS originally came along it was intended as a entry level tabletop game where each force played was only 30 to 40 models using a simple 4-page skirmish rule set.  GW introduced loads of small factions with the intention to give people a massive amount of choice for the force they wished to field.  This meant each force only needed a small selection of models - half a dozen different units was perfectly ample when you only have 30ish miniatures on the tabletop.

Gamers are creatures of habit though and struggled to get their heads around building a force without some kind of sensible guideline, for many list building was a huge part of their hobby too.  That resulted in three or four different points systems being created by people out in the community.  As you can imagine that led onto tournaments being able to be run - and the tournament folk heavily pushed for games to be of roughly equal size as WHFB, effectively growing the number of miniatures people were fielding in games.

Because of this push by the community, GW did their best to catch up, they introduced their own points system (using the SCGT system as a basis but multiplied by 10) and introduced the three ways to play.  What wasn't as easy to solve (and still isn't) was the actual miniatures side of things.  GW can only support a limited number of miniatures at any one point in time* and a range of miniatures normally take 3 years before they get released in the wild, sometimes more - these ranges can also be planned some years in advance too.

So why have I just written this screed of text?  Firstly it's because some of you may not be aware of quite how far we've come in the past 6 years, and to also help highlight why armies like Fyreslayers have such a limited range of miniatures.  Fyreslayers were the first fully AoS force they were created with the intention you'd only see a handful of them on the tabletop, it likely never crossed anyone's mind that you'd be running huge units of 30 fiery duardin!

* Their new warehouse has only come online recently

[Greybeard86]

17 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

PFyreslayers were the first fully AoS force they were created with the intention you'd only see a handful of them on the tabletop, it likely never crossed anyone's mind that you'd be running huge units of 30 fiery duardin!

In other words, GW planned for AoS as warcry +sized, then changed their mind.

Small number of minis, skirmish fast paced game, rotating armies.

Turns out people want battles with larger armies and more complex rules. So they create warcry and revert many changes for AoS.

Larger armies, but:

• You don't have enough variation in models, leading to samey and spamish armies in some cases.
• The rules are skirmished based, but now you need to deal with moving "blocks" of 20/30 minis, without them beign blocks, and the whole pile in and what not shenanigans at a scale for which it works poorly.

No rotation of armies, but:

• You never planned to maintain so many different factions.
• Rules get outdated, as you release 1 by 1 and it takes too long for a full rotation.
• Model ranges languish, as for some armies you hadn't planned releases beyond the initial small range.

So, my hypothesis is soup and so on is the way GW is trying to mend this situation. They just changed their minds, and it just doesn't work without deep changes to how factions are managed.

 

[King Under the Mountain]

I would meet half way and have Fyreslayers soup with Dispossessed and leave Kharadon alone.  

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

In other words, GW planned for AoS as warcry +sized, then changed their mind.

Small number of minis, skirmish fast paced game, rotating armies.

Turns out people want battles with larger armies and more complex rules. So they create warcry and revert many changes for AoS.

Larger armies, but:

• You don't have enough variation in models, leading to samey and spamish armies in some cases.
• The rules are skirmished based, but now you need to deal with moving "blocks" of 20/30 minis, without them beign blocks, and the whole pile in and what not shenanigans at a scale for which it works poorly.

No rotation of armies, but:

• You never planned to maintain so many different factions.
• Rules get outdated, as you release 1 by 1 and it takes too long for a full rotation.
• Model ranges languish, as for some armies you hadn't planned releases beyond the initial small range.

So, my hypothesis is soup and so on is the way GW is trying to mend this situation. They just changed their minds, and it just doesn't work without deep changes to how factions are managed.

GW didn't wake up one morning and go "let's change how AoS works" which is what you're suggesting happened.  What they tried to do was react to what customers were telling them they wanted from the game and how some people were playing.  In essence the only reason they changed what they were doing is because we made them change.  AoS will have been 3+ years in the making and changing track won't have been a decision taken lightly.

Ultimately they were damned either way - leave the game as it was and end up with a mess where people write their own variations for tournaments which becomes the default way to play, or move towards what people claim they want and end up being slated because they're not supporting certain armies that were designed for the old version.

Your hypothesis is correct in that soup battletomes do seem to be them trying to refresh factions that may well not see any updates because they haven't the resources to give them full blown second waves any time soon.

[Greybeard86]

18 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

GW didn't wake up one morning and go "let's change how AoS works" which is what you're suggesting happened.  What they tried to do was react to what customers were telling them they wanted from the game and how some people were playing.  In essence the only reason they changed what they were doing is because we made them change.  AoS will have been 3+ years in the making and changing track won't have been a decision taken lightly.

Ultimately they were damned either way - leave the game as it was and end up with a mess where people write their own variations for tournaments which becomes the default way to play, or move towards what people claim they want and end up being slated because they're not supporting certain armies that were designed for the old version.

Your hypothesis is correct in that soup battletomes do seem to be them trying to refresh factions that may well not see any updates because they haven't the resources to give them full blown second waves any time soon.

I most certainly haven't claimed it was like that.

I think they designed AoS to be something (skirmish, fewer models, easy to play, no real balancing). But ultimately that "something" didn't work (or didn't work well enough for their liking, or the new leadership didn't like it), so they have been patching it up ever since. But it hasn't been an easy process, for obvious reasons. Among them, the fact that factions that were designed for AoS 1 work poorly in AoS2/3.

Now AoS is back to lots of models, more complicated rules, and more attempts at balancing. And as a former skirmish game to be played with a handful of models, this leads to lots of awkard situations.

Lore plays no role in all of these, it is about the vision of AoS 3 as something that moves away from AoS1 and closer to WHFB. And, of course, the business plan behind it.

[RuneBrush]

We're in danger of going off tangent here

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

I most certainly haven't claimed it was like that.

Quote

In other words, GW planned for AoS as warcry +sized, then changed their mind.

Quote

They just changed their minds, and it just doesn't work without deep changes to how factions are managed.

 

The two bits I've just highlighted read that you are suggesting they woke up one day and decided to change things.  Sorry if I've misread this - I know typed responses don't convey the nuances of the spoken word well.

As I pointed out in my chunk of text, the changes GW have implemented were made due to the way the player base interacted with the rules and them trying to react and modify a game system that had been some years in the planning - which they also admit they got wrong.

I think over the course of AoS 3 we're going to see every battletome be given a refresh.  I think we may well see a number of currently standalone armies get pulled together into single battletomes.  A bit like Ogors and Orruks I expect there to be a soup option and various non-soup options.  That said I think GW now have a much clearer idea on what they want each faction to do, so wouldn't be surprised to see some sweeping changes too - Soulblight Gravelords has shown they're not afraid to completely and utterly revamp _(ba-dum-tis) an army right to it's core.

[Beliman]

1 minute ago, RuneBrush said:

Soulblight Gravelords has shown they're not afraid to completely and utterly return an army right to it's core.

Fixed!

Btw, what do you think about souping Nighthaunts and Gravelord?
Nighthaunts started as some Vampire Counts units and turned in to a big range of miniatures (even if their first incarnation was ghosts, banshees and wannabe-reapers).

Imho, I think they are fine.
And I think Nighthaunt's formula (more miniatures, more dynamic poses, awesome sculpts, discount boxes, etc...) is enough to "ressurect" any army...

[DoctorPerils]

So, I will say that "souping" armies as a method to reduce the number of product lines to maintain is a good argument. While I'm not sure we're actually at the limit of what they can do, yet (they've released several armies during AoS 2 after all), I do agree that we should see a general trend of stabilising or reducing the number of factions we already have.

Another argument in favour of souping I've seen in this thread is that it can give the hobbyist more army theming opportunities and diversity. There are several reasons this argument doesn't convince me:

- this can already be done through the use of keywords, subfactions, and grand alliance allies. While I agree the system as it stands is far from perfect (the grand alliances and 1/4 allies rules are unevenly distributed at best), this is more of a keyword and specific rules design problem, not faction/model line design problem. Ergo, souping two or three lines together won't fix the problem, only fixing the rules in question will.

- creativity won't be expanded by GW choosing which lines to merge together

- cutting 2/3 of a factions lore to stick it in with two other factions reduces the identity of each of their Factions, without in turn improving the identification of the merged factions

 

So, with that said - I'm not against souping certain factions, especially if it can mean more regular updates in the long term. There are however conditions to that for me:

- this should mean that the factions _truly_ get more regular updates: so far, I don't believe we've seen this pan out, whether we're talking about CoS, OWc, OMt, skaven, etc. So far, Gitz got a proper release, but even then only for two of the three factions/subfactions. Conversely, you get the likes of death armies, Slaanesh, and Lumineth who get big releases (and fairly regularly) as soon as they're spun out on their own. I remain to be convinced that souping will really increase faction update frequency

- the soups must be thematically and visually coherent out of the box. Quick reminder here: your fantasy race isn't a theme Culture, organisation, influences, and yes, even gameplay can be considered part of the theme, but having once belonged to the same battletome in a defunct game and setting really isn't. (Also remember that thematic mirrors, like fire/ice, dark/light, are still thematically coherent)

 

So, WRT duardin battletomes, where does that leave us?

Well, they've both had more model releases than dispossessed who are already in a soup: sure, that's only really one or two small waves since the beginning of AoS, but at least it's more than what dispossessed/ironweld, ogors or skaven have had.

They aren't particularly thematically or visually coherent out of the box - certain sub-factions include a bit of both, and a skilled hobbyist might be able to make them look like they go together, but that could just as well be the case with any other two random factions.

Both factions' themes are absolutely wide enough to welcome new additions or even repatriated factions of similar themes (ironweld including the humans could fit decently with Kharadron; you could easily imagine flame lizards, dragons, fire giants, ur-gold avatars of Grimnir, even armoured or be-shielded duardin with the Fyreslayers...)

They can already be souped in game through the use of specific keywords, and you could already model them to look good as a singular army

 

Basically, I'm not convinced by a single argument in favour of souping them, but can see several in favour of _not_ souping them... And this is coming from someone who could actually be really tempted by an all-duardin army!

[Public Universal Duardin]

5 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Saving those models costs not only their identity, but also Kharadron's. With that loss, the only faction that is free from gods is gone.

I realise the importance the last sentence holds for you - the importance of being able to identify with an army, hence why I support all forms of different representation in mini ranges (and why I want female minis for my favourite fantasy race). But would this truly be the case? If the red line in the sand is 'Kharadron warming up to religion', will you necessarily lose that with a soup? And even if there'd be lore justification why Kharadron at large return to worshipping Grimnir, Your Dudes can still be whatever you want them to be. I have seen many run Renegade Space Marines because they've felt uncomfortable with playing as space fascists and can headcanon their army as anarcho-syndicalist people pleasers on a quest to overthrow the Imperium, if they so wish.

[Fairbanks]

5 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I get that the only way to save Fyreslayers is to strap them to another faction.

I just think the best thing about Fyreslayers will get diluted when smeared over Kharadeon (their concept, chance of 2d art going to 3d), while the worst bit remains (their models).

Saving those models costs not only their identity, but also Kharadron's. With that loss, the only faction that is free from gods is gone.

As an added malus, neither of them will get more models (maybe a few heroes).

Fyreslayers can be saved by giving more models and a second theme that fits alongside it. They have a very nice second theme already with volcanic rock, Magmadroths, and Molten Infernoth. You can lean into the usual Dwarf forgebuilding aspect as well and make Volcanic Golems. You can go more fiery and toward Tzeentch Burning Horrors.

Fyreslayers have a 'Everything Looks the Same' issue. They also have a 'Models you should run in packs of 30 for $60 issue per 10 issue'. The first is bad, but collectors who want it all, like myself, will still buy them. The second issue keeps me from wanting to. (PS: If you see a box set with Fyreslayers, buy it. It will be sold out faster than Indomitus.)

Negative Me says from here, they enter the Bret/Beastmen/TK Death Spiral: GW can't sell them, so they won't update them, so nobody will ever play them. Neutral Me says they get souped. Positive Me hopes GW are cooking up something new.

 

I don't mind Army Souping, but I'd like to see the subfactions expanded upon.

[Backbreaker]

I don't see what it would change. Except that I'm not a fan of allies, for matched play. And that it would be slightly worse with soup book.

[RuneBrush]

39 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Fixed!

Btw, what do you think about souping Nighthaunts and Gravelord?
Nighthaunts started as some Vampire Counts units and turned in to a big range of miniatures (even if their first incarnation was ghosts, banshees and wannabe-reapers).

Imho, I think they are fine.
And I think Nighthaunt's formula (more miniatures, more dynamic poses, awesome sculpts, discount boxes, etc...) is enough to "ressurect" any army...

😁

Personally I wouldn't mind if Nighthaunt & Gravelords were combined into one battletome - if it were thought through and made sense.  That said I do have a Legion of Grief army and really like how it looks on the tabletop with skeletons next to chainrasp, so may be a little biased.  That said, I do think Nighthaunt and Gravelords have the advantage that they both have a large enough core miniature range to justify them each having their own book.  If both ranges were in a single book, then you'd probably it 50% larger to cover everything equally.

I suppose one question that does need to be asked is if people feel that any of the soup battletomes have resulted in one particular faction losing it's identity when factions were combined?

[zilberfrid]

14 minutes ago, Public Universal Duardin said:

I realise the importance the last sentence holds for you - the importance of being able to identify with an army, hence why I support all forms of different representation in mini ranges (and why I want female minis for my favourite fantasy race). But would this truly be the case? If the red line in the sand is 'Kharadron warming up to religion', will you necessarily lose that with a soup? And even if there'd be lore justification why Kharadron at large return to worshipping Grimnir, Your Dudes can still be whatever you want them to be. I have seen many run Renegade Space Marines because they've felt uncomfortable with playing as space fascists and can headcanon their army as anarcho-syndicalist people pleasers on a quest to overthrow the Imperium, if they so wish.

There are multiple things at work for me.

• Smashing them together means no/few new sculpts
  • No exploration of what Fyreslayers could be when sculpted well and expanded
  • No female dwarves (and they are hard to kitbash)
• Fyreslayers suddenly following Grungni instead of Grimnir does not fit as well
• Kharadron suddenly deciding everything is fine between them and Grungni doesn't fit (we don't hold grudges anymore?)
• Removal of the last a-religious faction just stings

My ties to GW are flimsy at best and the only AoS stuff I have been getting is Kharadron lately. If their identity changes in a way that I simply detest, I don't see any reason to support GW by buying their stuff.

[zilberfrid]

20 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

Fyreslayers can be saved by giving more models and a second theme that fits alongside it. They have a very nice second theme already with volcanic rock, Magmadroths, and Molten Infernoth. You can lean into the usual Dwarf forgebuilding aspect as well and make Volcanic Golems. You can go more fiery and toward Tzeentch Burning Horrors.

Fyreslayers have a 'Everything Looks the Same' issue. They also have a 'Models you should run in packs of 30 for $60 issue per 10 issue'. The first is bad, but collectors who want it all, like myself, will still buy them. The second issue keeps me from wanting to. (PS: If you see a box set with Fyreslayers, buy it. It will be sold out faster than Indomitus.)

Negative Me says from here, they enter the Bret/Beastmen/TK Death Spiral: GW can't sell them, so they won't update them, so nobody will ever play them. Neutral Me says they get souped. Positive Me hopes GW are cooking up something new.

I don't mind Army Souping, but I'd like to see the subfactions expanded upon.

I absolutely think there's potential in Fyreslayers. Currently their sculpts are static repetetive, what's repeated isn't that well done, and the price for this subpar product is very high.

Their 2d art is a lot better, their concept (searching for bits and pieces of their god to hammer into themselves) and the beasts that are described sound inspiring.

I haven't spoken to many store owners, but the one I did speak to says they simply don't shift any boxes. 5 boxes in total since their launch (4 of those being Chosen Axes, though that is a snapshot at that store). This same owner has sold more Ironclads than that in 2020 alone.

I get that GW isn't really all that keen to throw good money after bad on a faction that doesn't seem worth the investment.

Souping with Kharadron is the worst of both worlds however.

• The faction is not explored further in plastic.
• Their identity is reduced (no longer after the same god etc.)
• Kharadron's identity is reduced
• Kharadron won't get more plastic

Worst case scenario: they'll make Kharadron reliant on Fyreslayers for a well rounded army, and Kharadron are dragged down by Fyreslayers just being a bad product. Then GW can just dump all dwarves in a few years because they are not selling well.

[Mcthew]

16 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

There are multiple things at work for me.

• Smashing them together means no/few new sculpts
  • No exploration of what Fyreslayers could be when sculpted well and expanded
  • No female dwarves (and they are hard to kitbash)
• Fyreslayers suddenly following Grungni instead of Grimnir does not fit as well
• Kharadron suddenly deciding everything is fine between them and Grungni doesn't fit (we don't hold grudges anymore?)
• Removal of the last a-religious faction just stings

My ties to GW are flimsy at best and the only AoS stuff I have been getting is Kharadron lately. If their identity changes in a way that I simply detest, I don't see any reason to support GW by buying their stuff.

Agree completely. Other than racially, the two are completely different. Allies are fine, but duardin soup with Fyreslayers is just plain daft. Keep CoS as the bridge across the divide, and have more CoS armies that use the co-faction limitation, i.e. closer than allies rather than soup, including Fyreslayers (who are, after all, mercenary).

I do like the idea of having cross allegiance soupers, though. Or perhaps less soup, more straddlers. For example, how about Beasts of Destruction, rather than Chaos? Fits with Kragnos... and some smashy-smashy abilities would be Ghur-rate.

[Mcthew]

24 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I absolutely think there's potential in Fyreslayers. Currently their sculpts are static repetetive, what's repeated isn't that well done, and the price for this subpar product is very high.

Their 2d art is a lot better, their concept (searching for bits and pieces of their god to hammer into themselves) and the beasts that are described sound inspiring.

I haven't spoken to many store owners, but the one I did speak to says they simply don't shift any boxes. 5 boxes in total since their launch (4 of those being Chosen Axes, though that is a snapshot at that store). This same owner has sold more Ironclads than that in 2020 alone.

Really good point. I confess I've not paid Fyreslayers too much attention until I read this, but looking at the webstore you get a sense that GW have completely messed up here. I mean, for the same price as 2 boxes of 5 bezerkers, you get 10 bezerkers, 2 heroes and a hero riding a lava dragon. It's seems obscene to buy so little plastic, when the SC box is such good value. This is the worst balance I've seen in the business model yet. And for the models to be static too. Not sure what GW are thinking there... But seems a shame to tank a faction because of their bad choices. I think the aesthetic is a good one, as is the lore and culture, but again just bad business decisions really.

And again, souping them isn't the answer. Better pricing, a new unit, and some better rules would light a fire for these pint-sized toga wearing dwarfs, I'm sure!

[Darnok]

7 hours ago, Beastmaster said:

I’m a bit biased: I started collecting Ogors before they were souped. I wanted to create an army like a Stone Age hunting party, so it was clear from the beginning that the core should be a Hunter with his pets for tracking and a bunch of foot Ogors and a Slaughtermaster to do the killing and butchering. It was a risk, if they wouldn’t have been souped later, I wouldn’t have a playable army that fits my idea. So I’m very happy with the souping.

The thing with Ogres is: they were split into different factions only when AoS came around. What you call "soup" now was their natural state in WHF to begin with.

[Greybeard86]

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

We're in danger of going off tangent here

The two bits I've just highlighted read that you are suggesting they woke up one day and decided to change things.  Sorry if I've misread this - I know typed responses don't convey the nuances of the spoken word well.

Yep, I think it is that. Of course, they changed their mind, I think we agree on that. However, I do not think it was on whim.

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

As I pointed out in my chunk of text, the changes GW have implemented were made due to the way the player base interacted with the rules and them trying to react and modify a game system that had been some years in the planning - which they also admit they got wrong.

The changes we are seeing are essentially slowly reverting some of the more extreme innovations in AoS.

The problem is that as a system in transition, AoS suffers from several layers of out of sync rules and factions.

I get the point of those who want to keep KO separate, of course I do. They like with GW did with them and don't want to lose them in some soup. The question for me is whether that is viable or not. Ultimately, it is up to GW. So if a lot of people clamor for them, they might keep their separate faction.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

46 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I suppose one question that does need to be asked is if people feel that any of the soup battletomes have resulted in one particular faction losing it's identity when factions were combined?

For me they haven’t.  As regards Beastclaw Raiders and Mawtribes, where I can definitely talk pre- and post-soup experience I actually feel the BCR theme was strengthened by things included in the new tome such as the counts as X on objectives and the charge damage dynamic.  The three sub-factions dedicated to BCR builds also assured me right from the go that pure BCR hadn’t gone away.  Similarly the Mawpot to me was one of the better conceived terrain pieces.  Now could BCR theoretically have gotten these without soup?  Sure, maybe.  But the tome really to me seemed to go out of its way to respect both BCR and Gutbusters while addressing the keyword issues that could limit their interactions when you did try and play them together.

And to be clear, that is what I want in my Dwarf Soup.  I do not want my KO to “find god”.  I don’t think they have to.  The X-Files ran for over a decade largely on the strength of pairing a skeptic and a believer in joint pursuit of a larger cause.  Again, tons of movies and tv shows build on this type of collaborative dynamic.  In theory it is even easier as it is not that the KO don’t believe the dwarf gods exist, they just feel they don’t need those gods.  But in pursuit of a larger cause could they need to collaborate with Fyreslayers and Dispossed (while still remaining non-worshippers)?  Sure.  Forget fiction and just look at the strange bedfellows actual history has produced…

So while I get the fear the precedents don’t seem to suggest that if KO gets souped or Fyreslayers get souped they’ll get homogenized into one Grungi worshipping lump..

[Neverchosen]

Personally I think the idea that souping a faction means they wont get future support is something that has little evidence behind it. So far it is true that a number of armies that were souped had little new releases but have gotten roughly the same degree of support as most other armies (a new hero model and maybe endless spells or terrain). Yet even with these examples I think people are making things out to be more drastic than they were. Cities of Sigmar, if the rumours are true, essentially saved many disparate factions from being squatted and it's success may actually have influenced the ongoing narrative, likely leading to further support for the line. This is evidenced by the importance in Broken Realms and the number of cool new models they received between Cursed City and now the Father and Daughter in Broken Realms. Warclans really got the short end of the stick but also drastically increased two of the smaller ranges and opened up a cool narrative purpose for bringing together disparate factions. Mawtribes and Skaven got roughly the same level of support as the other releases in 2.0 which is a new hero model and some terrain and for Skaven endless spells.

However, Gloomspite got a massive overhaul and new releases. I think the only thing untouched from the Gloomspite release were the Spiderfangs which are a really cool albeit slightly more niche but fully playable subfaction. Technically I would consider both Slaves to Darkness and Soulblight to have many elements of Soup armies and both got massive updates as well. To me this indicates that people are jumping to conclusions about soup armies getting less support, as many of the soup armies got a massive releases.  So if there was a Duardin Soup army on the horizon it might mean that one subfaction might get a little less love for the time being but that does not indicate that there will be no future releases. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the support that has already occurred for a number of the soup factions already. I have suggested a few times that I do not think Kharadron might end up in a Duardin soup but that is premised entirely off of their current popularity not because I think it will hamper their releases. I also still think that adding Chaos Dwarfs to the S2D soup is likely the best way to approach that army from a sales perspective as it essentially guarantees their survival as a faction tied to one of the most popular armies in the game.

This is a strange question but did fantasy or 40k ever merge armies into soup lists before?

Edited May 27, 2021 by Neverchosen

[DoctorPerils]

2 hours ago, Public Universal Duardin said:

I realise the importance the last sentence holds for you - the importance of being able to identify with an army, hence why I support all forms of different representation in mini ranges (and why I want female minis for my favourite fantasy race). But would this truly be the case? If the red line in the sand is 'Kharadron warming up to religion', will you necessarily lose that with a soup? And even if there'd be lore justification why Kharadron at large return to worshipping Grimnir, Your Dudes can still be whatever you want them to be. I have seen many run Renegade Space Marines because they've felt uncomfortable with playing as space fascists and can headcanon their army as anarcho-syndicalist people pleasers on a quest to overthrow the Imperium, if they so wish.

Honestly, yes the change to the faction's identity would be extremely jarring - especially as this hobby isn't just about creating your own models and lore, but interacting with official lore. I've been working through the Plague Garden audiobook for some months, and every character and narrator repeating "only the faithful" every ten minutes, it becomes really grating; and I had a similar problem with Soul Wars. If you shoehorn in that kind of stuff for the Kharadrons, it will definitely feel like a step back if not a spit in the face.

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

😁

Personally I wouldn't mind if Nighthaunt & Gravelords were combined into one battletome - if it were thought through and made sense.  That said I do have a Legion of Grief army and really like how it looks on the tabletop with skeletons next to chainrasp, so may be a little biased.  That said, I do think Nighthaunt and Gravelords have the advantage that they both have a large enough core miniature range to justify them each having their own book.  If both ranges were in a single book, then you'd probably it 50% larger to cover everything equally.

I suppose one question that does need to be asked is if people feel that any of the soup battletomes have resulted in one particular faction losing it's identity when factions were combined?

From what I've understood, some people still feel bad about the Ironjawz being lumped together with Bonesplittaz, precisely because they lost a part of their "we are superior to other greenskinz" mentality.

But it's not just a question of _losing_ identity, it's also a question of blocking off the potential expansion on identity and themes.

 

Can I just say I still haven't seen anybody give a reason that it should be specifically Duardin who are targeted for souping up together? Like, DoK and IDK actually have joint enmity of Teclis, both reside in Ulgu, both like scales and have spiky swirls and waves in their iconography - thematically and visually, they are _way_ closer than Kharadron and Fyreslayers, or Ironjawz and Bonesplittaz. Plus it's not like we don't have enough aelven factions. Or how about DoK mixed with Vampires ? Both love blood and wear a mix of spiky gothic armour and pale bare skin? I could go on with more wacky combinations, especially as I like AoS to feel like its own thing rather than weighed down by WHFB's baggage

EDIT: @Neverchosen
you say that there is no evidence of soup's getting fewer releases than stand alone factions, then say in the same breath that most of their battletomes get the same amount of support as most stand alone factions at the very most - that means that where both constituent factions may get a hero and a piece of terrain, they end up getting a single hero and a piece of terrain for the whole battletome: on average, that's fewer releases. You then go on to give the notable exception of Gloomspite Gitz, but say yourself that a whole faction of them (spiderfangs) got nothing out of the souping.

So the way I read it, your post essentially contradicts your point - am I missing something?

Edited May 27, 2021 by DoctorPerils

[Nuriel]

I think we should seperate two kind of dishes:

a) all-duradin soup and

b) soup where Kharadron Overlords / Fyreslayers are combined with other (non-dwarven) armies.   

I don't like first solution. It seriously dilutes what make those dwarves unique from each other and the all other fantasy settings. What is the gain here? Combined dwars army? Play Lethisian Defenders from Forbidden Power for that.

The second one it's better in my opinion. GW can combine Fyreslayers with Phoenix Temple and Legion of Azgorh emphasising Aqshy and religious cultists themes.