[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

41 minutes ago, Loyal Son of Khemri said:

So Stormcast Eternals were saved from becoming Fantasy-Space Marines due to one author's habit of improvisation..... You can't make this stuff up.

I'd love to claim credit, but the design studio had the same idea, as did Guymer and most of the other authors. It was only a few people in BL that held onto the idea of them as space marines, at least until just after AoS 2.0 launched. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

37 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

Ya know I had this exact thought when I saw my first announcement about Warhammer Horror 😂 "Wait, what the hell have you been writing this whole time?" since 40k's setting especially relies on the inherent horror that the infamous blurb sets up. I am also hoping they're using this as an opportunity to reach across the spectrum of what Horror is and can be in Warhammer. Hell, I could see an entire (cerebral) horror novella taking place from the POV of a Stormcast going through successive Reforgings.

I do have my own question about Soul Wars: at what point did you think of the "Cat Queen" girl, and was there pushback on how you wrote the Stormcast interacting with her? I knew I was going to love the book based on that chapter alone. The intro about the Black Pyramid was phenomenal, but Something as small as Stormcast letting this tiny girl and her cat retinue wander around catacombs because their boss doesn't mind cracked me UP. 

 

Oh she was in the initial pitch. I wanted a mortal character that had a connection to Pharus, but one that wasn't a soldier or authority figure. The cat stuff came from the early info on Glymmsforge being full of cats (because cats can see ghosts), and I just sort of...improvised as I wrote. I have a bad habit of doing that; bane of my editors. When they read the finished draft, I had to argue a bit to keep the idea that she was connected to the cats, but not as hard as I was expecting. There was more pushback regarding her interactions with Pharus, but they were seesawing back and forth on whether Stormcast were space marine-lite still, and the design studio came down on my side in that instance, which nixed any concerns editorial had. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

7 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

I think we "consumers" also got this impression. It might be generational, but I much prefer it.

Oh I much prefer it myself, as well. It's one of the reasons I enjoy working with Aconyte these days. We're allowed - encouraged, even - to investigate the corners of the IP and scrounge up something interesting. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

6 minutes ago, Whitefang said:

Yeah, I always found the Horror series an enigma, apart from certain works like the Dark Harvest written by you, most Warhammer series seem to be neither proper horror nor memorable good work.

Do you think this phenomenon is caused by restrictions applied by BL doctrine? 

IMO, I suspect it's a combination of factors. You could argue that horror and Warhammer are so inextricably entwined that attempting something like 'Warhammer Horror' is basically doomed to fail. And there's some restrictions there, obviously, but there was also - at least at the beginning - an uncertainty as to what the books were supposed to be.

They've probably firmed that up, since, but when the lines were proposed, I sensed - and this is purely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt - a lack of awareness about the extent of the horror and crime genres. They had a very narrow idea of what a horror novel was, and what it could be. The same for crime. 

I think readers do as well, to be honest. 

What is a proper horror novel, after all? Is it The Shining, or is it A Sick Grey Laugh? Is it Grin of the Dark or The Croning? What about The Fisherman or Mexican Gothic? All very different novels, with very different approaches to the unsettling and the unpleasant. Some of them aren't scary at all. Not in the sense of giving the reader goosepimples, but in the idea of something of the outside seeping in. Existentially horrifying, rather than jump-scare creepy. And readers disagree about which is which all the time and at length. 

For instance, I like R. Chetwynd-Hayes. He wrote horror, says so on the spine of his books in the library. But it's not scary or even unsettling. Some of its grisly, some of its amusing - all of it is a bit melancholy. The same with M.R. James. I love a good Jamesian ghost story, and well-constructed one is a work of art IMO, but I'm rarely creeped out by one (though "Lost Hearts" always gives me a few bad moments, especially the BBC version). Progeny of the Adder is a fantastic novel, one of the first to posit a realist approach to modern day cops versus a for-real vampire. It's considered old-fashioned today - not scary, or even startling by modern standards - but it's still a horror novel. 

Horror is as much about atmosphere as it is fear. The old Universal monster films are atmospheric, elegant - but not frightening. John Carpenter's Halloween is startling, eerie at points, but is it truly frightening? What about Prince of Darkness or The Fog? Both horror, both tense - but scary? Is Suspiria scary? Brides of Dracula? They have atmosphere in spades, but you know Peter Cushing is pulling out the win in the latter, so is it really properly frightening? Is Saw frightening? Hostel? 

That's what I was trying to get at above. Horror is a spectrum, as is crime (The Thin Man is a detective story, but so is Red Harvest. Same author, two wildly different approaches, as an example). And I don't know that BL understood that, in the beginning. 

I hope that's changed. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:

White Dwarf nowadays is one of the best it's ever been though. Early 2019 onwards its had a complete renaissance. 

While I don't read it anywhere near regularly these days, I do agree with this. They've even started putting fiction back in, which was unheard of when I started writing for BL. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

4 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I find this a bit surprising. Same as your other comments on writing to support models.

What built GW's most "iconic" set up, 40k, was not "novels for models" in the strict sense that you describe.

Yes, they started by creating a setting and a game to sell more miniatures. However, what contributed more to the setting, Eisenhorn's collections or some random short story to support new models? In following Eisenhorn (or Gotrek), the reader is placed in many different contexts of the setting, most of which do not have a direct correspondence on the shelf. It does, however, contribute to world building and this is what reels in the reader/player/buyer (at least in my case).

My impression is that the sort of subordination of art and prose to models you describe is a newer phenomenon. Very much like the case of new codexes / army books having a smaller ratio of illustrations to pictures of models. I bought the black templars limited edition codex and the only memorable part of it is the cover. Which is simply a re-printing the original illustrations by JBlanche.

All this to say that I believe that GW's obsession of only doing things to boost sales (e.g. old white dwarf vs new white dwarf, attitudes on conversions, or whatever warhammer community is) is simply eroding at the capital their franchise had build over time. I certainly don't find most of AoS's lore interesting and much of what you and others have said about here is, IMO, spot on. Losening the grip on writers and detangling a bit more novels from models might lessen initially whatever "conversion metrics" they are considering, but could prove a smarter long term investment.

I mean, talking to Bill King and some of the other early writers, it was always about selling models - it's just that the idea of how best to do that changed. Initially, the first batch of writers - King, Newman/Yeovil, etc. - were given a blank canvas to work with.  The idea apparently being you hire a bunch of professional writers and let them do the job without too much interference. There's a really nice set of essays floating around somewhere about the old Boxtree GW novels and their genesis, but I can't remember the link for the life of me. 

Now, when Black Library was first conceived, the idea was to treat the books as a gateway into the game, as opposed to an out and out commercial. Hence your Eisenhorn, your Ghosts, etc. And again, the first writers hired on were already professionals - Abnett, Swallow, etc. But the idea that certain models and factions were to be emphasized over others was already there. Space Marines were seen as sure sellers, hence the Ultramarines, the Blood Angels, the Space Wolves, all getting series at the outset. The xenos not so much, so fewer Eldar, Orks, etc. And that thinking has largely continued to the current day. 

That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind - just a limited one. A narrow focus does not automatically make for a bad book, though it makes coming up with a good book more difficult. And BL is attempting to pull back from the 'toy-commercial' aspect some with Warhammer Crime/Horror - though I have my own issues with how they're approaching those. 

I do agree that loosening up the restrictions on the writers would be a good long-term investment. I'm hoping that the forthcoming new AoS character series are a step in that direction, even if they do smack of an attempt to brute force the organic popularity of Gotrek & Felix. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

15 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

I'm sorry to hear that, though not surprised. I've enjoyed you AoS novels a lot despite any executive meddling. I must admit though that I'm not familiar with your wider work. Do you have series where you do have creative control, where you are able to be more "literary"* than when doing work for hire?

 

* For want of a better term. I'm firmly of the opinion that genre writing can be just as literary as so called literary fiction itself, if not more so. But there is a clear difference between something like one of Joe Abercrombie's novels and the best of what black library puts out, even if the subject matter is ostensibly the same. 

I've written quite a bit outside of BL/licensed fiction. You can find links to much of it on my site, if you're interested: https://joshuamreynolds.co.uk/works/creator-owned-work/. My largest body of work is probably the Royal Occultist series, which is basically urban fantasy by way of PG Wodehouse. I also have a Patreon, where I publish new stories and essays on horror films and such.

But be warned, little of what I write is what I'd call 'literary'. I'm very much a pulp writer, in spirit.  

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

16 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

This really sucks. It's extremely frustrating that fandom is taking the stance that quality does not matter as much as content. It's not new nor is it only Warhammer's issue, but it feels like it's getting worse especially after the MCU exploded.

I got into 40k through Gaunt's Ghosts because they were good books, not solely because I ended up liking the Ghosts as characters. Then ironically, I never finished the series because it got tiresome having too much of the same thing!

It's not just fandom. It's a whole 'snake-eating-its-own-tail' thing. To keep it focused on GW, BL has to churn out a certain number of guaranteed sellers in order to justify its existence within the corporate whole, and that means giving people what they want - but what people want is often determined by what they're given. Books about Space Marines are considered popular because Space Marines sell; Space Marines only sell because they occupy 60-70 percent of the retail space, effectively limiting customer choice; but they only occupy that percentage because they sell in the numbers to justify it. 

Round and round we go. Different faction-focused books could be as popular with some in-house effort in regards to marketing and release synergies, but they won't sell enough copies, quickly enough, to justify commissioning more than a few. They're an investment that BL can't afford to make - or think that they can't afford to make. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

On 6/15/2022 at 1:45 PM, Loyal Son of Khemri said:

Out of curiosity did this happen to you during the Fabius Bile trilogy and the Fulgrim Primarch novella? They’re the only reason I like the Emperor’s Children to be honest. I also really enjoyed your work regarding the characters of the grand alliance of death. You made what were essentially Saturday Morning Villains into quite the ensemble cast.

A bit. I initially picked Fabius because he was the only Chaos character no one had dibs on, which meant I got away with a lot early on - and then as the series picked up popularity, I was encouraged to colour within the lines, so to speak, particularly in regards to the last book. Fulgrim was similar in that he was the only Primarch not dibbed when I inquired about the possibility of writing one. Truth be told, I had more freedom on the latter because they didn't actually have time to edit it properly - it was a bit of a rush job all the way around, and I don't think they expected it to be as popular a seller as it turned out to be. IMO, GW and BL consistently underestimate how popular both the III Legion and Slaanesh-focused stuff is with readers. 

And thank you! Glad you enjoyed what I did with them. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

On 6/13/2022 at 10:15 PM, Whitefang said:

Out of curiosity, did the "(relatively) hard work got ignored but easy work went popular" kind of strange thing happen to you throughout your time writing for BL?

Oh definitely. With BL books, it's hammered into you early on that the majority of the readership is buying because they want to read about their favourite faction/character/lore nugget. Everything else is secondary, including and especially any pretensions you may have in regards to the craft.

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

On 6/8/2022 at 6:47 PM, Beliman said:

 Hey @JReynolds!

I've got an small question about old Lore that maybe you can answer:

In End Times, Araloth was roaming around the Chaos Realms and ended up in the Realm of Nurgle. There, he found a "Giant with Silver Armor" and people started throwing a lot of theories around him. I must say that I'm really curious to know if you can throw some light to that character.

I actually asked this question in a meeting once and the answer I got was 'depends'. If you're a 40K fan, it's Kaldor Draigo. If you're an AoS fan, its Gardus in a bit of timey-wimey argle-bargle (since time has no meaning in the Chaos realm, Gardus' first run through the garden could have happened before the Old World ended...). Or if neither of those appeals to you, it's something else entirely. 

Basically, they left it intentionally ambiguous. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

14 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

As a Dwarf player I curious to know if someone have any explicit information about:
1) Valaya status in AoS (is she dead, missed or even never existed?)
2) Why Grungni and Grimnir was tangled to the rock when Sigmar find them.

1) Missing/unspecified, as of two years ago. That might have changed with the new Kharadron/Fyreslayers tomes, though. 

2) Treachery. Whose treachery, and why it took that form, are as yet unknown. Again, as of two years ago. Might have changed since. My money is on Hashut, though. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

On 6/8/2022 at 9:58 PM, novakai said:

Vastly out of subject aside, of some of the BL novels I read

i get the feeling (especially reading end of enlightenment which was so and so) that a lot of BL are really written to market and hype up models that are releasing rather then being superlative narrative book.

Dominon was better but it has the classic problem of we had as many dawnbringers in this crusade as the plot demanded needed to be there and enough spare afterward.

Well, yeah. That's the point of tie-in fiction. It's to market the intellectual property in question to potential customers who might not otherwise see it. It's the equivalent of Larry Hama's seminal run on GI Joe for Marvel Comics back in ye olden days - GI Joe was a fantastic comic, with well-developed characters and plotlines that deftly treaded the line between realistic and fantastic. It was also a glorified commercial, where Hama was expected to write-in whatever new toy was coming out that month. And sometimes, he erred on the side of the commercial, because that's the job. 

It's the same with BL. Sometimes the authors have more freedom to play with concepts than others. Sometimes an author just feels like playing it safe, because at the end of the day these books aren't written for art's sake - they're a paycheque, written to a 2-3 month deadline. The editors want Stormcast fighting Nighthaunts? Easy-peasy, assemble a three-act story that introduces our characters, sets up the stakes and climaxes in a brawl in a hidden tomb. Fire and forget, move onto the next thing. 

Now, that's not to imply that this is the case in general or even most of the time. But there's always an element of pragmatism to any tie-in project. You have to balance the needs of the story against the needs of the product, and chances are, your employers/clients/etc. will always prefer that you err on the side of the product. 

tldr; you, an author, are given a box and told to write a story about the box and everything in it - but you can't go outside the box. So you have to do what you can, with what you're given, in the time allowed. Some authors will get a bigger box than others; some get a smaller box. Some just get the packing peanuts that came with the box. But the job is always the same - make the most out of what you're given, and try and move some merchandise in the process. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

8 minutes ago, frostfire said:

This is making me mad at whoever objected this kind of settings. The Order of the Fly is still something that worth MORE stories in the AoS. IMO it is one of the most established Chaos societies till this day and you did it so well convoying your idea in the making of such an interesting good-and-evil concept. It should be discussed more in the AoS. Actually, do you think AoS is the most appropriate place in all these different Warhammer universes to discuss such a topic?

I think there's greater scope for such discussions in AoS, certainly. Chaos in 40K is largely defined by the Traitor Legions, for good or ill. There's more diversity to the concept in AoS, which allows for more exploration of what it means to serve Chaos and what such a society might look like (i.e. the Warcry factions). 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

57 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

On the very interesting issue of AoS’s lack of a central theme with all the love and respect for the chosen name of this community I think a big part of the issue is The Grand Alliance structure...

I agree with this. The GAs were never really explained in any satisfactory way. I think a few of us tried to show how Order functioned, but it was always difficult because the nature of the component parts kept changing. It's that element of flux I mentioned above.  Death largely avoided it by dint of having Nagash as the top of the pyramid - he's one of the most well-realized characters in WHFB/AoS; with Nagash, what you see is what you get. 

But the others? Destruction was always more a loose classification than an official alliance; Chaos is, well, Chaos. And Order was...everybody else. There are some interesting stories you can tell with that sort of set up, but in the long run it just come across as a bit untidy. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

1 hour ago, Whitefang said:

Wait, do you really need to apologize for your work with Order of the Fly and Gardus? I would be really angry at BL/GW to know that, since they are the very thing attracted me to this setting and I still consider them as the top-knot among everything wrote for AOS.

Initially, I did. My tendency to reuse the Order of the Fly was a minor bone of contention early on. The thinking was it would remind people of Bretonnia, which was (is) a sore point for many in the fanbase. BL wanted to avoid any accusations of mocking the fanbase. I argued that it showed the insidiousness of Chaos and Nurgle in particular - that even a chivalric 'good' society could be corrupted into something vile, but still functional as a society (rather than devolving into roving bands of nomadic cannibals, f'r instance). 

And some of my development for Gardus' personality didn't align well with what the studio had planned for him at the time. The idea of a 'nice guy' Stormcast was surprisingly controversial at the beginning of things. I think that was mainly due to no one being sure whether or not Stormcasts were space marines at the start. We were told to write them as space marines in 1.0, but that changed around the time Plague Garden came out. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

6 minutes ago, Whitefang said:

Excellent briefing mister! And it's good to see you here again!

May I ask if you feel the same way when writing for 40k？ Or is it better because that setting is more established and seasoned?

40K came with its own obstacles - that it's more established means there are fewer questions a writer might have, but there's also a 'right way to do things' that I often found myself at odds with. With AoS, I was often able to do things and apologize later (see: arch-lector is a woman, order of the fly, everything to do with Gardus, et al.), whereas in 40K it was very much a case of following the well-trod path, at least for me. 

What initially attracted me to AoS was the relative blank canvas the lore provided. I wanted to carve out my own bit of the setting and keep adding to it, rather like Dan has with his Sabbat Worlds Crusade. I figured if three or four of us writers could do that, and reference each other's characters and locations, we could quickly build up some basic texture for the setting - something it badly needed. If several authors mentioned, say, Gravewild or Klaxus, it becomes more fixed in the minds of the readers - more real, if you will. Places like Nuln and Stirland in WHFB have that texture of realness because they were omnipresent in the setting. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

19 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

Also did you notice how close the new Krondspine Incarnate looks to your AoS horror descriptions of Ghur spirits?  

I did not, no. Though, in my defence I've been busy writing a Zombicide novel, so I haven't been paying much attention. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

2 minutes ago, derpherp said:

Interesting. I suppose it hasn't helped what with covid etc. I've heard it said a few times that they are behind on their general model release schedule too amongst other things.

I suppose it's thematic AoS has a messy release considering how fantasy and 40k formed out of 70s and 80s primordial goop over years. 

I hope they are savvy enough to keep going with the improvements and really figure things out. I'd like to see AoS rival warcraft as an IP someday.

I think it could. It's always had the potential to be this wild, weird setting with knights made out of birds and castles constructed from crystalized voices contrasted against the daily tribulations of a normal inhabitant of these mind-bending realms, but the pragmatic necessities of it being a wargame setting often hamper the exploration of the varied possibilities. 

[A discussion of the lore of AoS after 7 years]

It's been two years or so since I last did any work for BL/GW, I figure I'm safe to participate in this topic - which I really want to do, as it's near and dear to my heart, and at least partially responsible for me no longer writing for the company. So, a brief and by no means complete (or unbiased) history lesson which may answer some questions - or at least provide context for the many and largely valid complaints in this thread.

AoS' spotty inception is, IMO, due to two major factors - the first being inter-studio miscommunication. Initially, Black Library was going to be solely in charge of the setting background and the ongoing narrative - the chosen authors would handle breathing life into their part of the setting (Aqshy, Ghyran, Chamon) and build up a living world for the game to revolve around - the setting would then evolve and change with each edition as major events occurred. 

This mandate lasted exactly - oh, two weeks?  It was then decided that BL would instead be responsible for writing to the approved studio narrative, i.e. if it ain't got a model and we ain't mentioned it in a campaign book, it don't exist. Why the change? No idea. Like as not, someone realized putting a bunch of freelancers in charge of that sort of thing wasn't conducive to miniature sales, which - fair enough.

The problem was, there was a distinct lack of worldbuilding in said approved material and this didn't change for a long time. And there was no worldbuilding because - well. Rumor has it that the people in charge thought that it wasn't necessary. I suspect it was more a case of the initial project being rushed and fairly bare bones in order to make a deadline and then no one having the time or wherewithal to add to it. 

This is largely the reason the Realmgate Wars series is the way it is - the writers were given a brief and had to stick to it ('This is the story of a battle. Write about the battle. Make the new models look cool'). No unapproved additions to the lore, no unnecessary worldbuilding, no texture, stick to what you're given (or not given, as was the case often enough), straight down the line. Even if what you're given is wrong/out of date/no longer part of that quarter's release schedule. 

This segues into the second factor: no one knew what AoS 1.0 was about. Were Stormcast just space marines in fantasy cosplay or something else? Were the realms habitable? Was Sigmar still Sigmar? We genuinely didn't know what this thing was supposed to be, so we wrote what we were told to write and nothing more. And the studio didn't know what it was supposed to be because they hadn't had time to properly think about it. 

When BL broke away from Publications and became its own beast again, things improved - briefly. But, by that time, it had been decided that the lore was to stay in the hands of the studio and if the studio hadn't gotten around to filling in some blanks, well...tough cookies. Avoid it. Don't write about it. See the early vagueness regarding Freeguilds, money, etc. So, basically same mess, different day. 

[Side note: one reason that there were a lot of Stormcast stories early on is because we knew how the Stormcast worked. It was safe to pitch a Stormcast story. Everything else was a bit hodgepodge - you had to go to the studio to get the down-low and, often as not, the studio's answer was the email equivalent of a shrug and a polite suggestion to write about something else. Everything was in flux; how things (factions, places, etc.) worked changed month-to-month at times.]

As a freelancer, it was frustrating even at the best of times. Sometimes you could get away with inventing things; sometimes not. Sometimes you make the Arch-Lector of the Church of Sigmar a woman and get yelled at over the phone. Safest just to avoid adding to the IP in any fashion. 

AoS 2.0 was a big improvement, mind. But it was also a big shift from the setting's previous tone and theme. 1.0 was post-apocalyptic Jack Kirby fantasy, but that wasn't popular, so it shifted to 2.0 and a grimdark Moorcockian flavour to try and recapture some of the WHFB base, but apparently that didn't work either so I guess they're trying something different now. They've tried to keep the original idea of an evolving narrative, but they also want a static setting and, well, you can't really have it both ways. So that leads to the lore bouncing all over the place as it tries to find its feet. 

All of this is why - at least in regards to the BL end - the AoS lore was and still is spotty and somewhat schizophrenic, at least in my opinion. The studio is still playing catch up on the lore and while Cubicle 7 is giving it the old college try, the background is still two or three editions behind where it should be in terms of development. 

tldr; AoS lacks a strong theme because no one is really sure what the setting is supposed to feel like yet. The lore wants to be simultaneously ever-evolving and static, which is...difficult to accomplish, at best. So it feels ephemeral and ill thought out, rather than cosmic and weighty. 

[Let's Chat: Chosen Axes]

On 7/9/2020 at 12:03 PM, WathLab said:

Hi everyone ! This week, let's go back to strategy!

 

Warhammer Underworlds Tactical Puzzle #2 - Will you manage to kill 2 Cursebreakers by the end of your 2nd activation this round ?

 

 

By Grimnir, have a nice week in Beastgrave !

I just wanted to say that I really enjoy these puzzles and write ups, WathLab. I haven't solved a darn one, but I do like thinking about them. It's made me want to dig my Chosen Axes back out and try some new deck combinations. 

[Josh Reynolds leaving Black Library]

4 hours ago, Chikout said:

I hope the decision to leave was on his terms and not due to some foolishness on the part of the black library.  Looking forward to seeing what he comes up with next. I just bought the  Case files of the Royal Occultist, and while browsing his back catalogue came a cross a short story collection entitled Sharkpunk!??!

Sharkpunk is a great anthology. I really recommend it. It was edited by BL alumni Jonathan Green and has some great stories. 

And the decision to part ways with BL was mutual, with no hard feelings on my part. We simply reached a natural point of divergence in our working relationship. They wanted me to go one way, and I wanted to go another, so I went and they wished me all the best. 

[The Rumour Thread]

3 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

Whoops. That's some slip up on WHC's part. Super buzzed for Manflayer though!

Thank you. That's nice of you to say. 

[The Rumour Thread]

2 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

A bunch of AoS anthologies, audiodramas and novels have been mentioned at the Black Library Weekender: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/10/black-library-weekender-2019-the-reveals/#gallery-14-1

Of particular note is Lady of Sorrows, a novel by Josh Reynolds about the Mortarch of Grief. Great to see him writing death again, his Nagash books have been the best BL works for AoS.

It's by Clint Werner, actually.  I haven't written any AoS in about a year. 

[The Rumour Thread]

Just now, shinros said:

Yeah but in most stories he doesn't care because he just unravels in that very second, he does it to Mannfred during the Malign portents stories via actually going through his mind like a book. Let's not forget no matter how much they plan it won't work, hence why he doesn't really stop them. He can overcome them, change their thinking with just a word and they won't even realise it. He does it to Neferata, she thinks her plan is her own but it was Nagash manipulating her actions, mind and words.  

It's why Arkhan goes the subtle route, and let's not forget the Mortarch's plans overlap and counter one another. 

Pretty much. It's not a question of Nagash knowing. It's a question of Nagash caring.