The future of 'factions'

[BobbyB]

When WHFB went kaput, one of the reasons offered by many of the armchair CEOs was that the plethora of different armies available meant far too much shelf space was required and this had a limiting effect of expanding the range, meaning AoS was a good opportunity to slim down the number of playable forces and thus the required shelf and storage space.

 

I for one was definitely expecting a reduced range with the onset of the age of sigmar, and although we've see the advent of the four grand alliances, which perfectly feed into the gotta catch em all mentality I'm sure gw are keen to foster, we've also seen the rise of the 'faction'

My question is how do you expect gw to proceed with these? Are the numerous factions there to allow gw to do 'one and done' releases where they don't update the armies, they just move onto another faction and another battletome, or will we see a new ironjawz or sylvaneth release in a couple of years?  Do you expect updates to all the factions they've created, or will we start seeing a lot of new ones with just repacks for the older ones? 

 

Personally I don't see how they can maintain the number of factions they've created and assume they'll let most of t the old ones die out, do one off almost limited releases for most of them and return to a few key ones such as stormcast eternals, but I think it's very hard to predict.

[MechaBriZilla]

I'm personally hoping that faction releases will be dictated by the overarching narrative of the setting.

For instance, take the Stormcast Eternals.  I don't really see a reason to ever update that book.  What you have there is a great core, and if balance ever needs to be addressed, they can take care of that via points updates in annual GHB's or even just in the online warscrolls.  Other gameplay options are less balance concerned.  The faction can then be modified using 'Splat Books' like Extremis, which expanded the Stormcast army. (Though not the Eternals exactly.)

But something else is happening as well.  As the narrative progresses, the SE are already changing.  It is possible, and imo, preferable, that the Stormcast Eternals as we see them being launched into the realms by Sigmar will never exist again.  That said, it's not that I never want to see another SE battletome, just that it would be cooler to see a Hammers of Sigmar Battletome, that reflects how that chamber has changed and grown due to experience and reforgings.  Same with other chambers.  It would be cool to me if their fighting styles changed over time, and through narrative.  Or, barring the option of the chambers getting their own books, I'd like to see a Stormcast Eternal Battletome that reflects them at a different point in their history.  i.e.: Current BT is the Realmgate Wars SC.  But maybe we get another SE book in 2-3 years that represents an faction much changed in the intervening time.  This way, we never see exactly the same forces repeated.

They could also have epic storylines that remove entire factions. i.e.: wouldn't it have been better if we had had some grand hurrah for just Bretonians or Tombkings?  Some campaign, that revolved around their destruction, removing the model line from the setting in a giant heroic finale.  Move their books/rules to download only, phase out the mini's as they loos popularity, rather than all at once, and leave them playable, but no longer in the current fluff. 

Bottom line, I feel like anything they can do to keep factions and the setting a dynamic ever-changing thing, the better.  My biggest problem with WHFB was always how stagnant it was.  The fluff just wasn't compelling to me, because nothing really changed in a fundamental way.  (Obviously, just my opinion/perception. I know lots of you loved the setting, and I don't mean to attack that enjoyment.)

[Turgol]

This threat does not answer all of your questions, but at least the logic behind GW's new system. I do believe GW will update all factions that they feel have potential in AoS (like: Devoted of Sigmar, Free Guild, maybe Dispossesed, etc.) and keep the rest just in GAs. Battletomes are not reserved for tier 1 factions though (Factions that can be played easily independently). We have at least two auxiliary factions with BT: Everchosen and SC: Extremis. So an Ironweld Arsenal, Assasins, Battlemages BT is entirely possible. 

 

[Nico]

Quote

But something else is happening as well.  As the narrative progresses, the SE are already changing.  It is possible, and imo, preferable, that the Stormcast Eternals as we see them being launched into the realms by Sigmar will never exist again.  That said, it's not that I never want to see another SE battletome, just that it would be cooler to see a Hammers of Sigmar Battletome, that reflects how that chamber has changed and grown due to experience and reforgings.  Same with other chambers.  It would be cool to me if their fighting styles changed over time, and through narrative.  Or, barring the option of the chambers getting their own books, I'd like to see a Stormcast Eternal Battletome that reflects them at a different point in their history.  i.e.: Current BT is the Realmgate Wars SC.  But maybe we get another SE book in 2-3 years that represents an faction much changed in the intervening time.  This way, we never see exactly the same forces repeated.

They could do this with new formation rules.

Quote

They could also have epic storylines that remove entire factions. i.e.: wouldn't it have been better if we had had some grand hurrah for just Bretonians or Tombkings?  Some campaign, that revolved around their destruction, removing the model line from the setting in a giant heroic finale.  

#TombKings4Ever

It could be how a lone Night Goblin Fanatic blocked the charge of 1,000 Bretonian Knights, before Gordrakk swept in and annihiliated them.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Before AoS was announced and released there were specific rumours from Harry and Hastings that there would be limited release "factions" that would stay around for a few years before going online only and eventually no longer available. 

I really do expect this with a lot of these faction releases. There will be obvious stalwarts like Stormcast Eternals for example but a lot of armies will fade away to make room for newer ones, all of which I expect to tie in with the background as it's released. 

[MechaBriZilla]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

#TombKings4Ever

This!

Also, I like the idea of handling the changing nature of an army through formations, I hadn't thought of that.  In this way, you don't even need the new battletome, just pick up the latest Campaign supplement with the rules you want, or download the formations package.  That would make it pretty easy to keep your army up to date.

27 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

Before AoS was announced and released there were specific rumours from Harry and Hastings that there would be limited release "factions" that would stay around for a few years before going online only and eventually no longer available. 

I really do expect this with a lot of these faction releases. There will be obvious stalwarts like Stormcast Eternals for example but a lot of armies will fade away to make room for newer ones, all of which I expect to tie in with the background as it's released. 

I remember this now, good point.  At the time I remember thinking that was a pretty crappy idea.  I'm still not 100% I'd like that model.  I mean, I'd do anything not to have a new Necroshpinx not set me back $200.  But, I also know the reason the TK are gone, has more to do with sales than anything else.  That said...  If it becomes the new normal that armies only last a few years, I guess we'll all know that if we are serious about getting that army, we need to get it in a 4 year window.  Seems reasonable. Also, factions seem to be limited to what about 3-6 kits, so not too much to collect.  My only issue then would be that I wouldn't want them to ever be unplayable.  But I guess that couldn't really happen anyway.  I mean casual/narrative players will have all there stuff that was released previously and unless there are major, fundamental rule changes, their stuff will be playable.  And really, competitive players need the changing meta to keep things interesting anyway.  Not likely we'll see a whole lot of TK or Bret armies in 2-4 years in the competitive scene. 

[BobbyB]

1 hour ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

Before AoS was announced and released there were specific rumours from Harry and Hastings that there would be limited release "factions" that would stay around for a few years before going online only and eventually no longer available. 

I really do expect this with a lot of these faction releases. There will be obvious stalwarts like Stormcast Eternals for example but a lot of armies will fade away to make room for newer ones, all of which I expect to tie in with the background as it's released. 

Yeah this is something I had in mind when making this post, but I just don't see how they can phase armies in and out so quickly without leaving people confused and the fluff disparate

[MechaBriZilla]

43 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

Yeah this is something I had in mind when making this post, but I just don't see how they can phase armies in and out so quickly without leaving people confused and the fluff disparate

I think it depends a little on how they phase in and out.  A lot of the 'new factions' right now, are a regrouping of old factions with new fluff, sometimes a few different build options from the original kit, maybe a new kit or two thrown in.  They could conceivably continue to do this throughout the life of AoS.

As Jabber said, I think we'll have core factions that wont go anywhere.  But some of the minor factions, could certainly be rotated.  If they aren't a major part of the story, there is no reason to worry about previous fluff when disbanding them.  Models people like, can be ported into new factions, in new and interesting combinations with other models. Old models get retired.

Take an army like Beastclaw Raiders.  What are they, like 3 or 4 kits? I certainly haven't read every AoS book out there, but from what I have read (Please correct me if I'm wrong) they aren't (yet) a huge force in the Realms.  Maybe we will never see another Beastclaw Raider battletome.  Maybe in 4 years or so, we'll see a(some) new Battletome(s) that will include one or more of the kits that are still pretty good.  Maybe with a new assembly option.  But then models that no one actually wants anymore, like the Yhetees will go away forever.  No redo what so ever.

From a fluff perspective, perhaps the BR are a product of some contained event.  Maybe a migration, caused by war, or lack of resources where they live.  Once they get where they are going, and their armies either brake upon stronger forces and they assimilate.  Or they destroy the status quo, and become a part of a new order, and are changed forever.  Either way they loose their reason for being 'Beastclaw Raiders' and the components of this faction break up and join new factions, or join and thus fundamentally change, an existing faction, which then needs a new Battletome.  Probably with a new name, and different collection of units from it's previous incarnation.

The only issue here, is that I see this as an easy solution to rotating destruction and chaos factions... Maybe even order factions, but Death by it's nature is stagnant.  I have a harder time imagining such dynamic factions.

Another possibility, is that the Beastclaw Raiders never really disappear as such.  But are more contained, from a fluff standpoint, to a specific realm or area.  This way, you could still recycle units from sub factions into whole new subfactions, that are essentially the same units, with some minor swaps, but play entirely different and have different backgrounds.  I see this as a more workable option for Death as a faction.  Sure, you might have Deathrattle, Soulblight, etc. in every corner of every realm.  But the Deathrattle in one part of Shyish may be vastly different from the same faction in a different part of the same realm, let alone Deathrattle from Chamon or Hysh.

 

...Sorry, I know I'm wordy.  If you read this whole thing, thanks! If not, I totally understand.

[AGPO]

I see factions as a way to paint and play with something a bit different without the huge initial investment a new army required in 8th edition WFB. Established players also get more frequent updates to their existing force because a mix of factions is far more widely accepted than allies ever were in WFB. No more waiting 6+ years for a new army book.

As an example, I recently picked up a cheap island of blood set to expand my Skaven. Now previously, had I assented to do anything with the High Elves in the set I would have needed to go out and spend a substantial amount on new core units and army books to get a viable army going. Now however, I can use them as a high born noble and his retinue fighting alongside the stormcasts on a quest for a list ancestral treasure that might give an edge in the realm gate wars. Likewise my stormcasts may soon take a diversion to Ghyran where they seek the aid of the Sylvaneth. If I take to these small collections I can build them up, pick up battle tomes and take advantage of allegiance abilities. If not then I had fun trying something different.

I can see popular factions getting updated on an ad hoc basis, with new units appearing with rules in campaign books, white dwarf and the app.  Some factions could also see models updated as old sculpts show their age, whilst those that flop sit on the Web store until the molds deteriorate, remaining available in the app.

 

[bottle]

Personally I expect some factions to be updated but many won't. However, to me  the most important change is I think GW no longer release updated sculpts of any unit period. (Okay, maybe with the exception of the poster boy factions like Stormcast).

That means factions could get eventual updates, but it will always be to add new units into the faction. Not to rerelease units with updated sculpts. This is a big change from WHFB.

Take the Empire range for example. Over the span of WHFB we had 3 incarnations of plastic Halberdiers and metal ones too. Models all depicting the same unit but with the same time and resources put into each rerelease as a new unit would take.

2 years ago I saw an Empire army on parade with massive blocks of the old mono-pose plastic ones. This guy was obviously a big Empire fan, but even with two waves of newer sculpts, they weren't a good enough reason for him to replace his old ones - meaning that when you redesign a unit your customer base is mostly limited to "Those who are interested, but do not have an older sculpt already". And so when the Freeguild eventually get an update for AoS, I think we will not see a unit of "Freeguild Halberdiers" at all, but newer never before seen units. Dudes with clockwork glaive-guns or something.

Now saying that, I do think there are lots of temporary  hold over factions. I don't think we'll ever see Swifthawk Agents get expanded upon. The Freeguild might not even be updated and the new humans could be "Remnants of the Lantic Empire" where they are all 7ft super soldiers with swords made of fire.

Now there's a problem for GW releasing these one shot factions. It was fine when it was all about the Grand Alliances. In fact pre-GHB saw everyone I know expand out from their old WHFB army to include some units from the wider Grand Alliance they had always liked the look of. But post GHB we are now encouraged to go mono-faction again due to the plethora of benefits with specific Allegiance Traits and unique Spell Lores and Artefacts. I can't see much incentive for a Sylvaneth player to branch out (excuse the pun) as they lose all the extras. Moving forward, how are GW going to encourage players to go multi-faction again? 

[Turragor]

10 hours ago, AGPO said:

Likewise my stormcasts may soon take a diversion to Ghyran where they'LloydsBank sleek the aid of the Sylvaneth.

Gonna assume an auto correct fail

[BrAiKo]

Chaos still has no huge reason to remain mono-faction, aside from the keyword synergies (which are often god specific and not faction specific).  In saying that, a Tzeentch release that gives Tzeentch lore/spells to the poor casters who got nerfed with the rule of 1 will be a big incentive.

[AGPO]

3 hours ago, Turragor said:

Gonna assume an auto correct fail

Haha yup. My tablet seems awful for it!

[polarbear]

I know for me personally, although conceptually I prefer the idea of mono-faction armies, in reality I am very much enjoying painting 1-3 units of each faction and being able to combine them into a grand alliance army without burning myself out. When I finish painting a unit, I usually do not want to paint it again for a long time. I like the option to have a very grand grand alliance army while working toward some full mono-faction lists within it.

I think allegiances should be expanded a bit, though. All Khorne for example should be an allegiance, or all Skaven, all Orruk, all human etc. There are a lot of ways they could go. 

I do kind of think it's a shame they boxed themselves in early with the four grand alliances. I don't really like the split and think they could have come up with some more interesting concepts than order, chaos, death, destruction. 

[CrimsonKing]

Well the larger 4 factions (order death etc) are already fairly wide but get the alliegance chart at least. Looking for synergy beyond keyword buffing is harder from a listbuilding perspective. A Chaos player looking for more rend options for example, might dabble in death or destruction factions, But the tradeoffs outweigh the flexibility.

From a modeling perspective it would be great being able to say "this stonetusk with converted chaos lord rider is my Khorne general" and its 'possible' as counts as but keywords and game mechanics beg to differ.

There are always player narrative options with friends of course...but what about in some future GW campaigns with an option somewhere for a 'freebee' list choice that doesn't violate your requirements.

Im thinking like in end times when undead 'allied' with the empire to defend against chaos, GW could also make future campaign formations like Mannfred and Stormcast... Some Chaos Ogre goodness etc. where the formation bonus granted some lenience on alligiance reqs.

Or how about a 'ronin' or merc supplement that granted access to a variety of warscrolls from different alliegiances (orks, empire, marauders, etc) with certain overwritten or bonus keywords

[ElectricPaladin]

4 hours ago, polarbear said:

I do kind of think it's a shame they boxed themselves in early with the four grand alliances. I don't really like the split and think they could have come up with some more interesting concepts than order, chaos, death, destruction. 

I rather like the four big grand alliances. While I personally find myself wanting to focus in on specific factions, I think that four big alliances is just flexible enough to provide some interesting narrative possibilities without too much mess, fuss, and cheese.

[MechaBriZilla]

 

12 hours ago, bottle said:

Personally I expect some factions to be updated but many won't. However, to me  the most important change is I think GW no longer release updated sculpts of any unit period. (Okay, maybe with the exception of the poster boy factions like Stormcast).

 

sing these one shot factions. It was fine when it was all about the Grand Alliances. In fact pre-GHB saw everyone I know expand out from their old WHFB army to include some units from the wider Grand Alliance they had always liked the look of. But post GHB we are now encouraged to go mono-faction again due to the plethora of benefits with specific Allegiance Traits and unique Spell Lores and Artefacts. I can't see much incentive for a Sylvaneth player to branch out (excuse the pun) as they lose all the extras. Moving forward, how are GW going to encourage players to go multi-faction again? 

Two things here.

 First, there are already two versions of the Stormcast Heraldor.  As you say, it is a Stormcast, but it was done so quickly as to make me thing it's not so unlikely that we could see new models.  Yes, for people who only play one faction all their lives, as with your Empire player example, they may not buy the updated models, I would, but maybe not everyone would.  But updates are also a great way to bring interest back to a specific faction.  That said, this assumes that faction will be a long standing option for play.  I'm not sure that all of the factions will get re-boots.  But I'm sure some will.  Stormcast, various demon servants of the dark gods, Soulblight, and Oruuks, are all pretty flagship representations of their factions, and I expect them to be a core for the foreseeable future.  

Second, You might be right about branching out when it comes to tournament play.  In that case, those rules all have very powerful places, and I think it may even be preferable to keep tournament play as mono-faction as possible, as it will make it easier to address balance.  Balancing all possible combinations in a game as big as AoS with options flying out of every new book would be difficult under the best circumstances.  That said, I've yet to do the tournament thing, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.  Anyway, Tournament play is only one way to play here.  I personally love the narrative side of things.  I'd love to do some campaigns as well, Narrative or otherwise really.  So for me, building my army has very little to do with what faction bonuses I get, but instead has more to do with thematic concerns.  For instance, I wanted a Necromancer for my Deathrattle army, to give them some magic bite.  I took an Empire Mage, slapped some bits on from a Skellie sprue, and some hexwraiths and call him a Lich (D&D style, not so much Tomb Kings style not the lack of an E or Priest in the Lich(e priest).  In pick up games, I field him as a Necromancer, and could  care less about what I loose for it, with Friends, I have an idea for a homebrew warscroll that I'll ask to use.  I also fully intend to make a Zombie Gargant, when I use him, I'll likely ask to be allowed to change his Destruction keyword to death and change a few abilities (I want a rule to represent something of that size rotting, so stink, and perhaps an explosive build up of gasses in the body, to be released upon death .  Narrative play doesn't just allow anything, it encourages it.

4 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

From a modeling perspective it would be great being able to say "this stonetusk with converted chaos lord rider is my Khorne general" and its 'possible' as counts as but keywords and game mechanics beg to differ.

thinking like in end times when undead 'allied' with the empire to defend against chaos, GW could also make future campaign formations like Mannfred and Stormcast... Some Chaos Ogre goodness etc. where the formation bonus granted some lenience on alligiance reqs.

Or how about a 'ronin' or merc supplement that granted access to a variety of warscrolls from different alliegiances (orks, empire, marauders, etc) with certain overwritten or bonus keywords

One your first point, what do you mean the Keywords and Game Mechanics beg to differ?  Are you saying you'd like to mix and match your Khorne units atributes, with a stonetusk, or use an existing warscroll and repersent it by kitbashing a Khorne General onto a Stonetusk.  The second option would always have required opponent consent, under any style of play and any game system.  As for the second option, I don't know how anyone could object.  Even a GW store would likely allow it, since all the parts are from GW.  Only concern would be big size differences between the model listed in the scroll, and the model you kit bash.  Even there, I imagine that as long as the model is bigger that the intended incarnation, you won't have anyone complaining...  "Wait, you want to make your general an even bigger target, so I can get more units in against him, and you can't get a cover save?  But, you don't want to change any rules?  Sure thing!!"

As for two, I think of this being a narrative thing.  End Times were narrative, and again, in narrative play, anything you and your opponent think serve the overarching narrative, is fine.

Last point.  YES PLEASE!!!  But I'd put it like this.  I think merc (or Dogs of War) units should be completely unique.  Also, I think they should focus on specific uses, things that might be handled better within a specific faction, but by having them as a merc unit, another faction can then access that ability.  That said, whatever that Merc unit is providing, should always be inferior to the same option in a faction tied to a Grand Alliance.  This way you have a way for people to buy flexibility within the theme and scope of the game, but can never find a way to be better at something than a major force which is intended to specialize in that ability.

[CrimsonKing]

My thought about the stonetusk was to take it's warscroll, model a khorne lord on it with similar weapon, maybe add some mutation things on the mount so it blends thematically.

Then of course all its keywords don't make sense as its a destruction ogre etc. I would require permission to say its actually a Khorne Chaos Hero etc.,

Otherwise I'm losing my alligance, and Chaos/Khorne banner and ability buffs.

[BrAiKo]

12 hours ago, polarbear said:

I know for me personally, although conceptually I prefer the idea of mono-faction armies, in reality I am very much enjoying painting 1-3 units of each faction and being able to combine them into a grand alliance army without burning myself out. When I finish painting a unit, I usually do not want to paint it again for a long time. I like the option to have a very grand grand alliance army while working toward some full mono-faction lists within it.

Very much agree, although conceptually my dream army would be a grand 5 god extravaganza.  My AoS hobby thus far has been split roughly in thirds between Bloodbound, Tzeentch daemons/mortals (Silver Tower) and Skaven (pestilens/skryre).  Liking that I could use all three together if need be, even though the synergy won't necessarily be there.

[ElectricPaladin]

I gotta tell you... I'd be really irritated if my Flesh Eaters disappeared entirely.

[pforson]

I like the Grand Alliances and I like the Factions. It allows for great flexibility. If you want to focus and be fluffy, you can. If you want to go wide, you can. Best of both worlds.

In fact, I don't even mind the idea of factions being limited time releases - as long as the rules/points remain valid for play. 

[Tiger]

On 8. 9. 2016 at 8:49 AM, bottle said:

I can't see much incentive for a Sylvaneth player to branch out (excuse the pun) as they lose all the extras. Moving forward, how are GW going to encourage players to go multi-faction again? 

I think this is where hobby gamers and gamers will split, unless GW publishes battalions that are the mix of two armies and are legal in matched play as well.

[Warchief Varard]

21 hours ago, polarbear said:

I know for me personally, although conceptually I prefer the idea of mono-faction armies, in reality I am very much enjoying painting 1-3 units of each faction and being able to combine them into a grand alliance army without burning myself out. When I finish painting a unit, I usually do not want to paint it again for a long time. I like the option to have a very grand grand alliance army while working toward some full mono-faction lists within it.

I think allegiances should be expanded a bit, though. All Khorne for example should be an allegiance, or all Skaven, all Orruk, all human etc. There are a lot of ways they could go. 

I do kind of think it's a shame they boxed themselves in early with the four grand alliances. I don't really like the split and think they could have come up with some more interesting concepts than order, chaos, death, destruction. 

I play bloodbound atm and dont plan to change, but having access to for example tzeentch when they get a release .

i like khorne/tzeentch so i will surely add in the whole new tzeentch range when it drops making a chaos grand alliance (awsome was gunning to run archaeon so score).

It just meshes really well, ill have my warrior clan and the warclans mystic sorcerer's.

No real need for me to the go out and mandatorly grab tzeentch horrors etc just add select units i like and run Grand alliance.

[Veterannoob]

Man, when Settra comes ahead of a new faction...

[shinros]

On 9/11/2016 at 4:33 AM, Veterannoob said:

Man, when Settra comes ahead of a new faction...

I don't think it would make much sense for Settra to lead, Khalida? Yeah I can see her she is more pragmatic. The issue is that nagash would not suffer someone like Settra the whole of the audio drama series has Mannfred telling stories about how Nagash has been slapping people who rebel in the face and their punishment does not end in death.