GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The Fyreslayers themselves are not the most original thing in the world, no, but the whole concept of a Slayer is, for GW were the first to think of the idea of a Dwarf who has shaven his hair into a Mohawk, dyed it orange, and then goes off into the wilderness seeking a glorious death. The only things I’ve seen from other fantasy wargames companies that are remotely close to Slayers are either copies of them released specifically to allow players to still be able to buy, make and paint and use some in their games since GW killed Fantasy (in the case of Avatars of War) or versions that bear a similarity to them but are not the same lorewise (in the case of Mantic’s Dwarf Berserkers, who are more like Dwarf versions of Viking berserkers whereas Slayers are more like Celtic Fanatics).

So you can condemn the Nighthaunt for lack of originality, but Fyreslayers get a pass because the fantasy Slayers which they were based off of was a somewhat original idea 25-30 years ago?

In terms of the models themselves, the Nighthaunt are more original when compared to their classic WFB counterparts than Fyreslayers are. Fyreslayers are direct copies of fantasy slayers. Zero originality.

Furthermore, the Fyreslayers are not simply direct carbon copies of Slayers made specifically for AoS - one of the things I like most about them is that they are a development, an evolution, of Slayers from a deranged cult as part of a wider faction into a faction of their own right. They now have a way of life based upon that of the old Dwarfs, while at the same time retaining the Slayer tradition of fighting more aggressively than defensively. So they aren’t the same thing as Slayers at all once you delve beyond the familiar exterior.

Nighthaunt have none of that - they aren’t even an extension of Grim Reapers, they are just AoS Grim Reapers made from discontented souls in Nagash’s underworld. No more, no less. They have no culture or religion, nothing that the Fyreslayers have which set them apart from the old Slayers.

This is completely irrelevant. We are discussing the aesthetic value of the models themselves, not their fluff.

As for the unit diversity, that was the fault of the old GW that killed off Fantasy and brought in AoS, as they wanted to bring in new factions as quickly as possible to try and calm the tide of AoS hate coming from Fantasy player all around the world. All the other First Edition factions have a similar problem. If the Fyreslayers had been released in Second Edition, they would have probably had a lot more unit choice to them, and GW may well give them those new units when they’ve finished giving all factions a tome like they did last year with 8th Edition 40K.

So which of the other first edition factions are as monotonous and boring as Fyreslayers. The entire army (other than the very average monster) is pretty much the exact same thing. Nighthaunt have infinitely more depth and range.

To be honest that’s not the best comparison. The skull-faced banshees on Lady Olynder detract from the grace of Olynder herself (who is based on another unoriginal trope that probably stems from Miss Havisham in Great Expectations).

The skull faced banshees are just fine. You don't like them, that's fair enough, but they were readily accepted by the community with far more positivity than that crotch monster. You literally have a little boney guy sticking out of the monster's crotch and you're criticizing the face of the banshees!

Also, what is with the extreme obsession with originality? Everything draws inspiration from something else. Your beloved Fyreslayers are copies of fantasy slayers which in turn are a tweak on dwarfs (which is hardly original). There is nothing wrong with an artistic take on a classic aesthetic/theme. Would you condemn all of Bretonnia because they are a rehashed version of knights in shining armor? By the same token, Lizardmen are hardly an original concept.

The only thing that is really bad about the monster, by contrast, is the skeleton in the crotch, and as I say before, THAT LOOKS AS THOUGH IT CAN BE EASILY REMOVED.

No, the crotch monster is simply the worst offender. The whole model looks terrible. If it was only something so trivial, I don't think there would be nearly as many complaints as we currently have floating around.

You don’t have to have the thing as what it comes as on the box, you can quite easily clip the arms off and probably file the head off or greenstuff over it.

Any model can be made to look good with extensive enough patience, work and greenstuffing skills. We're judging the models as they are, not as they could be after they are painstakingly re-imagined and re-worked.

 

[Killer Angel]

Nighthaunt have none of that - they aren’t even an extension of Grim Reapers, they are just AoS Grim Reapers made from discontented souls in Nagash’s underworld. No more, no less. They have no culture or religion, nothing that the Fyreslayers have which set them apart from the old Slayers.

Please, they are undead.
The culture / religion / behavior they may show, are things that belongs to high level undead and those are reflected by the mindless minions .
There were differences between armies: TK skeletons had a vague memory of their former pride, while VC skeletons were totally mindless and FEC ghouls share the illusion of their lord. Nighthaunts are plagued by their wrong deeds and so they are shaped by them.

I'd say that the basic idea behind undead is pretty consistent.

 

[Captaniser]

You know how Nagash punishes people who did wrongs in life? This is what happens to people who were dickheads.

 

[Aginor]

You know how Nagash punishes people who did wrongs in life? This is what happens to people who were dickheads.

View attachment 59422

Ok, I admit I had a good laugh there.
But honestly, I don't think crotch guy is _that_ bad.

 

[Captaniser]

Ok, I admit I had a good laugh there.
But honestly, I don't think crotch guy is _that_ bad.

thank you, always happy to make people laugh. The comment was inspired by the heated debate a few post earlier that reminded me about the nighthaunt lore.

I'm somewhat in the same boat as you about the crotch jockey, he's kinda bad but also kinda good, there is a certain macabre silliness over him that i think is very in tune with the setting.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

. The comment was inspired by the heated debate a few post earlier

Hahaha. To be honest, it is hardly heated.

 

[Canas]

You know how Nagash punishes people who did wrongs in life? This is what happens to people who were dickheads.

View attachment 59422

best post in this thread

I'm somewhat in the same boat as you about the crotch jockey, he's kinda bad but also kinda good, there is a certain macabre silliness over him that i think is very in tune with the setting.

To be honest, for macabre siliness they don't really push it far enough. It looks more like a high schooler's attempt at combining skeletons with the joker, than that of professional artists. They can do better than this.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

They can do better than this.

I'm sure they'll release something better soon (can't get much worse!).

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

So you can condemn the Nighthaunt for lack of originality, but Fyreslayers get a pass because the fantasy Slayers which they were based off of was a somewhat original idea 25-30 years ago?

In terms of the models themselves, the Nighthaunt are more original when compared to their classic WFB counterparts than Fyreslayers are. Fyreslayers are direct copies of fantasy slayers. Zero originality.

Nighthaunt were direct copies of the Cairn Wraith and Tomb Banshee from Fantasy, which were in turn based off the Grim Reaper idea, that has remained pretty much exactly the same since the 14th Century, and Irish Banshees, that have remained the same for probably even longer, respectively. Fyreslayers at least have the Ur-Gold runes to differ them from the old Slayers, and the idea of the Slayer is still a lot newer than the ideas of Grim Reapers and Banshees.

Nighthaunt have infinitely more depth and range.

I certainly wouldn’t say ‘infinitely’. The only ways in which the Nighthaunt infantry units actually differ from each other are slightly different headgear and different weapons, which is pretty much the same way in which the Fyreslayers models differ. GW just gave them more variants of the same thing because they had the fortune of being developed in 2nd Edition rather than 1st Edition, by which time GW had sorted themselves out to make something at least decent. True, they have cavalry as well, but those were ripped off the Hexwraiths which are just mounted Cairn Wraiths.


I’m going to call this debate a draw and leave it here. Neither of us appears to show any sign of backing down, and I’m getting rather tired of it. This is a thread principally to discuss GW new releases, not a thread for hosting yet another sparring match between NIGHTBRINGER and me. You think Ossiarch are bad, that’s fine, that’s your opinion. I think Nighthaunt are bad, that’s fine, that’s my opinion. I do like originality a lot (you know that by now because of the way I advocate the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy and Rogue One), but I’ll admit that ‘Rule of Cool’ also ranks armies like Bretonnia higher in my book than if I was to rate things just by originality alone. You’re right, there’s nothing wrong with basing army concepts on existing aesthetics. I just let my personal opinions get in the way of that for a moment. You’re free to dislike Ossiarch as much as you want, and I’m free to dislike Nighthaunt as much as I like as long as it doesn’t infringe on the others’ opinions and starts potentially never-ending debates like this. Maybe you’re right in that the way Ossiarch turned out was not what I was hoping, but I think they at the very least have the potential to be converted into something better-looking that can still use their rules.

I hope that I have been able to smooth things out with this last paragraph to stop things heating up too much.

Probably the one good thing about this debate is that it has increased my post count by a fair margin

 

[Killer Angel]

seems appropriate.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

seems appropriate.

View attachment 59447

That’s a point actually, the Necrosphinx also has a joker grin on the skull face. I always preferred the Pharaoh Death Mask head.

 

[Croco Guard]

Gotrek month! I’ve got his model, book, and next issue of white dwarf ordered (cause it apparently gets you the code for gotrek and Felix in TWWarhammer 2). Audiobook and short novella were alright but lacking in the right feel. Maybe a proper novel will be the way I prefer the old slayer.

 

[Canas]

Gotrek month! I’ve got his model, book, and next issue of white dwarf ordered (cause it apparently gets you the code for gotrek and Felix in TWWarhammer 2). Audiobook and short novella were alright but lacking in the right feel. Maybe a proper novel will be the way I prefer the old slayer.

Wasn't Gotrek and felix supposed to be free in TW? Might be that you get it earlier with the code as it the DLC only releases in october.

 

[Croco Guard]

Ah yes, you are correct. Code in the magazine gets them early, and they will be free for total war warhammer 2 on October 17th. Recruitable for brettonia, dwarves, and the empire.

 

[WildColonial Boy]

I'm sure they'll release something better soon (can't get much worse!).

Remember we are talking about Grandma Wendy. It can get a lot worse. They did go from WHFB 8th to AOS

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

You think Ossiarch are bad, that’s fine, that’s your opinion. I think Nighthaunt are bad, that’s fine, that’s my opinion.

You’re free to dislike Ossiarch as much as you want, and I’m free to dislike Nighthaunt as much as I like

I'm not debating you on whether or not you should like Fyreslayers, Nighthaunt or Ossiarch. When it comes to aesthetics, to each their own. I will never debate which army you should like better. That is purely subjective. You could spend your entire net worth on Ossiarch models and tattoo the Ossiarch crotch monster on your face and it would make little difference for me. This entire debate has centered around one criticism you made:

"Nighthaunt are one of the least original and most boring armies GW has ever made for AoS." (emphasis mine)

That left me with the following:

• your attempt to put down Nighthaunt by calling them unoriginal and boring
• you love Fyreslayers
• Fyreslayers are more unoriginal than Nighthaunt (direct copy of WFB slayers + one monster)
• Fyreslayers are more boring than Nighthaunt (less variation across the range)

Consequently I set the trap (Nighthaunt vs. Fyreslayers) and forced you to make a difficult decision:

• abandon the claim that Nighhaunt are "bad" due to being unoriginal and boring
• admit that under your proposed criteria, Fyreslayers are "bad"
• try to rationalize or debate why Fyreslayers are exempt from your classification but Nighthaunt aren't (which is an easy debate for me to win and thus establish the hypocritical nature of your stance... which in turn, breaks down your original analysis of Nighthaunt)
• flee the debate

I certainly wouldn’t say ‘infinitely’.

I hope you aren't suggesting that I meant the term infinitely to be taken literally. I figured that within the context you'd be able to ascertain that infinitely was used to mean significantly, or any other word of similar meaning. And yes, when you look at both of their ranges, the Nighthaunt do have significantly more model variation.

and the idea of the Slayer is still a lot newer than the ideas of Grim Reapers and Banshees.

The idea of Dwarfs has been around for a very long while. Slayers are just a tweak on Dwarfs.

Nighthaunt were direct copies of the Cairn Wraith and Tomb Banshee from Fantasy

Fyreslayers at least have the Ur-Gold runes to differ them from the old Slayers

So the Cairn Wraith, Tomb Banshees, Hexwraiths and the Black Coach (which alone is already more variation than Fyreslayers have) gave rise to all this and they are the ones that are unoriginal....


Nighthaunt have:

• several units of infantry, a couple of which differ quite significantly from one another
• two types of cavalry (+the character mounted on the winged steed)
• black coach
• Lady Olynder (who model-wise, is far more original looking than anything the Fyreslayers have to offer)
• characters that have greater variance from one another than the Fyreslayers have

In contrast, the Fyreslayers have:

• a bunch of infantry that look nearly identical to one another
• a bunch of characters that have far less variance between them than the Nighthaunt characters have
• one average looking monster

If you still feel that Fyreslayers have equal to or more model variance than Nighthaunt, then I have some magic beans to sell you.


As for the Ur-Gold runes, that is pretty weak argument when trying to establish their originality over their WFB counterparts. The Nighthaunt have significantly more differentiation than a couple of runes sculpted on them.

Once again, I'm not saying which army is "better" or which you should like more, but objectively, when you compare Nighthaunt and Fyreslayers, the Nighthaunt have both a more extensive and varied range, as well as having greater differentiation when compared to its WFB predecessors. This is not a "my opinion" vs "your opinion" situation; this is an observable fact. One quick look on GW's website and your argument falls apart.

and I’m getting rather tired of it.

Fair enough. Go in peace!

Rest.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I'm sure they'll release something better soon (can't get much worse!).

It can get a lot worse. They did go from WHFB 8th to AOS

Touche! Well player sir.

I stand corrected. I admit my folly and retract my previous statement!

 

[WildColonial Boy]

Love Nighthaunts.

 

[Aginor]

@NIGHTBRINGER
@Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl

Although I mainly agree with @NIGHTBRINGER in this debate (I think GW has made the ghost concept into an interesting looking army despite the fact that many of the models do look pretty similar to each other) I would like to mention that originality-wise I do think Fyreslayers are way more original than Nighthaunt.

Olynder is based on an artistic style of renaissance statues on cemeteries. Veiled skulls are a very old trope, certainly much older than mohawk dwarves.
Everything GW has ever done is bleeding edge modern compared to that. So yeah, that art style is not original. And of course the Grim Reaper isn't original at all, it can be traced back at least to the 14th century or so.

That being said: using those style elements doesn't make Nighthaunt models unoriginal. Neither does the fact that Fyreslayers are the continuation of WHFB Slayers make them unoriginal. They have a lot of elements Slayers didn't have. Their weapon style and the fact that Ur-Gold runes are embedded in their skin and so on are original elements.
And the same can be found in Nighthaunt models. Details matter.
Edit: such as the twistedness of Nighthaunt models. The weapon and armor choices for them. They all tell stories and the Battletome and the warscrolls refer to them.

And also: original doesn't mean good, unoriginal doesn't mean boring, and neither means bad. Half of the reason why we find stuff appealing is that it strikes a chord in us, because it is familiar.
The concepts behind almost every WHFB army are decades or centuries old, some even millenia.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Although I mainly agree with @NIGHTBRINGER in this debate (I think GW has made the ghost concept into an interesting looking army despite the fact that many of the models do look pretty similar to each other) I would like to mention that originality-wise I do think Fyreslayers are way more original than Nighthaunt.

Olynder is based on an artistic style of renaissance statues on cemeteries. Veiled skulls are a very old trope, certainly much older than mohawk dwarves.
Everything GW has ever done is bleeding edge modern compared to that. So yeah, that art style is not original. And of course the Grim Reaper isn't original at all, it can be traced back at least to the 14th century or so.

Neither does the fact that Fyreslayers are the continuation of WHFB Slayers make them unoriginal. They have a lot of elements Slayers didn't have. Their weapon style and the fact that Ur-Gold runes are embedded in their skin and so on are original elements.

Precisely!

This is what I've been trying to tell him for the past couple of posts...

And also: original doesn't mean good, unoriginal doesn't mean boring, and neither means bad. Half of the reason why we find stuff appealing is that it strikes a chord in us, because it is familiar.
The concepts behind almost every WHFB army are decades or centuries old, some even millenia.

While I do like new and original stuff, I can certainly also agree with this.