Jump to content

So, who does want Tomb Kings and Bretonnians back?


So, who does want Tomb Kings and Bretonnians back?  

293 members have voted

  1. 1. Which retired factions would you quite like to collect if given the chance?

    • Tomb Kings
      153
    • Bretonnians
      114
    • Greenskins
      47
    • Gitmob
      19
    • Dogs of War
      73


Recommended Posts

They are so dumb compared to GW's tomb king IMHO

And to those who think TK and BT are too generic, please keep in mind many forces in AOS now (like free people, DOK, Beasts, Skaven, Bonesplitters, even Gloomspites etc) are still pretty 'generic', with just some AOS-y tweaks made for them 

As GW has already shown their excellent talent to make old forces 'interesting' and 'new' again, I am pretty sure they are able to transform so called 'traditional boring' Egyptian and King Arthur themed army AOS-y as long as they do want to bring them back...

Well, which seems unlikely

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a gaming standpoint, more factions make for a better variety of match ups and a better game in general (provided the normal things like faction balance and unique faction gameplay)

I'm not a fan of AoS fluff though. It's way too out there for me. I guess I have HH and 40k for that

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Overread said:

I think part of the issue is that the Old World often focused more on some factions than others. Skaven did quite well all told for an evil race, but even then it was mostly focused on the handful of leaders/heroes that they had. Meanwhile the same is true of orks and the like - most were only shown during war times from the point of view of a war leader/hero. In addition they were often fleshed out as "generic bad/evil force" for the heroic stories of the good guys. 

 

AoS has somewhat shattered things a lot more and it seems that GW is FAR more keen to develop more factions with their own stories, heroes, leaders and the like. Heck the Inferno and Novella short stories are a HUGE thing when we get tales where we see the world from the view of Nurgles Loyal and Pure Knights; from the views of Barbarians who seek the favour of their Dark Gods, but at the same time will not slave themselves ot any god who cannot prove themselves to them. 

I kind of disagree. Sure some factions got uodated more than others, but WFB books always felt a lot more balanced to me. When you read an army book it tends to be far more from the perspective if the faction than newer tomes. Many books are written from an in universe style, or present documents that are. Each book is almost that factions propaganda, and its only when you read all the books that a true picture of the world emerges. a

Newer tomes are very focused on presenting stormcast as the heroes, in a way that was never true of the empire, even thiugh they also featured prominently in BL books and the RPG. They weren't the centre of the world, that was whoever you happened to be reading about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking more about the Black Library stuff and supporting lore of the game than just the Battletomes - each army Tome of course focuses on its own faction.

 

As for Stormcast I think that they are the heroes of the day currently, but most Battletomes I've read don't laud it up to them totally. It's just the way the game began with Stormcast basically being the big heroes and pushing back the tides of Chaos. GW also appears more keen and more able to advance the story of the Realms more so than in the past. Because of the vast space they've given themselves and because they've not tied the setting down quite as much as, say, they've tied down 40K; they've actually got room that in AoS 3.0 we might well see far less lauding of Stormcast as other races get their heads up and rise up to become their own powers. 

Even the way the Grand Alliances are formed we could well see major players within them fragment off or wage war on each other - a kind of Cold War alliance system whereby everyone is allied out of convenience, but doesn't "have" to like nor get along with each other unless there's a Chaos Invasion. Heck in Destruction tribes within the same subfaction will likely war against each other all the time without pause until a big wave of Chaos appears to force them to unit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I would like 'Bretonians', 'Kislev' and 'Dogs of war/Tilea' return as elements within the free peoples faction.

make the free peoples lore wise have multiple different uniforms and equipment like the guard in 40k, make some of them look more like Bretonians.

also units, expand free people cavalry to include bretonian style units like pegasis knights and hypogriphs. while add things like pikes (or long spears), sword and bucklers with throwing knives, horse artillery, non-skirmish archers and skirmish crossbows, shields for crossbows/handgunners. battle pilgrims for devoted of Sigmar. war wagons etc.

also lore wise i think its not unreasonable to have Louen Leoncoeur (who became a god during the end times), the lady (well her daughter), Myrmidia and even Boris Ursha or tsarina Katerin return as Gods of the free peoples. (aswell as grail knights)

that way we get the 'return' of fan favourites, reimagined to fit AOS better and we expand on an existing faction.

model wise i think they would likelu have one main type of free people look and then either have 1 or 2 'reskins' if free peoples are popular enough in the future. while forgeworld can make resin upgrade kits (like they do with cadian cold weather and veteran upgrade kits) aswell as their own 'regiment' like they do with deathkorps.

for the others, I expect we will see the return of greenskins and gitmob in some form as they are still dirrectly in the lore, the best we can hope for when it comes to tome kings is death constructs and bone rattle 'regiments' for the dead of different cultures (including Egyptian looking dead) largely due to the fact GW said they won't make it.

 

I also wouldn't mind if a non-human faction picked up the general aethetic of Bretonians as the return of bretonians. ie soulblight or one of the aelves (like aelves?) or even death rattle. actual armoured cavalry charging gloriously to battle. but would prefer an expansion to free peoples.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, azmodan said:

Every faction is so over the top in fluff that normal people would be hard to fit. 

AoS is not Fantasy setting. It is heavy heroic heavy magic setting. So many  normal mortal faction... I just dont see it.

Not sure what you mean by “normal people” in the fluff. The books have plenty of average joes alongside the warriors, even the Varanspire has a mini-ecosystem of Chaos mortals living in its shadow (cf. Scourge of Fate). Or did you mean you wanted Civilian units to add to armies? They do nothing besides die when attacked (and at 1 wound and a - save, they die very quickly).

On topic - the (inaccurate) stereotype of Egyptians being obsessed with death and mummies and deserts is something I’m personally sick of, and they’ll have to do something different for it to work. As for Bretonnians... you can get better models to reenact your romanticized Arthurian medieval period battles. It was a boring faction before and it still is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the more interesting question is rather which traits, styles, lore and visuals people want to keep from these factions if GW revisited them? What´s the things that actually draws you to a faction in question?

  • For visuals it might be the bone constructs of the Tomb Kings that stands out and would be fantastic to see in a new way.
  • From Brettonians the playstyle with heavy cavalry and cheap fodder troops could be fun to see re-used.
  • Seeing a "death" faction break the mold and be rebels within the death Grand Alliance could be interesting.

Just saying you want faction X back doesn´t actually say that much beside that you liked that faction as it was before getting turned to dust. Not to mention I doubt GW would just copy paste such a faction. Better then to highlight what aspect you want from that faction and keep sending that information to them.

This might just be me that´s an optimist but it feels more likely that GW would re-use aspects of old factions, if they get bombarded with it rather then just telling them you want faction X back to play with.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Turin Turambar said:

also lore wise i think its not unreasonable to have Louen Leoncoeur (who became a god during the end times), the lady (well her daughter), Myrmidia and even Boris Ursha or tsarina Katerin return as Gods of the free peoples. (aswell as grail knights)

Guess what, Myrmidia does exit in AOS and has her own kinght order

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted Tomb Kings, but with the cavat that I don't like the skeletons. I was never a fan of the actual tomb kings and their chariots. That being said I think the golems they had are still some of the coolest idea/models GW has ever had. The tomb scorpions, the ridable death snakes, the walking Sphinx, the Giant Mummies, are all amazing. I'd like to see GW bring back just that aspect of the faction, leaving the skeletons to Nagash. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do want an iteration of Tomb Kings or even Brets back... Mostly the monsters/constructs for tomb kings though or a clearly knightly army that might rival the nobility of the Flesh-eater courts... 

But not before the scattered remains of some other armies (like ogors and many of the greenskins) have been fixed. GW adding new factions is cool, but there's still a lot of "mess" to clean up after AoS' rocky start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really like to see Tomb Kings return. Not just for the previous miniatures though, I actually only liked few of them. The Ushabti however I liked a lot, especially the 6th edition, They are still among  my all time favorites.

The reason I would like to see Tomb Kings back, is the great potential of a desert/egyption themed army.  And I don't mean an army with a vague hint of acinet egypt like Nagash, but an army using the full potential of the theme, like Tomb Kings. So many animals, creatures, items etc that would fit, that now have no place in AOS. Think of Mummies, Scorpions, Cobra's,Big  Statues, crocodiles, Scarabs, Death Masks, Traps, Ushabti with animal head representing gods, 7 plagues, Bone giant, Big catapults, High priests, Camels,Eunuchs, Sphinxs........ I can go on forever, let alone what a far more creative mind within GW can do with it. 

That said, I don't expect it to happen, nor do I blame GW if they don't. They have to make choices too. But the question was if I would buy it when it come to market...the answer is a YES

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to the concepts of either faction but I'm not fond of replicating factions exactly as they were within the mortal realms, therei s little consequence of the end times if the same factions materialise in the same way with the same lore etc.

 

The poll seems to fixate on the idea that one of them could come back without impacting an already packed release schedules, it shouldnt be "Should tomb kings come back" but "Should they come back instead of releasing Malaerions shadow daemonic aelves, or instead of the Light Aelves etc" every new army "brought back" is one more potential new faction not to be made, dropped from the shelves and release schedule.

For that reason I dont want them back because I'd rather a new faction specifically designed for AoS than just transplanting some old faction back in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Melcavuk said:

I'm not opposed to the concepts of either faction but I'm not fond of replicating factions exactly as they were within the mortal realms, therei s little consequence of the end times if the same factions materialise in the same way with the same lore etc.

 

The poll seems to fixate on the idea that one of them could come back without impacting an already packed release schedules, it shouldnt be "Should tomb kings come back" but "Should they come back instead of releasing Malaerions shadow daemonic aelves, or instead of the Light Aelves etc" every new army "brought back" is one more potential new faction not to be made, dropped from the shelves and release schedule.

For that reason I dont want them back because I'd rather a new faction specifically designed for AoS than just transplanting some old faction back in.

I think the broad consensus of the thread is that its doubtful that any faction will ever come back "as is", but that we would like to see models with a similar aesthetic, or play style as part of future (new) releases. Those who like Tomb Kings are frequently citing the Shabti and constructs. Others have expressed an interest in future factions having the Slavic aesthetic of Kislev, or allowing for massed cavalry playstyles even if they don't aesthetically reproduce the Medieval knights that were central to Bretonnia.

I had to draft a poll question which would be simple and to the point, but the implications of how and why things could be revived are absolutely far more interesting than the simple question of whether they could be or not. (Which I agree is largely a foregone conclusion.)

Its interesting that my general impression has been reflected in the poll results. There are quite a lot of "Tomb Kings" fans (of whatever definition), with Bretonnia a little way behind, and the other factions lagging further still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the sample numbers would prove what you'd wanted though, the other way to look at it is because there was no option of "none of the above" nor a "new faction instead" option, of a site with a population of over 13000 only 94 (0.7%) of those voted pro tomb kings in a poll where none wasnt an option. Ofcourse this doesnt take into account how many users are still active, would be bothered to vote, would actually like whatever the new iteration of tomb kings were etc enough to purchase them.

It'd be like a poll asking peoples favourite type of cake, and resolving that everyones favourite food is chocolate cake when in reality it was simply the most popular of the cake options and not indicative of their preferences as a whole.

I know fan nostalgia is a potent thing, and I'd argue that tomb kings are more popular these days than they were when actually produced (much like bretonnians). This doesnt discount the fact that their rule books were poorly maintained in fantasy but it also doesnt guarantee that of said 94 people how many would actually invest in whatever the new incarnation was (Issue with nostalgia is that it would tint each of our interpretations of what it should be now, leaving many disappointed it doesnt match their own personal ideas).

New to me is far more interesting, intriguing and designed specifically for the mortal Realms, and I'm confident in the visions of the designers of AoS that the factions that were removed were done so for a reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I think GW could curtail this kind of cycle by just releasing specialized units. Bretonnia heavy Calvary for free people, and re release the constructs for death mages. Honestly that would stop so much of this constant talk of wanting tomb kings back, just give us some throwback units and call it a day.

 

i would love to purchase either side, but I think this kind of stuff may be unhealthy? Maybe some conversions for death rattle could fix this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nighthaunt?!?! Noooo GW, we (I speak for everyone) want new ideas, not just re-hashed WHFB trash... Fantasy sucked and is dead, people. Get over it..."

2 days later...

"Oooh, look at that new Black Coach..."

Edited by Kyriakin
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Melcavuk said:

I'm not sure if the sample numbers would prove what you'd wanted though, the other way to look at it is because there was no option of "none of the above" nor a "new faction instead" option, of a site with a population of over 13000 only 94 (0.7%) of those voted pro tomb kings in a poll where none wasnt an option. Ofcourse this doesnt take into account how many users are still active, would be bothered to vote, would actually like whatever the new iteration of tomb kings were etc enough to purchase them.

It'd be like a poll asking peoples favourite type of cake, and resolving that everyones favourite food is chocolate cake when in reality it was simply the most popular of the cake options and not indicative of their preferences as a whole.

I know fan nostalgia is a potent thing, and I'd argue that tomb kings are more popular these days than they were when actually produced (much like bretonnians). This doesnt discount the fact that their rule books were poorly maintained in fantasy but it also doesnt guarantee that of said 94 people how many would actually invest in whatever the new incarnation was (Issue with nostalgia is that it would tint each of our interpretations of what it should be now, leaving many disappointed it doesnt match their own personal ideas).

New to me is far more interesting, intriguing and designed specifically for the mortal Realms, and I'm confident in the visions of the designers of AoS that the factions that were removed were done so for a reason.

To be clear, I am well aware that Tomb Kings are not actually popular. The main purpose was to find out how large the vocal minority of fans actually is, and to see whether it was similar for both Tomb Kings and Brets (which is the aspect I was commenting on in my last post).

I never intended this poll to be scientifically rigorous, but I don't think that having a control option would actually make it more so in this case. Comparing the number of votes to the total population of the forum, or the population of active members is a much better comparison, since as you note yourself there is no guarantee that everyone would actually vote in the poll. The "something new" option would thus only record people who cared enough (positively or negatively) about old factions to look at this thread in the first place, but don't want them back.

So if I rephrase my OP as null hypotheses:

1) The apparent popularity of old factions is due to a small but vocal minority of posters.

2) There is no significant difference in the popularity of the various discontinued factions.

I think that the only reliable datasets are actually the TK and Bret ones, since I didn't list the other factions in the title, so their fans might not have known to vote if they didn't care enough about the advertised ones to read the thread. I'm loathe to draw any final conclusions until this thread drops onto the second page, at which point we can be fairly sure that its run its course, and everyone who wants to has voted.

However provisional results would seen to suggest that we should accept null hypothesis 1. The number of fans of the retired factions are large enough to be vocal, but small compared to the total population of the busiest AoS forum on the net (which is of course only a proxy for the hobby as a whole, but I believe a reliable one.)

We will likely be able to reject null hypothesis two, since Tomb Kings are leading Bretonians by a fair margin, suggesting that there is a difference in popularity between the factions. (I've not actually checked to see whether it is statistically significant.)

It would be good if we could get an estimate of "active posters", but I've not been able to find one in a casual search, so am not sure how to go about estimating the number of people who in practice make up the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best metric for working out commitment to the poll would be to take the 2200 views assuming each is a unique view on the topic and then translate votes into engagement for each of the factions, putting the unvoted views as those not motivated to vote or having no desire on any of the factions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Melcavuk said:

Best metric for working out commitment to the poll would be to take the 2200 views assuming each is a unique view on the topic and then translate votes into engagement for each of the factions, putting the unvoted views as those not motivated to vote or having no desire on any of the factions.

Thread views are not the same as unique views and will double count the same person viewing a thread even on the same computer (though often there's a bit of a time lag between counts). In addition it will include search engine bots, people who are not registered to the site, people who already voted and who are just reading the thread over and over; plus every time the same person logs in on a different machine its going to log it (eg phone, home computer, work computer). 

 

So basically there's no point to using it at all because its only a crude measure of the attention a thread gets. 

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be amazing if legacy armies were maintained indefinitely. Is it practical? Maybe not. But thats not really our concern as consumers. For folks jeering at the TKers and Bretts - One day your favorite army could be TK’ed and then you’ll get to enjoy the irony of watching someone else prattle about how you should get on with the times. Unless your stormcast I guess, in which case that probably means Age of Sigmar is over.

I don’t personally have a stake in TK or Bretts being supported again, but I can empathize with their frustration.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Overread said:

Thread views are not the same as unique views and will double count the same person viewing a thread even on the same computer (though often there's a bit of a time lag between counts). In addition it will include search engine bots, people who are not registered to the site, people who already voted and who are just reading the thread over and over; plus every time the same person logs in on a different machine its going to log it (eg phone, home computer, work computer). 

 

So basically there's no point to using it at all because its only a crude measure of the attention a thread gets. 

Yeah, just looking at the number of people who have posted multiple times as part of the discussion we can see that there will be a lot of repeat viewings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ggom said:

I think it would be amazing if legacy armies were maintained indefinitely. Is it practical? Maybe not. But thats not really our concern as consumers. For folks jeering at the TKers and Bretts - One day your favorite army could be TK’ed and then you’ll get to enjoy the irony of watching someone else prattle about how you should get on with the times. Unless your stormcast I guess, in which case that probably means Age of Sigmar is over.

I don’t personally have a stake in TK or Bretts being supported again, but I can empathize with their frustration.

A fair and balanced post, and a nice change from the pro-TK/anti-TK mudslinging.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...