Beer & Pretzels Gamer

I have a strange feeling there could be a LRL split/Gloomspite Gitz WD aspect to this. If I had to guess there will be a slim Kruelboyz tome with cards, dice, etc. to make a nice clean launch product and then in early 2022 we’ll get the new & improved Orruk Warclans tome with all three and I’m guessing a couple new units for IJ and BS (likely heroes). With all the struggles lately it just seems optimistic to think they’ve 3.0d all of Warclans. But as long as they are Warclans compatible day zero I’m actually pretty okay with this.

MUST HAVE MIREBRUTE!!! Rest I’ll figure out but likely some chaff to screen lots of shooting as that easiest to start rotating through rest of Warclans eventually.

On this one we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree because I think there are plenty of more likely ways to have a combined tomes without KO taking a walk along the road to Damascus and without Fyreslayers abandoning their quest to put their ur-gold Humptey Dumptey back together again.

I agree we are likely to get cavalry. Trying to figure out what the good space not occupied by either Gore Grunta or BoarBoyz…

They never bothered me to be honest but enough people in this thread had claimed it was an issue and one that existed for dwarf soup. I see the new stuff as an excellent midpoint between the mostly naked BS and the totally armored IJ. But aesthetics will always be subjective. To me, a faction I already love just got better and I’d be thrilled to see Duardin get a similar bump in a similar way. But guessing no matter what examples we get the fear will persist until we actually see and the resistance in some corners long after. Fair enough. To each their own. For me, a huge pick me up after the disappointment of Kragnos’ points…

As destruction knew I was getting this reveal. Having now seen them have to say I am completely thrilled (if already panicking about painting all the details…). Best part is that the will slide right into existing Warclans instead of being a separate faction. Feel they nicely fill in gaps for both and make Big Waaagh!!!! even more devastating.

At a minimum i think we have to give credit that this does a great job of: (a) addressing the visual gap between the two - owning both I feel comfortable saying I could slot these into either side without them looking out if place (b) address gaps in both factions pretty nicely - some shooting for Ironjawz and some non-horde options for Bonesplitterz Given Soulblight essentially replaced original soup LoN with lots of new models too then I continue to think soup vs not soup re: model support a red herring.

So… does the big expansion of Orruk Warclans today put to rest the idea that souped factions don’t get new models?

Agree that AoS has a design philosophy problem. The better dynamic (though still not perfect as I know owning Tau and Tyranids) in 40k I think comes from a more settled set of factions. I am really hoping that with 3.0 AoS settles into a more consistent set of factions allowing for either a design philosophy to emerge organically (best case) or be imposed too down (if necessary).

Hate to quote myself but I looked back at my lists that I built based on these ideas once the points were announced and went from four lists to zero…

I think there is a definite reality to there only being so many generic roles for a given unit type to fill and the thinner you slice it the more likely you are to end up with “the gor problem” (make them cheaper and they start supplanting ungors, make them tougher and they start supplanting bestigors) or just WS that don’t work. That said I think sub-factions are a great way to create more niches. So, a solution to “the gor problem” in a new tome could be a gor-focused sub-faction. The irony to me is that the best examples of this I can think of are actually from more limited model ranges. So FEC has very few units but essentially has a unique sub faction for each of them (e.g. Blisterskin for Crypt Flayers, Gristelgore for MONSTERS, Hollowmourne for Crypt Horrors and Morgaunt for Crypt Ghouls - Fyreslayers has a sub-faction for Magmadroths in Lofnir as another example). Battalions were another way of doing this but may not be available in 3.0…

My starting assumption is that the tome writers are passionate about their jobs, want to write good tomes and aren’t under undue pressure from suits to write rules that sell models. Naive? I don’t think so. Arguing against the last point is the inconsistency of war scroll strength AND the fact that we don’t have a bunch of rage quitters that then come on these forums and leak details about all the problems in the writers room or the battles between the writers room and the suits. Given in how many other mediums such leaks are regular I feel comfortable with this starting point. As regards the former, again it is partially the lack of negative turnover spilling into the forums as output demands has intensified that gives my confidence this is a group of people who love what they do. More than that though is the fact that there are enough tomes where their desire to do a good job shines through. If so many longtimers weren’t reminded us that these issues have always been the case I’d be inclined to put the issue down to the above mentioned increase in publishing pace. With the historical pattern though at most this may be an aggravating factor. What I keep coming back to then is this. In my opinion AoS has a reasonably solid set of core rules. Writing a tome and the war scrolls then in as an exercise in where to color within the lines and where to make exceptions. From the outside looking in what seems to be missing is an overall design philosophy regarding this. So we see some tomes that have very few exceptions and others that appear to be entirely exceptions (I have no experience with LRL but this seems to be a consistent complaint in these threads). Why is this happening? Well what is the one thing we definitely know? That with AoS the model design comes first. Now how could that interact with the writing room? Especially given the pace of publishing I do not think that they can ever start completely from a white sheet. Of course when dealing with an existing army they don’t have to but even with something like LRL or OBR I fully believe they are starting from templates such as single cast wizard, foot melee hero, foot battleline, etc. There is also a menu of “standard abilities” to choose from such as +1 damage on charge or unmodified hit rolls of 6 become 2 hits, that are deemed non-controversial to start building out a standard template. Beyond that though if this functions like many creative groups I am familiar with than there are semi-regular brainstorming sessions where unique abilities are pitched on a standalone basis. These sessions may or may not be guided by some area if focus tied either to an edition update or some lesson learned from previous tomes. The vetted and approved new unique abilities then are ready to be drawn upon when a new tome is written. Finally, I am sure each new tome has a tome specific brainstorming session where, once they know what new models, if any, there will be, new abilities are pitched. Once this has happened there will be a lot of back and forth between which abilities become allegiance, which go on war scrolls and if those which specific war scroll. From the complexities of this process it can be seen how divergent outcomes can arise. The writing team just might not find much inspiration in a model or abilities with good fit for the overarching structure there working with and thus we end up with a war scroll that’s not too far from template and thus “boring” as some suggest Fell Bats are fir Soulblight. In other cases they may have already given a similar alternative unit the workshopped ability and thus struggle with what to give the other model in the dyad (as may have happened between Blood Knights and Black Knights in Soulblight). In other cases abilities that made sense in an early draft get left in later when changes elsewhere now swing the interaction created to either be OP or non-functional. (I think we are often too quick to forget how many moving parts there are in a battle tome…). Sometimes thus process will have been difficult and the compromises evident on the table. Yet it is equally easy to see how it can yield the other extreme. The commentary around LRL to me reads as exactly what I would expect if there had been a build up of new abilities that the writing team has been desperate to use but just hadn’t been able to fit into previous tomes. Now the model makers have given them a ton of crazy models that throw the doors wide open and a but if a free for all ensues resulting in too much novelty. (After drawing down the list maybe not surprising that subsequent times feel less inspired?) Is this GW’s process? Of course I don’t know. But creativity is messy. Creativity on a deadline doubly so. So while there could be some narrowing of the differentiation between tomes with a more consistent design philosophy (e.g. each tome gets a limited number of selections) I would never 3xo3ct uniform quality across tomes.

I’d love to see a narrative about them breaking the curse. As far as new models go though… the Cursed Skies for now aren’t represented on the table top so harder to create a through line to this is why this new unit is needed. (Though could easily justify a new named character.) That said I’d love for the Cursed Skies to create physical manifestations that could be the other half if a new battle box for KO. For now though I’m just left with the lessons of “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” and “Green Lantern”: that no matter how ominous the clouds are, hard to get audiences to care about people fighting them…

Here’s hoping then that those sky battle rules take off! Love the sky theme, don’t get me wrong, just makes it hard for them to become central to the “big story” which seems to largely be ground based. Who knows though. One edition’s release theory doesn’t determine the next and there’s commentary about expanding factions so maybe you won’t need to be as central to the Ghur narrative thus go round.

To be clear, as big a fan of Monty Python as I may be my desire for Dwarf soup is not simply always looking on the bright side of life but a proactive desire based on owning both factions and loving the potential their combination would create. As importantly I actually see it as the most direct way to get more models. As others have pointed out soup doesn’t clearly or cleanly differentiate who gets more new models. The most obvious factor appears to be… importance to the big story. Slaanesh awakens? They get lots of new models. Nagash goes on offensive against Chaos. Get OBR as new faction. Teclis takes the fight to Nagash. Get LRL. Nagash loses the fight loosening his grip on his legions. Get Soulblight. Age of Destruction. Get Cruel Boyz. To be clear, I recognize the models come first and story second. That said I think the model makers have an inspiration loop with the narrative. Could KO suddenly leap to the forefront of the big story on own? Maybe. But a massive story about reuniting and reclaiming to me seems much more likely than that…

And that’s fine. Again, I’m empathetic to all the concerns just confused about the certainty that so many of the anti-soup opinions are expressed with when I compare it to my own experience within AoS and outside if AoS as an avid consumer of fantasy and sci fi. And I do recognize there is a lot of scar tissue and skepticism re: the dexterity & finesse of GW’s handling of changes. Despite what I think are very successful examples in Mawtribes and Warclans that is no guarantee. As they say in my industry past performance is no guarantee of future results. But that’s true both ways. ****** up end times doesn’t mean they’ll ****** up every other change. Successfully souping doesn’t mean every soup is successful.

That one I’m very empathetic about (shoot, I’m empathetic about all of it but most of the rationals don’t hold up for me) but it just comes across as a certainty whereas the evidence from actual soup tomes suggests it is far from inevitable.

Already hit upon issue with ally rules in response to @Clan's Cynic. Won’t dispute per se the behinds the scenes rational for why it is happening. But neither of those points address why, when we have literally hundreds of movies and thousands of fantasy and science fiction books that are built around the concept of reuniting cultures which diverged at one point but have to reunite to face a larger issue, is there such strong belief that Fyreslayers and KO are the exception to this rule?

I’m totally unfamiliar with LotR rules so not familiar with how allies work there. Do know that because of key wording ally model in AoS tricky at best. I can say from tons of direct experience with Warclans and Mawtribes that they do a good job addressing that. Gitz, not as well to be fair. But I’m trying to step back to a broader point with this insistence that somehow Fyreslayers and KO from a lore perspective are absolutely irreconcilable. If this is true it would truly be the exception within the context of fantasy or sci fi where literature and films are full of wider chasms bridge to powerful narrative effect.

Since they have the IP couldn't resist one more... This one gets to the heart of my perplexity re:the vehemence with which it is insisted KO and Fyreslayers cannot be united. Two cultures, springing from the same roots but separated by their response by a cataclysmic tragedy forced to reunite for a common cause that requires the strengths of both has to be one of the most common tropes in fantasy...

Please take these in the humorous spirit in which they are offered...

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..

This may be neither here nor there but I do find the contrast between the reaction of combining KO and Fyreslayers in this (and many other threads) and the reaction by Mawtribes players to an expansion of Firebellies perplexing. Absolutely expansions almost always go down smoother. But the obvious conflict between Fire & Ice (as represented by Beastclaw) in the same tome was largely seen as a feature to be celebrated, not a bug to be fretted over. Again, I own and play both Fyreslayers and KO. Again and again I read that you can’t combine the fanatical fundamentalists with the extreme atheists, as if those were the only characteristics these factions had. Personally an appeal of the two armies is how clearly they form a balanced ying and yang so to speak. It immediately struck me how both of their fanaticism have resulted in actives so similar in function. Fyreslayers are obsessed with collecting ur-gold. KO are obsessed with collecting aether-gold. Both obsessions are about the pursuit of power. The Fyreslayers pound the ur-gold into their own bodies to gain personal strength. The KO inh3ct it into their machines to gain mechanical strength. Two sides of the same coin. Reflections in each other’s mirrors. Pick your metaphor. Given this perspective I admit I’m confused when people say they can’t be combined. Just such contrasting combinations are the basis of some of the most successful narratives whether we are talking books, movies, tv, opera, songs, etc. etc. But in the end, to each their own. I have no say in the decision and while I think I would absolutely be better off with a soup in the end I’ll have to work with whatever Nottingham decides.

Haven’t counted but guessing through Zoom League and pre-COVID times approaching 50+ games with Mawtribes. This includes pure Gutbusters, pure BCR, mild hybrids (e.g adding a Butcher to a BCR list or a FLoSH to Gutbusters) and pure soup with no problems. The only things I lost from my ore-soup experience with both was Braggoth’s Beasthammer Battalion and the Thundertusk’s awesome snowball. As I’m guessing both were gone regardless of whether they souped or just updated BCR I don’t blame soup for that. Gained a whole lot though. And not just me. Mawtribes is the one tome everyone in Zoom Leafue loves and everyone wants there turn to play. We have to be approaching three dozen games in Zoom League with Warclans too. No pre-soup experience to compare with but again will note w3ve had zero problems playing pure Ironjawz, pure Bonesplitterz or Big Waaagh!!! Each has a very different feel and game play experience for both player and opponent. And simply put that’s why I love me some soup. We get so much high quality variety out of the soup tomes. On a $$$/hour of play time soup tomes done right like Mawtribes or Warclans are unparalleled in my experience. (Don’t have as much experience with Gloomspite Gitz but enough to understand some of the worries of what can go wrong if they are kept too keyworded to allow for that smooth hybrid transition between sub-factions.) I own both Fyreslayers and KO and based on the above experience would love to see them souped (I want those Hearthguard marching out from an Ironclad gosh darn it!!!) as while I enjoy both I tend to get satiated play wise with either of them pretty quickly as the breadth and depth for experimentation just isn’t there. Sure, “just add more units” a legit response there but I don’t think soups are any more or less likely to get new models. Plenty of mono line fractions got as little as new in 2.0 as Warclans or Mawtribes. And the update of one of the original soups, Soulblight replacing Legion of Nagash, just got one of the biggest updates of 2.0 (or maybe first of 3.0?). Would love to see Mawtribes or Warclans get the Soulblight treatment in this age of Destruction.

Coming over to Soulblight from FEC one thing I would note is that if your experience is coming against FEC’s version, particularly the AGKonRT variety that could take the Gruesome Bite Mount Trait the basic Terrorgheist isn’t going to be as fearsome (if that’s what you’ve been playing against than you know that doesn’t mean wimpy, just that w/out rerolls and potential extra attacks from Archregent spell the risk of getting hit with 6MWs goes way down). Where I leaned heavy into RTs in Gristelgore I am finding myself far more agnostic in Avengorii between the two choices and I am likely to settle on one of each.