EccentricCircle
-
Posts
1,673 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by EccentricCircle
-
-
Page 1066! anyone got any rumours pertaining to historical wargaming to commemorate the event?
I agree that the runes look like the azyrite text on the various scenery kits. The chaos runes have a much more angular look, with a few exceptions.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ElectricPaladin said:
As we all know from telling narrative stories with a wargame, being built to handle extensive and gear-headed combat doesn't make a game unsuited to story!
Sure! You can add roleplaying to any kind of game if you try hard enough, and the wargames family have a lot of narrative potential. However there are fundamental differences in approach and design. The competitive aspect is a large part of that. RPGs do though create a much broader canvas than most other games are capable of, and so require less work to build a strong narrative.
-
Actually I think Mantic actually had an underwater faction for ages before GW made the Idoneth.
As I've said above, I don't agree with the "it doesn't fit argument" since the world is so open that it has limitless possibilities. I think there is an argument to say that you can't have a death faction that is opposed to Nagash, since at present he controls all undead. However there is no reason it needs to stay that way, and from the looks of it most people don't neccersarily want Tomb Kings to be rereleased verbatim, but would prefer that the aesthetic be reimagined for the current age (with some old favourites reused perhaps). Thus there is no real reason why they couldn't "fit".
-
I like all of the options, but would prefer a skeleton themed army (either Tomb Kings, or Deathrattle) to a vampire or Zombie force. Undead Pirates would also be pretty nifty!
-
Yeah, Warhammer quest isn't on the same level as an actual RPG. You can certainly add RP elements to any skirmish game of that sort, and the idea of each player controlling a separate character is there. However, it will simply never have the same degree of flexibility, open endedness and player freedom as a true RPG.
It is possible to play an RPG like D&D as more of a tactical miniatures game by going in a very Hack-and-Slash direction and not worrying too much about the story and exploration elements. However that isn't how pretty much any RPG is played by default, even 4e D&D which many felt was more of that sort of game (unfairly I would say).
Its clear from the previews we've had so far that Souldbound is going to be a much more story focused RPG than your traditional dungeon crawler, even if it does have a robust combat element.
-
Glad to see its been resolved. I may have to pick it up again at some point!
-
4 hours ago, dekay said:
Arguably, only iconic unit with derp skeleton problem are the chariots. Skeletons in both warsphinx and necropolis knight kits look very decent, same with Tomb Guard.
And that's what baffles me, just.. how easy it would be to add Tomb King flavoured Death faction. They have their obvious battleline unit with Tomb Guard kit. Three units out of Warsphinx box: Necrosphinx, Warsphinx, Warsphinx with hero [so a plastic leader is availible too], plus two elite units - Stalkers and Knights. As the construct theme serves them the best, re-realease of resin Ushabti [two more units, close combat and ranged] would help and... that's more units than Fyreslayers or Beastclaws already? And whatever they don't have they can easily ally from other Death armies?
They COULD of course make a plastic mid sized non-ushabti-construct kit too. They could add plastic heroes for more diversity. But they don't NEED to, there's enough good models to just re-release.
I have no idea WHY GW decided to nt re-release those kits if they could do a reasonably diverse faction with zero miniature design cost. Maybe it'll happen at some point, who knows.
As for Bretonnia - I wouldn't like them to return as a faction. I would, however, give enough diversity to future Free Peoples tome to make full on armoured knight lists viable, with some classic medieval knight aestethic thrown in because no fantasy setting is complete without those. It is very much doable to make Empire and Bretonnia fans happy with a proper free peoples army while simultaneously giving fans something completely new.
Agreed, those later skellies are actually quite good, Tomb Guard are my all time favourite undead kit to paint.
-
41 minutes ago, VascoPinto said:
Happy to finally receive my azyrite townscape! It has been backordered for months now. Still, it shows as being out of stock in my country and UK's webshop.
Cool, what sprues does it have?
-
Are they still advertising it with a picture of the piece it doesn't contain? The easiest "fix" they could have come up with would be to change the packaging, frustrating as that is.
-
I'm not sure that the walls are new, to me it just looks as though the Azyrite Townscape walls have been kitbashed with the top from the arcane ruins, but we shall see I guess.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sleboda said:
People will and do buy weak armies for fun (and for art). I, for example, own well over 10,000 points (in 8th ed terms) of TK models from the last release of them. They were horribly bad on the table, but I spent tons anyway because the models were awesome and I love the army concept (despite its botched rules execution).
Agreed, the eighth ed TK releases were massively fun to paint, and for a lot of us that is far more important than how they fare on the battlefield. I actually never got around to fielding my Tomb Kings until Age of Sigmar started, even though I'd been collecting them for years before hand as a display project.
-
2 hours ago, rattila said:
Yeah i do think the new rumor engine is Warcry - related. A shyish chaos warband seems like a good guess. The bone tendrils could also come from there; they could be a new endless spell for Forbidden Power tough. Hard to say.
My first thought on the new rumour was that it looked Eldar or Death (Or both).
I think that the scaled pattern is more likely to be Seraphon, it has a very lizardy feel. It seems as though the Chaos Daemons we've yet to get updates for are the less scaly ones, whereas we've had the new Keeper, and some Khornate stuff, which would be a better fit aesthetically.
I don't see that is being from a Fury or a Tzeentchian beasty, although I've not painted any of either so am no expert.
-
3 hours ago, Pagan said:
Personally, I love the Bretonnian aesthetic and do wish GW would still sell them.
If I want to collect some though I know that there are lots of non-GW options I could purchase and play as Bretonnians in anything other than an official GW tourney.
I do think it's a shame they are discontinued because I think they are great looking models.
This is true, there are no shortage of options when it comes to actual models of late medieval knights at the same, or similar scale.
I know that there are a few sources of Tomb King-esk models out there as well. Mantic's egyptian skeletons have already been mentioned, but I think that the better range is actually the Reaper Warlord models. Their undead egyptian faction is called Nefsokar, and has some really cool stuff in it. I have a few of their Anubis warriors, they are smaller than Shabti, but have a very similar aesthetic in other respects.
-
We've reached 100 Tomb King votes!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
Oh yeah, you could totally make a Kislevite Free city of some sort with the right minis.
-
Its interesting that you often see people saying that the Greenskinz are just generic Orcs, and don't really have anything to set them apart as factions.
I guess at this point that is true, since the idea of the burly greenskinned orc is so pervasive across various fantasy works due to Warcraft and such. However its quite ironic since GW literally invented Greenskins in the first place and everyone else just copied them.
I'd not thought about it, but the idea of the freeguilds is actually quite similar to the idea of Dogs of War. They are more or less small militias or mercs defending their cities. It would be quite cool to have paymaster models for them, or some smaller warbands themed around various unusual freeguilds.
As a side note I very nearly included Chaos Dwarves on the list, but left them off in the end since they do have a current range, even if having proper plastic models from GW would be better than the forge world stuff that's currently available. Maybe they will get an update at some point, but i'm not going to hold my breath!
-
8 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:
I would not mind if GW brought any of these back as long as they did something interesting to them. They are all fairly generic and bland as old Warhammer concepts generally are compared to the more over-the-top interpretations that Age of Sigmar tends to favor. Tomb Kings are probably the most unique and interesting of those forces as-is
If GW took any of those old forces and turned them up to 11 like they have been doing with the other AoS factions then I would be on board with it. But none of them are anything that I am going to actively campaign for either. And bear in mind that I own a decent chunk of Gitmob and I have a massive Greenskins army with over 200 infantry alone. But honestly, the only models that I would really miss from the Gitmob and Greenskins ranges if they were retired completely are the Warboss on Wyvern and the Doom Diver. I would like to see the Doom Diver stay in the game in some form as it really is the most iconic of goblin artillery.
The Doom diver is the model I most regretted not getting when that range was discontinued. Its such a fun idea, and a really nice model. I never had enough goblins to justify getting one though. Hopefully they will take the idea of crazy goblin contraptions up to eleven and release a new faction based around that idea some day!
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, huitzilopochtli said:
I don't play AoS and haven't collected many of the models because the old fantasy aesthetic was what I loved most. Still, I'd love to see the Tomb Kings return in some fashion and would probably even start playing AoS if they got a couple of resculpts (some new chariots, archers, and horses would be nice). Actually if they did that I definitely would start playing. (TK were my first army - really regret letting so much of my collection go...)
That said, like a lot of players who collect(ed) TK, I'm mostly looking to (re)complete my collection. If GW just brought back the plastic kits for a week I would get everything I wanted and be pretty happy. (They are used in other systems after all.) Bring back plastic sphinxes, snakes, and tomb guard for one week, made to order, and I swear on the kidney I will sell to fund this project that I will buy three of each. Possibly more tomb guard.
Yeah, I'd be happy to get a few more Ushabti to round out my collection, but Ideally I'd like them to develop something new and AoS-y based on the idea.
-
I could definitely see it being the case that the common people of Bretonnia mingled with other surviving humans to become the ancestors of the free peoples, while the most noble of the Bretonnian Knights were reforged as Stormcast, and the bickering and corrupt nobility degenerated into Ghouls.
That doesn't mean that the free peoples couldn't seek to emulate their ancestors knightly orders though.
-
1
-
-
I didn't think there needed to be a specific "none of them" option. Clearly that is going to be the default position for quite a lot of people.
I've always been a little skeptical of the argument that things "don't fit the Age of Sigmar aesthetic." Everyone likes different things, and I have no problem with that, so if they don't appeal to your idea of what the setting can be then that's fine. However, the whole point of the Age of Sigmar aesthetic is that it is so broad and varied that anything can exist somewhere. Half the black library stuff I've read recently has been set in desert areas, with a somewhat middle eastern flare, so there's definitely room for more Egyptian themed stuff. Plus pyramids still feature quite prominantly in Nagash's forces, and he and Arkhan show their Khemrian roots.
As far as Bretts go, I agree that they fit quite well into the free peoples header. There are a few things which don't quite have a warscroll, but with a bit of creative thinking you can easily run sorceresses as battlemages and find a space for the cavalry and infantry. I don't think there is a good equivalent for the trebuchet without resorting to the compendium though, and some of the more specific stuff clearly works best with its own warscrolls.
-
5
-
2019 What Army/Armies do you play poll?
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Tricky, I have at least a small force for everything in Death and Order, except Fyreslayers. However, I don't consider all of them equal. For example I am not too fussed about stormcast, I've just acquired them by accident through duel boxes. Likewise my free peoples army is mainly made up of Empire and Brett models I've picked up in job lots second hand while buying other stuff! They get used a fair bit though, despite being accidental!
I aim to have a Grand Army for each alliance.
At present these are Lizardmen/ Seraphon, Tomb Kings, and Chaos Dwarves/ Legion of Azgorh.(I like to be awkward.) My destruction army will be Gloomspite\ Night Goblins, but that is still very much a work in progress.
I also have the skaven from spire of dawn, and the start of a beasts of chaos force. So my chaotic forces are slowly expanding. Most st of these are barely at 1000 pts though, only the grand armies are comprehensive.