Greybeard86

I think we are getting into a slightly different debate (my fault!). For me, soup is an effort to consolidate factions so that you can keep them relevant together, given that you wouldn't be able to support them separately (or wouldn't want to, it is just business, after all). By support I mean a combination of new models and keeping the old models relevant. SM has been a very good example of how old units have been mostly eradicated from "competitive" play. Every few months a few outliers will be very competitive (old scouts, vanguard vets, attack bikes, some terimators), but SM armies are, at their core, primaris. Old GW did something better, IMHO. While they added armies and new units, a lot of the release cycle was also re-sculpting of older models. New guard regiments, plastic dwarf warriors, and other refreshers of the existing lines. This was great, as it offered choices and didn't feel as much as simply planned obsolescence.

Yes! I see no reason not to have it, at all.

At this point, if they won't support them, why keep selling them, though? I'll run them as blood knights, given my conversion. But it just seems poor taste, specially given that it is not that the new VC have that many units anyway. What could be a potential role for them?

I do like Gloomspite Gitz or dispossessed. The rest are meh meh. Also, fire is for chorfs, slayers have no business with it.

I hope they don't just make them chaos little dudes/ettes. This is a matter of taste, but I don't think those early chorfs were that interesting. The problem with their next iteration is that it was too derpy, even for my derpy taste (I like metal slayers). The latest version was great, for my taste, with top hats but not looking straight out from a cartoon. That said, with high magic everyone, I really want them to be the "mad&dark uncontrolled industrialism of London's smog". With a touch of magic and mutation, but secundary to that grimy cruel industrial complex with slaves (lumpenprol.). That used to be GW's jamp, don't know if they'll have what it takes to pull it now

They need a niche, they currently have none. But I guess they wanted to make sure their red cousins had a prominent role, not so much the older models. In my humble opinion (not a AoS game system master), I think the issue is that it is too easy to get "juicy elite point efficient units" as battleline, so other models have no place. If you can spam red knights, why bother with black knights?

I managed to get a few of the latest bull centaur sculpts (executioner herd), but curios to see how GW reinvents them. I just wish they didn’t legend such expensive things so easily. As for the new release, I’d like them to focus a lot on the industrial part, with magic and mutations secundara themes. I always thought chorfs where a sort of criticism of unrestrained industrialism.

They ll likely be a good contrast with infernal industrious dwarves. I hope they lean hard on the industrial bit, and not exclusively the magic aspect.

Ouch! Chorfs are better on display anyway, but never understood why there hasn’t been more outrage over the recent trends in “legending”.

So far, GW seems to be catering towards nostalgia in factions like lumineth / he. I’d expect some new stuff mixed in with the FW models. Plastic will be a relieve, as FW resin is a pain, besides being horribly overpriced.

I wasn’t a fan of the infernal legion myself, I do hope they go along the lines of this. I also hope they let us take “legally” the older FW units. The sculpts looked good for modern standards, and they costed a fortune.

Again, an issue of priorities. As I mentioned in the other thread, "new!!!"1!" seems to take priority over carefully balancing with existing ranges. I mean, SC have a laughable amount of units, how many are actually viable on the TT? Did they need the "bulkjer" SC now? If the issue is providing choice, release new models for existing units, so that both can be fielded. But that is not what the GW of the last 10 years has been doing, compared to the GW of the first 2 decades.

True, but we have a bad precedent with SM. Some elements within the SM soup are pretty bad for extensive periods of time (e.g. Dark Angles SM). All I am saying is that while new models are cool, more support for existing lines is needed. Sometimes this means adding extra minis to factions like FS, or making sure they can soup well with good rules. Just effort into certain parts of the game that are not precisely thriving. I think we will all agree that SC did not need new models when some many of the units in the old range are barely used.

I like the new orcs, but not enough to buy them. I understand the commercial value of having an easy to paint model line of superheroes, but I won't be buying them. I am sad, though, that all gryphon like creatures are tied to them, besides the old demi-gryphs in cities. Finally, I'll wait for the full rules to evaluate the new edition. I really want battalions to be re-worked.

Except that Kragnos, on the table top, isn't nearly as powerful. That's the sad thing about incorporating "God-level" minis in a skirmish game.

And right as we are discussing this here, we set yet another avalanche of new models. There are more models in AoS than anyone could paint in a life-time (am I really exaggerating?). Making sure existing models are actually usable should be a priority, IMO.

Great! I hope they don't just trash the older models though, some of the FW stuff was pretty sweet.

So is it true that chorfs were mentioned in the preview?

The new orcs are fine, but I could not help but feel that adding more models in a new faction while talking about the need to consolidate was a tad odd. I think that the whole “new, enter, bigger, scarier!!!” cycle might be exciting, but clearly is unsustainable from the perspective of keeping all the products relevant. Which obviously might not be GW goal, but I do think should be the goal of a good system.

Well, clubs are a place where this happens, besides tournies. In any case, even if you do play among friends or people you know, GW rules are the foundation upon which you tweak. Very few people design their own set of rules to play with miniature figurines from scratch (and even fewer can design them well). And since you do not want to discuss every week every single detail of the rules to see what's broken, people gravitate to GW matches rules for the most part. Of course, a few clearly OP things might be banned here and there, or some groups might stick to previous formats (6th WHFB has a following). But again, GW is pretty central to how the game is played almost everywhere. The only real counterbalance I can thing of is player organization based rules. They have a similar smell ("official"), they are often better balanced than GW's rules. E.g. 9th age has its issues, but win rates never really got so out of whack. In any case, all that to say that good balanced rules are a needed foundation for a fun game, as they make it easier for games to feel fun and challenging.

Well, I think that it is true that it can develop quickly. Ultimately, though, I'd say most people here find some aspect of the game to be good enough to stick around. The critical bit comes with the hobby, I'd say But at the end of the day, you can simply ignore such posts? I am not sure if there is an ignore function here, but scrolling past some posts shouldn't be too hard. Plus the mods do take out the louder grumbling.

This has been discussed to death, though. GW are equivalent to basic manners & politeness. With strangers, they ensure less bumpy communication / interaction, but you may replace them with your own set for rules with friends (inside jokes, better understanding of intent). If you play mostly in a close-knit environment, GW's rules be darned. Though it does take effort to replace them, and you might not want to go through the trouble. But if you play frequently with strangers, they are a strong default. I believe that Swedish competitive rules and other player-driven efforts are a good compromise. But GW does try to compete with such efforts, since it takes away power from them. Ultimately, I believe GW has too many bad incentives and we'd be better with others making "competitive standard rules".

Yes, please. Keyword radicalization really kills some super fun varied lists. When will I be able to field my trolls and gobbos together?

This is likely controversial, but I do like: Lauka Vai, Mother of Nightmares. Yes, it is ilogical, anathomically problematic. But it is freaking horrifying. As for old, I loved Orion: And I also loved midhammer dwarf sculpts. It is harder to pick a single one, since I liked them more for the "full army look" than individual sculpts, but here is one:

WHERE....ARE....MY....KURNOTHI? Centaurs, satyrs, male and female, we need them! They just need to be careful with nymphs. If they do add them, make them badarse warriors, not eye candy.