Greybeard86

@Mcthew it is a very fine balance, for a company, between making their product known and showcasing vs manipulating people with marketing. Excitement over cool new things is very human, but exploiting it to bypass rational consumers (I.e. large piles of shame from overbuying) is poor behavior, in my opinion. This is not an exclusive problem to miniatures, we see it everywhere. GW though has even more control over it by virtue of integrating world building, production, and sales. In general, corporations have become very powerful wrt consumers and they can muster lots of resources to “fool us”. They can employ lots of people working constantly to bypass our rational judgement, to investigate our blinspots, and ultimately get us to do things we wouldn’t necessarily want to do. For example, via product placement in supermarkets. I am sure you know it can get pretty sophisticated. Yes, it does leave a bad taste when we perceive a company leaning too much on the “dark arms”. But generally speaking it is very tough for us to detect it and guard our wallets. That’s why I think that now more than ever we need to be extremely careful with purchases and set lots of rules to fight our impulses, which are so easy to manipulate. Hobby budgets, not buying more before finishing the previous, and other things like that should be an integral part of the hobby. It does suck to have to be do guarded but that’s the world we live in.

I was hoping they would have some use. I wanted to do a Bret/black knight conversion for a Mousillon themed army. Although I guess that, if it comes down to it, I could roll them as Blood Knights...

Except is you are planning a Mousillon inspired army based on Wight Kings and Black Knights conversions, inspired by the new mounted Wight King. Having weak options is just bad form, IMO, every kit should be viable in a suitable build. Clearly that is not the case, even in the arguably better internally balanced books.

I think the disparity in power between warscrolls is intentional. Other companies to it too, to cater to "power gamers" and reward "system mastery". The fact that what is "good" and "bad" varies is, in my opinion, also intentional. The goal being to shake up the meta to "keep things interesting"; of course, it also helps with model sales. The whole "keyword mess" is part of an intentional push by GW to try to get hyper focused armies on the table. I think this is a residual influence from the original "warband" design of AoS 1. This might change with the demise of battalions as we know them now. Finally, I also think that AoS is struggling to find an identity. It is currently in the transition between "almost no rules, skirmish, let's all meet in the middle and braaaawl" to "armies are cool, big units, more complex rules and combos". I honestly don't know what kind of a game it will be in a couple years.

There are old minis that have not aged well, including some old chorfs (funny but they look like toy toys), or VC monsters. However, the more recent slayers are ok, if a bit chunky, and have far more character than any of the FS.

I knows clearly a lot of people love KO, and I can see why. But let’s be frank, the whole hyper divided small factions was also a business decision. They just seem to have hit the right spot with KO, for some people. Personally, I’d like for them to commit a tad more to factions. It sucks yo get swiped aside with no warning or consolation, like they did with chorfs.

And now maybe they want to undo this, as they no longer believe that AoS1 factions are viable in the new design / business paradigm. If they obliterated WHFB, they sure as heck can merge two factions. As we all know, it comes down to them coins. If they believe KO have developed enough of a separate identity that it is a worthwhile (profitable) brand on its own, they'll keep them. So there is some hope for those who'd prefer it that way.

I think the issue is more that they think KO will get gutted as a result, with less time invested in their lore and mini creation.

I get it. I think it is important, though, that whatever remains after the souping and squashing gets support. If they are not ready to support it, don't keep it, it'd be just a trap.

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. 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.

These look really nice. This is the company that sells the files, right? I am planning a small force of chorfs for fun, and I thought I'd use some of the old sculpts as statues for the display. Maybe I'll add some of these too, if I find a way to print them. Wish they offered that service!

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.

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.

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 think we are coming to discuss from two different perspectives. I am not arguing that, as things stand, the two factions blend well together. They do not! But that was GW going out of their way to make sure they didn’t. They picked steam punk and slayer and pulled them apart; they did so to get two distinct factions with smallish ranges. The goal, much like other 1st gen OS factions likely was to fire and forget them. However, now mid game GW decided to keep all these factions. But they cannot maintain them because there were never plans to make that many factions into full rosters, likely it isn’t even feasible. So something that doesn’t belong together (because it was designed that way) must be put together. The alternative likely being death by neglect. What can GW do? Same as they did and end times and killed United dwarves now they can get the White Dwarf to epically reunite the race. Stranded cousins brought together for some big reasons. Then, this separation can be part of the living history of the faction, and those factions integrate like the old guilds. The engineers / traders guild = KO, the fanatical slayers guild = KO. Is it forced? Yes! Is it likely going to happen? If we are not wrong and this is GW plan to save the factions destined (designed) to perish, then probably it is.

Are KO going to get new units though? Because, no offense, I think lots of people are willing to throw FS under the bus because hardly anyone plays them. In my opinion, the point is whether many factions with narrow ranges can be sustained over time or whether they ll just languish and die from neglect. This is not new to AoS, chorfs and dogs of war suffered that fate in WHFB. It seems that now AoS is going back to large releases with wider ranges. Now, the previous design iteration of narrow ranges can either fold into a wider faction or...what? What do you think will happen? How long can KO continue to operate with 1 battle line and now new minis? Not to speak of FS since that’s been discussed to death. I think there is room for actual bigger alliances that work, and we have to allow for some time to GW to write the lore to support it. Likely, this will lead to some retconning. Usually, I dislike that. But between death from moth or retconning, I guess I’d choose the later.

Oh c'mon! Thanks for this, at least they aren't completely erased from all the background, waiting for a comeback some day.

I think that soup might not be by design, rather a patch to salvage AoS 1 factions. Early factions like FS, or even KO, had only a handful of kits and have hardly had additions. Their rules might make them more or less meta, but they are clearly quite different from the new releases with wide rosters, such as Lumineth. I am convinced this is not the result of some weird favoritism by designers (X likes elves), but rather a whole design shift in AoS. We all know how AoS 1 launched, and how many of the "simplyfing changes" have been reverted over the years. I believe that perhaps AoS 1 launched with the intent to have continuous launches of hyper focused factions. Those factions would be like warbands, and gradually get phased out. This might have been a response by GW to the "problem" of minis lasting too long, and to the fact that new releases are what brings money in (or so I have been told), far more than existing older models. Given that it is costly to continually stock older models, it is clear that if they could get us to continually buy new armies and models, they simply would. I believe that primaris marines, and End Times + AoS (paired with the new narrow army philosophy) are part of that sales plan. Now, somehow this has reverted. Mid game there was a management change, and old marines were not squatted (at least as fast) and first gen AoS factions have been kept. New AoS factions are released with "wide" rosters, and they are putting a bit more effort in balancing. So, what to do with first gens then? Soup them to better fit this new paradigm. True, they won't keep updating and adding to the roster as much as they would if they were independent factions. But they were never planning to do so! The alternative to that might just be legends (aka trashcan).

Mmfff so glad AoS has other things besides stormcast, all I can say after seeing the list of names.

I am grumpy too, but c'mon, I meant rumours 😘 PS - Not out of the blue, some reports on chorfs being active in the background lore, and same for Kurnothi.

Also, does anyone have any updates on either: i) chaos dwarves or ii) kurnothi? Obviously discontinuing chorfs without a single mention was a bummer, and personally I would have loved for Kragnos to lead the Kurnothi, but maybe there is still some hope.

How is that weird? We have seen "Old World" dwarves all but disappear from AoS since its inception. We have also seen FS get no love and barely survive with a limited and samey range for many years. And it is not like KO are getting many new kits, are they? Taking into consideration that Old World dwarves combined the three themes very successfully, I can only imagine than many other dwarf fans would be thrilled with: i) making sure they survive, even if it means diminished support for specialized armies (all FS or whatever), ii) the return of larger collections, as opposed to hyper focused ranges. Hopefully this would also mean that they are easier to keep relevant via rules.

You are forgetting that they once played together, steampunk, slayer, and viking dwarves, and the armies were diverse and breath taking.

Again, soup might be the only option left for factions that may have been destined to disappear anyway. FS have not been proper love in how long? I believe they are a relic from AoS 1 design mindset (hyper-focused disposable factions). So I'd rather see them integrated into a broader dwarf faction than to see the "slayer" theme go to the trashcan. And by the way, it kinda is there right now (one of the least sold, played and liked factions, many surveys say so).

I thought Valaya dwarves were mentioned? What I am sensing is a come back of the old "extensive ranges". Coupled with more limited battalion influence, it might mean the end of the "spam X" armies. Something I would welcome very much! In that sense, maybe some armies that were broken apart get re-united. Dwarves of all colors, better integration of goblins, kurnothi + WE, and so on. I personally would love for the option to field more specialized forces (e.g. a skyport or a lodge), or use "soup"/"great alliances". I have read elsewhere (and evidence seems to support this) that originally AoS was planned as an ever releasing of small very thematic armies, which would get rotated over time (think FS). However, much like other plans from the Kirby era (responsible for End times, AoS 1, and other genius ideas), they seem to have changed. Hence AoS is at an awkward impass, with some factions coming from the old design (FS), others released according to the new paradigm (HE/lumineth), and the company unable to support as many factions effectively. Perhaps they were never planning on supporting AoS factions forever, hence the shifting paradigms in rules, and how dated some feel. I welcome the change, if that's the case, and I hope we move to a new era of more diverse armies with better support. If this means soup, bring it!