I've been reading the Goonhammer review for the new Fyreslayer Battletome:
https://www.goonhammer.com/battletome-fyreslayers-3rd-edition-review/
The bodyguard rule has survived in some form, and can now be applied to Hearthguard Berzerkers as well where it can be the most useful thanks to their Ward Saves, but for some strange reason only applies to foot Runefathers and Runesons, which in some ways is the worst possible outcome because it's the support heroes - the Runemaster, Runesmiter, Battlesmith and the new Flamekeeper - that need that protection most, as Runefathers and Runesons can ride Magmadroths to get similar additional protection and offensive output. I suppose it does make the foot Runefathers and Runesons somewhat viable now, but the imperfection in the rule is still there and it irks me.
The army now seems to have changed from being able to save-stack as per the first two Editions to spamming Ward Saves (which I must admit makes more sense as their endurance is due to the magic of Ur-Gold, not armour). This would be great if Ward Saves worked as per Warhammer Fantasy where individual assignations of a Ward Save stacked (3+ Ward Save Fyreslayers would be a real threat), but they don't seem to in AoS according to Goonhammer's review which means the best we can get is a 5+ for any unit except Hearthguard Berzerkers.
Probably the most annoying thing is that they didn't delete the poor part of the 3rd Edition FAQ for the 2nd Ed Battletome where Invocations would dispel themselves if you rolled two or more D6s, that really should have gone from the actual book because it makes no sense and really limits what these not-Endless-Spells can do.
One thing I do like in the new book is the 'Leader of the Druardrazhal' Command Trait, which really brings a Dwarf alliance option into the mix without presenting it as an ugly soup Battletome. Allowing Dispossessed and Kharadron to be able to benefit from Ur-Gold runes is a lot of fun and has the potential for some great lore and conversion possibilities. This is boosted by other rules that affect 'any model' rather than just 'any Fyreslayer model' such as the Battlesmith's ability to rally models from any faction. I've always thought it fun to have an alliance between Fyreslayers and Kharadron be a viable option (though not a forced option as a soup tome would have made it), because it makes it easier for both factions to compensate for their weaknesses (lack of shooting and speed for Fyreslayers, lack of combat punch and durability for Kharadron) and I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of fun lists other players come up with.
I think the biggest winners of the book are Runemasters (which went from being an almost purely fluff option in First Edition to a very good Priest that knows all the Fyreslayer prayers in addition to the new ones) and Magmadroths of course, who have gone up in points but certainly have improved damage capabilities and durability to allow them to take on the monsters of other armies.
The biggest losers are Vulkites (who were already the less popular troop to take in the Second Edition book) who got a lot of their offensive power knocked out of them for pretty much no reason. It is true that you could say that the buffed throwing-axes make up for that somewhat, as while short-ranged they do make a good additional round of close combat attacks, but in First Edition the good throwing-axe profile worked alongside the good close-combat attacks Vulkites possessed in those days. It certainly seems that, with the extra wound given in exchange for throwing axes becoming poorer in Second Edition and now the throwing axes becoming buffed again in exchange for reducing attacks/nerfing special rules in 3rd, GW are more and more trying to make Vulkites an anvil unit to hold the line and chip away at the foe with their Deathblow rule until the Heathguard Berzerkers charge in to deal the killing blow, which would be great if they had good Ward Save capabilities (as they did in First Edition funnily enough) but not in their current state.
Certainly it isn't the rock-solid improvement that the Second Edition one was. This one reminds me a lot of the 7th Edition Fantasy Beastman army book - full of rules that loads of people think are terrible, and certainly from my point of view sometimes make me think 'Why?', but to me feel more like wasted potential with unnecessary limitations that I can imagine were introduced to make things 'balanced' from GW's point of view but instead add too much negative so that it dilutes the positive, and that if only these limitations were simply removed, the book would be great. Certainly there are too many 'Once per battle' rules in this one, and the 'not being able to attack first if there's an enemy unit within 3" of you that hasn't charged' is just batshit ridiculous, and makes it easy for a player to deny you that strike-first ability by moving two enemy units to within 3" of you, charging with one and leaving the other where it is.
I can certainly agree with this though, I really hate GW's Elf-bias with a passion. What is it about Elves that makes them go weak at the knees, and what is it about Dwarfs that makes them want to exercise all restraint necessary with their rules writing?
But then GW has always been biased toward select factions (Elves, Warriors of Chaos, Vampire Counts, Empire to a lesser extent) and against others (Tomb Kings, Beastmen, Bretonnia, Greenskins, Dwarfs to a lesser extent) and it's this disgusting behaviour that is really putting me off Warhammer.
In recent times I have felt more and more drawn away from Warhammer and toward other games and other miniatures manufacturers, mainly because of this unnecessary bias GW have toward their Golden Boy factions. I will still purchase any miniatures I can for the existing factions I own, but I definitely aim to purchase as much as I can through independent retailers, and after my armies are complete I'm largely going to boycott GW models and rules. Definitely I've been put off starting AoS, but there are other reasons for that as well as this (in particular all the 'Grand Strategy' and 'Battle Tactics' bureaucracy they've added into army list-building that dictates your gameplay probably even more than the old Battalion rules did, and this continual tiresome obsession with objective play they have developed). 9th Edition 40K looks more appealing with all the attention Xenos are getting, but there they've added in all of those pointless campaign packs with assorted scenarios and extra rules that really bloat that Edition out too much.
In short, I don't like the attention GW is going, and even when they were at their best their attitude and approach to their games was still flawed (as some of you probably know by now I'm a critic of a fair amount of 8th Edition Fantasy). I was impressed at their recent release of the Parasite of Mortrex, but they've got to do a lot more to convince me to get into another of their games.
.
) - let's face it, everyone's been waiting for some of these
