I feel like it's worth asking if GW ever told the community why TKs got removed. I see so much speculation and confusion on the matter, and honestly I'd like to know if the company ever chimed in on why they ended one of their best looking lines.

According to Rob of prior Warhammer Tv Fame, they were to be included and the files never got sent to the place printing the books.

Far as I recall they got forgotten about and then just sort of dumped.

Personally I think that the management plan for AoS at that stage was very different. I think the plan was to steadily drop models and introduce new ones. Fracturing the major factions into tiny ones making it easier to remove some smaller bits without backlash every single time they did it. Then just keep cycling in new models.
Remember at launch the rules were a literal joke and the general attitude was "people will just buy cool models because they are cool".


So I think TK were just the army that got the short straw and got dropped. You don't just drop a product and have it all shipped back to central (waste material) just because something didn't make it to the printers. You release a Battletome Special in White Dwarf or you release it as a mini-book stand alone or heck even a PDF. Dumping the whole range and cutting them fully out of production I think was a deliberate choice. Now might be that they weren't supposed to be first; or to be dropped at that point or that they only intended to drop "Some" of them at that stage; but whatever I don't think it was an accident they tried to cover up.



Lets be honest AoS launch was a selection of bad ideas. Even staunch AoS fan's can't deny that its early days were dark times for fantasy in GW.
Personally I still hold out hope that they bring them back; or at least restore some of the models to the line, because they had some very up to date sculpts in some of their models. Plus things like skeletons riding stone snake constructs is VERY AoS epic fantasy

Old AoS was so bad that us playing 40k were scared that GW was trying to actively kill itself.

Bringing the 8th edition kits as the core of a Kataphranes book ala Daughters of Khaine would be fantastic.

GW never actively told the community anything. All we have is hearsay and rumors and player conjecture.

The Tomb Kings still exist within the setting. There's a reference or two to them on at least one of the maps that have been published. So there's already an opening for them to reappear. And there are definitely some slots for them. Giant inorganic constructs, screaming skull catapults, ushabti, and more, all would fit right in with the sort of stuff that AoS has been giving us. And I'd love to see them back. I have my old Tomb Kings army. But I wouldn't touch the new undead stuff with a ten-foot pole, as I've never been a fan of the VC look (which is what the newer undead stuff is largely influenced by).

Having said all of that, while I suspect we'll eventually see the Tomb Kings make an appearance, I also suspect that it's a very long ways off. There's still a lot of stuff that hasn't been carried forward and updated, and Tomb Kings will only be revisited after that stuff gets dealt with.

Or, alternately, we might see new Tomb Kings stuff if Hollywood actually manages to release another popular Mummy movie.

Haven't Bretonnia more or less been axed too? Was looking for any of their minis on the GW site a few weeks ago and none to be found. Are they still in the fluff?

Schmapdi wrote:
Haven't Bretonnia more or less been axed too? Was looking for any of their minis on the GW site a few weeks ago and none to be found. Are they still in the fluff?

The Bretonnian line got dropped about a month after the Tomb Kings did.

Fluff-wise, the Tomb Kings still exist because they're an unchanging dynastic empire that's been around longer than Sigmar. They're locked in a stasis of sorts. They arrived in the new lands, and promptly set up unchanging kingdoms exactly like their old ones (albeit with some sort of uneasy truce with Nagash this time around).

The Bretonnians, on the other hand, are made up of living humans. Humans change from generation to generation. The Bretonnians would fall under the classifications of "Free Peoples", which technically also includes the old Empire models. So there are still likely humans around who dress and equip themselves like the Bretonnians. But with the dominance of Sigmar, and the absence of the Lady of the Lake, the culture that made up that nation is almost certainly largely gone.

From one of the Realmgate War books...

GW has a mean streak about holding on to what they see as their IP. They couldn't copyright "Undead Egyptians" so they dropped the faction.

Same with Brettonia. They can't copyright basically anything about their old Brettonian miniatures.

So they've shelved the factions till they can come up with something to change them enough to where they can hold a copyright.

I suspect that we might see a return of about half the Tomb Kings miniature range one day as part of a new Death faction, but the fluff will be drastically different and the other half of the faction will probably not be what people are hoping for. Things like Sepulchral Stalkers, Necropolis Knights, Warsphinx, Necrosphinx, and maybe Ushabti are fairly new molds and are visually distinct enough that GW could probably copyright/trademark them as something defensible. The rest of the faction is too generic though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
GW has a mean streak about holding on to what they see as their IP. They couldn't copyright "Undead Egyptians" so they dropped the faction.

Same with Brettonia. They can't copyright basically anything about their old Brettonian miniatures.

So they've shelved the factions till they can come up with something to change them enough to where they can hold a copyright.

and this is allso must likely why the fantasy armys dont get updates or new additions.
elves, dwarfs and humans cannot be CR by GW cuz they look identical to other fantasy elfs, dwarfs and humans.

but steampunk/naked dwarfs or elfs riding on fishes can be CR by GW.
the human faction wont return before GW can make them look completely different from other fantasy lines and the same with TK.

Grey Templar wrote:GW has a mean streak about holding on to what they see as their IP. They couldn't copyright "Undead Egyptians" so they dropped the faction.

Same with Brettonia. They can't copyright basically anything about their old Brettonian miniatures.

So they've shelved the factions till they can come up with something to change them enough to where they can hold a copyright.

This argument just doesn't hold water. Of the armies that were ported over from WHFB, Tomb Kings were easily the most unique and identifiable as a GW creation except for possibly the Skaven and Lizardmen. If copyright was the reason for the Tomb Kings being axed, then Beastmen (Greek mythology), Vampire Counts (Gothic undead), Empire (basically just the HRE with steampunk elements), Wood Elves, High Elves, and Dark Elves (all three just the standard flavors of elves) would have gone away at the same time. They are all more generic fantasy than the Tomb Kings were.

FrozenDwarf wrote:
and this is allso must likely why the fantasy armys dont get updates or new additions.

And yet four releases in the last year (Legions of Nagash, Daughters of Khaine, Nighthaunts and Beasts of Chaos) were factions ported over in whole or in part from Fantasy.

 Ghaz wrote:
From one of the Realmgate War books...

This is just a lip service. Brets & TK got the axe because GW can´t slap their IP badge on them. Get real people, these two factions will never come back.

I don't think Bretonnians come back simply because from a business standpoint there is no way to copyright it. King Arthurian legend plus generic knights and peasant models mean I can go to the Perry miniature collection and get my army for 1/4 of what I pay GW.

Tomb Kings on the other hand I believe will return in some fashion. Just not called Tomb Kings. Something something ancient dead.

The sphinx model and other of the large monster models were fairly newer and I easily see them returning in the future with a new death faction that is bent around the ancient kings of old that strike out against Nagash and are their own thing.

 EnTyme wrote:


This argument just doesn't hold water.

It does if you have even a passing familiarity with IP law.

Daughters of Khaine has medusa warriors, they are even female. Meanwhile steampunk dwarves with airships is not really that copyrightable is it now.

The only thing GW have clamped down on was names - eg Aelf. Otherwise the visual designs are still pretty standard. Heck Nighthunt is full of tablecloth wearing ghosts with chains (Scrooge and the Marley Brothers).

I don't think it was visual designs that saw the end of TK under copyright protection. If that were the case GW would have to do sweeping changes to almost everything. Granted GW of those days was a bit more nuts, so heck it could have been. But I don't see it as any barrier right now.

Bretonians could return, or at least a human faction with a heavy cavalry focus could return. Just as Tomb Kings could return to the Realms without any issues.

Well an EX-GW staff is answering questions on the reddit, he had this to say on Tomb kings.

"Right. This was one I dealt with on a weekly basis, so I'll give you the answer I always gave. Though it is probably more honest than usual.

So as mentioned elsewhere in this post, if units are discussed in the lore, there is a chance that they might be made into models. And several AoS novels make reference to Tomb King units. So in that regard, yes there is a chance.

However, (this bit requires a bit of knowledge of stock systems), the reason tomb kings were taken off the shelves is that they were sitting in the warehouse for so long, the were actually costing the company money. This is to do with the way inventories are taken at the end of the year, I don't know the exact details. Either way, demand for them was so low, they were removed from the inventory altogether. So unless the high-ups decide that there is enough demand for them, they probably won't come back.

Take that with a pinch of salt, but it is what me and my manager used to tell people when they asked in the store."

I my opinion I think it's also a case of TK just not selling, since in my store it was the same thing. No one touched em, what the manager says here matches up with what my one says.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:


This argument just doesn't hold water.

It does if you have even a passing familiarity with IP law.

Please explain to me how any of the other armies I mentioned are easier IPs to protect than the Tomb Kings were. I think shinros' source has it right. Tomb Kings were cancelled because they weren't selling.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:


This argument just doesn't hold water.

It does if you have even a passing familiarity with IP law.

Please explain to me how any of the other armies I mentioned are easier IPs to protect than the Tomb Kings were. I think shinros' source has it right. Tomb Kings were cancelled because they weren't selling.

But things like beastmen were?

The solution is simple - next time GW do a big survey everyone has to shift from asking for Sisters to asking for Tomb Kings. I'm very sure that one aspect of them not selling was the state of 8th edition in general, but also likely that their rules were lagging and weak and thus they were not garnering attention.

Same pattern we've seen multiple times with armies from GW and a pattern that they've shafted hard with the new way they've updated 40K (and are steadily updating AoS).

The thing that kept me from doing Tomb Kings back in WHFB was the core plastics (i.e. Skeleton Warriors, Cavalry and Chariots). I loved the concept, but those models just killed any desire I had for the army. Bringing back Tomb Kings would be a big expenditure on GW's part replacing those kits along with all those which were still in metal or resin.

Few people touched the tomb kings because they were a low tier army and power gaming combos were not found within them to help people claim internet fame and glory through grand tournament wins.

Its not a shocker that a great chunk of players buy whats powerful and leave the stinkers on the shelves. Thats a testament to GW's poor rules writing and balancing of armies which has been a thing since late 6th edition whfb and the Mat Ward "demons are supposed to be busted because demons" era.

I'm positive that people want tomb kings to come back.

However if they released a stinker army book today that can't win tournaments, like the overlords and other weaksauce armies today have the same issues with, that the tomb kings revival would be "dead on arrival" lol.

However they make great Kingdom of Dust models for kings of war which is what I use my tomb kings collection for.

Dude, you really need to get off this "everyone buys things only for power gaming" bent you have. Tomb Kings just weren't that interesting an army. They even had a big push with a hardback army book and big, modern plastic kits and nobody bought them. They just didn't have the visual appeal and overlapped with the Vampire Counts which were always more appealing.

How can people not be interested in an army of skeletons marching to war over the sands supported by huge walking sphinx, riding huge snake-machines and such? Necrons are almost the same style of army and sell very well for themselves (Esp considering that for the longest time Necrons had about 4 or so models to their name).

I think power-play was certainly more evident near the end of 8th edition as you only had the more die-hard fans at that stage keeping the game going.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
They even had a big push with a hardback army book and big, modern plastic kits...

... but the core plastics of the army were old, crappy models that looked even worse when mixed with those big, modern plastic kits. They were an interesting army, but it's the plastic models that made up the core of the army that killed it for me and probably others as well.

Also they suffered the way Skaven did - requiring a LOT of those core units to be made before you could start playing with the interesting stuff. TK on TW Warhammer appears to be doing very well for itself as a faction and DLC

....because all of the armies over represented are always the top tier armies. Since 20 years ago on until today.

You may not like it, but that seems to be how it is.

If the models were representative of a piece of feces with googly eyes but were OP as hell, you'd see them regularly.

Tomb Kings were one of the weakest armies in 8th edition. To try and say that had nothing to do with why they were not selling is to be putting your head into the sand.

Vampire counts used a lot of the same models and you saw skeleton armies regularly over there.

Because vampire counts had vastly stronger rules.

When Tomb Kings were first made into their own army in 6th edition there was a large following for them, because they were at least mid tier in 6th edition. When they got t heir 8th army book, pretty much every tomb king player on the internet, big tournaments, and locally changed armies and were waiting for them to get a book that wasn't a paper tiger. Then AOS happened. Tomb Kings were one of if not the worst army in 8th edition from a power gamer perspective, and their sales reflected that. And some of those newer kits like the sphinx were pretty cool. The skeleton kit is pretty old, but the vampire counts players were fielding them in large numbers regardless of them being an old kit as well so I don't buy the "they had old skeletons thats why they didn't sell" idea because TK and VC skeletons were from the same kit forever until a few years ago.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Dude, you really need to get off this "everyone buys things only for power gaming" bent you have. Tomb Kings just weren't that interesting an army. They even had a big push with a hardback army book and big, modern plastic kits and nobody bought them. They just didn't have the visual appeal and overlapped with the Vampire Counts which were always more appealing.

Tomb Kings were great. From the big bow wielding statues to the sad irony of them all.

auticus wrote:
The skeleton kit is pretty old, but the vampire counts players were fielding them in large numbers regardless of them being an old kit as well so I don't buy the "they had old skeletons thats why they didn't sell" idea because TK and VC skeletons were from the same kit forever.

I'm strictly a casual player and know I've lost more games than I've ever won (or ever will) and the plastic skeletons did keep me from playing the army and I'm sure it kept others from playing it as well. It may not have been the only reason they didn't sell, but it sure is one of them.

I'm sure it did. That still doesn't change the fact there were about 20 vc players to every 1 tk player because of the strength of the rules and that if the TK were a busted army in 8th that they'd be around today because they would have sold a lot more.

Lets just accept that multiple reasons resulted in Tomb Kings selling poorly - many of which had nothing to do with the aesthetic of the faction itself.

I thought they got new rank and file skeletons during the 8th edition release? But my recollection is that most of the new TK stuff during the 8th edition update was out of my budget. I also remember hearing that TK were suddenly discovered to be a high tier army when AoS first came out. But by that point, GW had already stopped selling the line.

There's plenty of stuff from 8th Edition Tomb Kings that could easily get ported over to AoS. As already noted, many of their units would fit in just fine with the existing AoS aesthetic. But my guess is that it was a combination of "they weren't selling" (I was the only person at my local store who used them in WHFB), and I suspect that there was no one with any clout at GW who was particularly interested in them. Visually, imo they were quite possibly the most stunningly distinct army, and even the rank and file could look quite impressive when painted up. But the only time that you *ever* saw them in White Dwarf was when GW was attempting to expliticly promote them.

TK didnt' catch on in the early AOS days simply because there weren't many players in the early AOS days. There were no points other than fan system points and no one wanted to touch the game.

By the time there were "official points" it was clear that TK was being axed (removed from shelves and you couldn't find them anywhere except 2nd hand market) and unsupported / unavailable armies are never going to be seen for the most part, strong rules or no.

TKs didn't sell because of the nature of WHFB. I think there is a lot more demand for them now, and that they would do much better, especially of their rank and file looked better.

Honestly, just making deathrattle equivilents for most their units would be great. Let tomb king players use their models, but keep the AOS TKs rules, which frankly is one of the most fun synergistic armies out there.

I can only imagine TKs got the axe for not selling well. A combination of old, ugly models for much of the range and soft rules for quite a while (everyone values these differently, but at least one matters to almost everyone) probably helped push them into a death spiral that ended up with them just not being profitable.

If they had been selling, all GW would have had to do to keep a tight rein on its IP would be to remove options that didn't currently have a model (as per the Chapterhouse suit) and slap new, trademarked names on what was left. It would have been easy enough to do, and as they wouldn't want to drop a profitable product line, it must have been something else (and a lack of sales makes the most sense to me).

Now, I could totally see them coming back at some point, as they were very high fantasy, which fits AOS perfectly. They'd just wouldn't have options without models (as is the new standard) and would have a new set of crazy names for everything.

I could even see them as a sort of counterpoint to Nagash, a second wave of undead that align with Order over Death and hail as much from the realm of Light as that of Death. It'd be an interesting twist on the undead and fit right in with their old lore. There's plenty of shimmering sand to be had in Hysh, they're big on unchanging order, and they don't take too kindly to that upstart, Nagash.

Or just have them be death, setra becomes s God of death, and he's a thorn in the side of nagash, neutral with order and they help fight chaos like everyone else does.

auticus wrote:
....because all of the armies over represented are always the top tier armies. Since 20 years ago on until today.

You may not like it, but that seems to be how it is.

If the models were representative of a piece of feces with googly eyes but were OP as hell, you'd see them regularly.

Tomb Kings were one of the weakest armies in 8th edition. To try and say that had nothing to do with why they were not selling is to be putting your head into the sand.

Vampire counts used a lot of the same models and you saw skeleton armies regularly over there.

Because vampire counts had vastly stronger rules.

When Tomb Kings were first made into their own army in 6th edition there was a large following for them, because they were at least mid tier in 6th edition. When they got t heir 8th army book, pretty much every tomb king player on the internet, big tournaments, and locally changed armies and were waiting for them to get a book that wasn't a paper tiger. Then AOS happened. Tomb Kings were one of if not the worst army in 8th edition from a power gamer perspective, and their sales reflected that. And some of those newer kits like the sphinx were pretty cool. The skeleton kit is pretty old, but the vampire counts players were fielding them in large numbers regardless of them being an old kit as well so I don't buy the "they had old skeletons thats why they didn't sell" idea because TK and VC skeletons were from the same kit forever until a few years ago.

And it should be pointed out that it was partly because of some very clunky mechanics incorporated in to that army along with Vampire Counts doing literally everything better and cheaper short of shooting and chariot spam.

7th Ed Vampire Counts Book resolved many of the issues that both Undead books had in 6th, but Tomb Kings were left out in the cold. The 8th Book brought them up to match that power, but was still a little clunky and the amazing new models were a bit on the expensive side (GW went through a price upgrade about the same time). It also didn't help that many of those amazing models were countered by many of the 8th Edition rules which tended to screw Monster-sized models.

It didn't help much that it wasn't too much time later that 8th Vampire Counts came out and raised the bar even further.

Which is a shame because their fluff was very interesting. Undead who still act much like they did in life and actually still have their whits about them(more or less). Tilling fields, growing crops, engaging in diplomacy and trade, etc... Even the little bit we got about what they were like before becoming Undead was interesting. An entire human civilization that existed prior to when Sigmar was a mortal.

Aesthetically they didn't have much that was trademarkable, but the fluff was a unique spin on things vs the Vampire Counts who are very stereotypical.

EnTyme wrote:

FrozenDwarf wrote:
and this is allso must likely why the fantasy armys dont get updates or new additions.

And yet four releases in the last year (Legions of Nagash, Daughters of Khaine, Nighthaunts and Beasts of Chaos) were factions ported over in whole or in part from Fantasy.

And how many of those newer kits were designed after the Chapter House debacle? They are purposefully made to be protectable, and the TK were not.

GW should have come to some accord with Chapterhouse to both of their and our benefit.

If GW had decided to extend license to Chapter House to allow upgrades to existing kits, it would have worked out EXACTLY as you suggest. However, I don't think GW even likes video game companies using their IP. If it were up to them, they'd make their OWN video games and charge about 250% over what every other video game costs.

 Just Tony wrote:

EnTyme wrote:

FrozenDwarf wrote:
and this is allso must likely why the fantasy armys dont get updates or new additions.

And yet four releases in the last year (Legions of Nagash, Daughters of Khaine, Nighthaunts and Beasts of Chaos) were factions ported over in whole or in part from Fantasy.

And how many of those newer kits were designed after the Chapter House debacle? They are purposefully made to be protectable, and the TK were not.

Like I said the Daughters of Khaine just got harpies and medusa. The only thing GW has moved to protect is the name itself. Heck even the name "Melusai" is hardly different to medusa; just like Aelf is just elf with an A thrown in front. Plus the melusai have a form where they fighting with bows and arrows - right out the greek mythology! Meanwhile Morathi is a winged medusa with a head of snakeshair, again in keeping with the old greek themes in their mythologies.

And those are all new kits and were likely designed well after Chapterhouse. Basically GW is moving to protect the name, but they can't protect the designs or the concepts as most are generic or simplistic.

Aelf is just a take on the Old English ælf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf#Etymology

Good find.

 Ghaz wrote:
Aelf is just a take on the Old English ælf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf#Etymology

To quote the Painty Men: "You'll find the 'A' is for Attitude."

The Melusai are more Naga than gorgon.
So more Hindu/Buddhist than Greek.

pm713 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:


This argument just doesn't hold water.

It does if you have even a passing familiarity with IP law.

Please explain to me how any of the other armies I mentioned are easier IPs to protect than the Tomb Kings were. I think shinros' source has it right. Tomb Kings were cancelled because they weren't selling.

But things like beastmen were?

Beastmen army book wasn't the worst army book of 8th, like Tomb Kings were.

I saw plenty of Tomb Kings in 6th/7th.

I don't doubt Bretonnians were squat'ed for trademarking reasons, however. They were definitely the range you could most easily acquire from third parties, be it dedicated fantasy knights or even historicals.

Tomb Kings might well have not been the last had we kept Kirby and had AoS remained on its original course. In fact I'd wager we might have seen many many factions and races just outright dropped. It was a totally different approach to the wargame and alien to what most of us would consider logical. Even bad selling Tomb Kings most of us would just say "ok so make 1 or 2 new hero or warrior models and then release an updated battletome. Heck if you're that worried about speed print the rules in the next White Dwarf and make it a special.

However if the GW engine wasn't even "taking customer feedback" chances are the higher ups didn't even become properly aware that rules were one of the core issues.

 Arbitrator wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:


This argument just doesn't hold water.

It does if you have even a passing familiarity with IP law.

Please explain to me how any of the other armies I mentioned are easier IPs to protect than the Tomb Kings were. I think shinros' source has it right. Tomb Kings were cancelled because they weren't selling.

But things like beastmen were?

Beastmen army book wasn't the worst army book of 8th, like Tomb Kings were.

I saw plenty of Tomb Kings in 6th/7th.

Beastmen weren't exactly a strong army despite being one of the last army books of 7th (and being almost completely useless from the time that Daemons and Warriors of Chaos came out). A lot of the 8th Ed changes did screw up their book pretty good, especially when their new monsters were completely screwed over when combining their rules with 8th's changes.

Anecdotally, I saw more Tomb Kings on the table than Beastmen, but only after Tomb Kings got their 8th Edition book. Every gamer garage sale had Beastmen for sale, but it was rare to see anything Tomb King. Often I saw more Vampire kits for sale there.

Tomb Kings 8th Book was actually pretty good when it came out, but it gets depressing when you finally get your feet under you and then your popular cousin shows up and steals all the attention. And every Tomb Kings player I heard/read was extremely upset when Vampires got their 8th Ed Book.

 Arbitrator wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:


This argument just doesn't hold water.

It does if you have even a passing familiarity with IP law.

Please explain to me how any of the other armies I mentioned are easier IPs to protect than the Tomb Kings were. I think shinros' source has it right. Tomb Kings were cancelled because they weren't selling.

But things like beastmen were?

Beastmen army book wasn't the worst army book of 8th, like Tomb Kings were.

I saw plenty of Tomb Kings in 6th/7th.

I don't doubt Bretonnians were squat'ed for trademarking reasons, however. They were definitely the range you could most easily acquire from third parties, be it dedicated fantasy knights or even historicals.

Beastmen didn't even have an 8th army book. Tomb Kings were certainly not the worst book of 8th that's skaven without a doubt.

If monsters sucked, and most the army had to be old bone boys, then why are people surprised their new models didn't sell well?

Beastmen were equally garbage rules-wise in 8th edition.

Beastmen suffered from that old "written in one edition but balanced towards the next" that used to plague a lot of armies in the past. Basically you were too good in the edition you came out, but because you couldn't be written completely under the new edition's standard you sucked once the edition changed.

Beastmen were always protected by being thematic and useful for the IP behind warhammer in a way tomb kings never could be

Never mind that the AoS God of Death IS Khemri... Just keep walking, nothing to see here.

 Charistoph wrote:
Never mind that the AoS God of Death IS Khemri... Just keep walking, nothing to see here.

So Nagash hasn't eating him yet?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Never mind that the AoS God of Death IS Khemri... Just keep walking, nothing to see here.

So Nagash hasn't eating him yet?

Nagash IS Khemri in origin. He's the cause of the Vampires as well as the wakening of the Khemri dead.

 Just Tony wrote:

And how many of those newer kits were designed after the Chapter House debacle? They are purposefully made to be protectable, and the TK were not.

Some of the new 8th Edition Tomb King kits were quite protectable. The Necrosphinx and the Warsphinx are both very distinct in design. Of course, there's always the "this monster that I bought from another company is what I'm using as my Necrosphinx even though it only resembles the original in the fact that it's a giant undead construct". But the Necropolis Knight and Sepulchural Stalker (the models made from the snake-thing kit) are so unusual that if you released something even remotely resembling them, with an ancient Egyptian motif, I suspect that GW would have grounds to go after you.

The other new kits that I recall - the skeleton warriors (which updated the weapons to be more thematic - no more flails, for instance) and the Tomb Guard - were the sort of thing that someone could get away with by just saying "They're Egyptian skeletons". But you could do something similar for the basic models for pretty much any of the armies in the game. That's not something that was specific to the Tomb Kings. The rest of the models were old, but brought forward.

And that left the two missing models (or more accurately, one and a half). The Necrolith Colossus didn't have an official model released, but was pretty clearly supposed to be the place where you could stick your old Chiqita Banana bone giant (which was otherwise removed from the army list; the description in the fluff made it clear that a bone giant was one form of a Colossus). And then, of course, there's the Hierotitan, which was brand new for 8th edition, was probably intended to be part of a dual-purpose kit for the Colossus, and never got an official model. Players were pretty happy when it turned up in Total War: Warhammer 2. And they look amazing in that game.

The irony, as others have noted, is that all of the new models would fit right in with where GW appears to want to take Age of Sigmar. And many of the old models - Ushabti, Scorpions, the Casket of Skulls, and the Screaming Skull Catapult - would all fit in, as well. Plus, many of the Tomb Kings characters would work well with the new takes on characters that we've seen. For instance, while Allarielle rides into battle on a giant beetle, the body of Prince Apophas is made up of beetles, with a human skull at the top.



Random fun item - there's a video showing 20 Hierotitans (and Settra) squaring off against over 11,000 rank and file undead in a custom Total War: Warhammer 2 battle. All of the Tomb King "units" end the battle at full health.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Never mind that the AoS God of Death IS Khemri... Just keep walking, nothing to see here.

So Nagash hasn't eating him yet?

Nagash IS Khemri in origin. He's the cause of the Vampires as well as the wakening of the Khemri dead.

I think the word that you're looking for is "Khemrian". Khemri is the place. Khemrian is the adjective used to describe someone or something from there.

I think what kept the tomb kings from having a lot of attension was:

a) They where sooooo old for so long. The last codex was great, but the old codex was terrible as power creep sett in. I played a 1000 point game vs empire, and 2 mortar shots later I had no armie. After the new codex came they where great, but their player base was long gone.

b) If you wanted to do undead armies, vampire counts where very powerfull. Power players where drawn there. This again ment less tournament resoults for TK and fever people jumped on the band waggon. (Yes I know there was a spamm T10 list.)

c) Why oh why where they the only army that could not march? This negative trait was very not apealing to most.

d) Why could you not shoot when people charged you? For an army with a subtheme of ranged attacks with very special rules for shooting, they where very bad at it. Having actual playable bowmenn would have helped the army a lot.

A lot of these can be fixed if they re-do tomb kings. Perhaps they could split the army in two with one focused on constructs.

Also, and I have said this before, some of those models where very good, among the best in the game IMHO.

Snake riders, sand stalkers, both sphinxes, the iconic casket, tomb guarfdians and tomb king kings where great all of them.

I still think that if their rules weren't total garbage in the power level department that they'd still be here today because people would have played them more.

Pretty much. It's what drives everything. I've been around for enough "You know I really like that maligned hideous model" right after they get a nice rules bump to know that. Even the "Narrative" players I've known just craft a story around the best stuff.

People like strong powerful units. It's probably why you experienced pushback on your system. People want broken stuff to club their friends over the head with. It's an odd environment to be in for so many years. We all complain about whatever is the most broken but all happily fill our lists with the best stuff available to us.

It has been particularly interesting to watch IG players in 40k adjust to suddenly being in the traditional Eldar player position this edition.

Eumerin wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Never mind that the AoS God of Death IS Khemri... Just keep walking, nothing to see here.

So Nagash hasn't eating him yet?

Nagash IS Khemri in origin. He's the cause of the Vampires as well as the wakening of the Khemri dead.

I think the word that you're looking for is "Khemrian". Khemri is the place. Khemrian is the adjective used to describe someone or something from there.

I don't recall reading that, but then I never did get any of the 8th Edition books due to finances.

auticus wrote:I still think that if their rules weren't total garbage in the power level department that they'd still be here today because people would have played them more.

Pretty much. When you take:

Niiai wrote:c) Why oh why where they the only army that could not march? This negative trait was very not apealing to most.

d) Why could you not shoot when people charged you? For an army with a subtheme of ranged attacks with very special rules for shooting, they where very bad at it. Having actual playable bowmenn would have helped the army a lot.

And tack on the high dependence on a Wizard to keep your army on the table, and only offer the standard Undead theme of Unbreakable and the bonus of shooting like 40K, there is little in a rules capacity to desire to play the army. All that is left is the overall theme, which is actually one of my favorites of old Warhammer along with Beastmen, Wood Elves, Bretonnians, and Beastmen (man am I a sucker for the look good/play bad armies).

I think simply allowing Tomb Kings to march would be enough to fix them in every edition they were played in. They'd still be markedly different than the VC, and they'd be viable without being broken.

 Just Tony wrote:
I think simply allowing Tomb Kings to march would be enough to fix them in every edition they were played in. They'd still be markedly different than the VC, and they'd be viable without being broken.

Even something like "Tomb Kings models within the Ld bubble of the army general or Hierophant may march" would have been sufficient.

I think it was a plan all along and the copyright issue didn't help the wheels from coming off the wagon... Once an army got to a certain point in sales
they will replace it with a new army and keep it around until it does the same. just to keep the momentum up.
Plus the sales for warhammer wasn't there when AoS was rolled out. So I think that just amplified the problem
Queen Khalida Nefarata is one of my all time favorite miniatures and was building a small force around her when the ax fell
at least I can use her in other games.

There are other armies that are currently dying like "empire" (refuse to call them free people) with almost no support they were once the strongest
army and heavily played. I guess GW thought they where to generic and may pull away from Sigmarines title being the only human army..

With no new releases and no battle tome for it since the new edition .. just shows the interest level of GW with any army

I acrually had a lott of luck playing TK. It was not a bad army.

My army list tended to be one of two categorirs: a big mage round with a lvl 4 mage and a lvl 2 mage. The worn powerstone that gave 2 ektra dice, and the khemri scroll that gave a virtual 4 dice, and a casket. Go off turn 2 or 3 and try to get as much out of it a possible.

The other was a fighty list with an assortment of chavalery and monsters.

Both worked fine.

On the marching: usually the casked made maguc dice you could use on marching. It was a real tax.

Besides that it was an army where the sum of the models where better then them induvidually. Great play experience.

Even the tomb guardians (same points as grave guardians but worse stats) where the king of winning second round of combat. Very funn.

In 8th they had one of the first army books - it was a good release with some excellent models but what was a neatly balanced book at the time became overshadowed by the Ogre/Daemon/WoC lists.

People forget how barren 8th was for the first 18 months - that will also have contributed to the failing of the TK release. Things really kicked into gear after about 2 years with the Ogre release.

TK were never popular, for whatever reason. I'd wager a part of it is that they were just 'Egyptian' skeletons. They lived in the shadow of VC thematically, rules-wise and models-wise. 8th edition did nothing to aid this, except to give a new (and high quality) emphasis of the core themes. Necropolis knights and the sphinxes really gave it some great imagery and reinforced its uniqueness. But they were weighed down by the core skeletons, plus the new Tomb Guard models were obscenely expensive for hw many were required for even a modest unit (that was pretty weak).

8th always had a problem with accessibility, but TK were about as impenetrable as you could be. Awful core models that were MANDATORY and no easy way to get a usable army. I don't think they even had a 7th ed army book. They'd been left to rot for a long time but were never given the full overhaul they needed.

There's real potential in the theme and the models for an independent death faction. Bring back the sphinxes, TG and the Necropolis knights and you have the core of something real. FEC barely have more kits than that and they have a full army.

 Eldarain wrote:
Pretty much. It's what drives everything. I've been around for enough "You know I really like that maligned hideous model" right after they get a nice rules bump to know that. Even the "Narrative" players I've known just craft a story around the best stuff.

People like strong powerful units. It's probably why you experienced pushback on your system. People want broken stuff to club their friends over the head with. It's an odd environment to be in for so many years. We all complain about whatever is the most broken but all happily fill our lists with the best stuff available to us.

It has been particularly interesting to watch IG players in 40k adjust to suddenly being in the traditional Eldar player position this edition.

I think you are for the most part exactly correct. A lot of the pushback I got was simply it was too balanced and list building didnt' matter as much.

But I notice its not as prevalent in other games. I think if you want listbuilding to be dominant, that that is definitely a legit commercialized playstyle, and you can't have both balance, and listbuilding be dominant at the same time.

 Charistoph wrote:

And tack on the high dependence on a Wizard to keep your army on the table

Initially, this matched them up with the other Undead. The other undead required that the necromancer be alive in order to keep the army from disintegrating automatically. I still remember when one of my opponents made the mistake of putting his Necromancer Army General in the front rank of his army, and then got charged by a DE warrior block that had an assassin hidden in it. You can guess what happened next.

But then "Undead" got changed to "Vampire Counts", and people running that faction now took a monster in (undead) human form as their army general, which made it extremely difficult to take out the army's leader, which made it much more difficult to trigger the "everyone fades away" undead trait. And meanwhile, the Tomb Kings kept on soldiering on with their own rules based on the older undead concept.

 Charistoph wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Never mind that the AoS God of Death IS Khemri... Just keep walking, nothing to see here.

So Nagash hasn't eating him yet?

Nagash IS Khemri in origin. He's the cause of the Vampires as well as the wakening of the Khemri dead.

I thought Neferata was the cause of the vampires since she stole his notes and tried to make an immortality potion with it. I mean, it was his notes, but vampirisim wasn't his fault.

Eumerin wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

And tack on the high dependence on a Wizard to keep your army on the table

Initially, this matched them up with the other Undead. The other undead required that the necromancer be alive in order to keep the army from disintegrating automatically. I still remember when one of my opponents made the mistake of putting his Necromancer Army General in the front rank of his army, and then got charged by a DE warrior block that had an assassin hidden in it. You can guess what happened next.

But then "Undead" got changed to "Vampire Counts", and people running that faction now took a monster in (undead) human form as their army general, which made it extremely difficult to take out the army's leader, which made it much more difficult to trigger the "everyone fades away" undead trait. And meanwhile, the Tomb Kings kept on soldiering on with their own rules based on the older undead concept.

Yeah, in 6th, Vampires still required a Necromancer, even if it was a less-of-a-combat-monster Necrarch. 7th then turned over the role to Vampires in general. 8th made it even easier on the Vampire army, while Tomb Kings were stuck in that same requirement. If they even made it so that crumbling required the loss of all the Kings, Princes, and Priests it would have been easier to play them.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Never mind that the AoS God of Death IS Khemri... Just keep walking, nothing to see here.

So Nagash hasn't eating him yet?

Nagash IS Khemri in origin. He's the cause of the Vampires as well as the wakening of the Khemri dead.

I thought Neferata was the cause of the vampires since she stole his notes and tried to make an immortality potion with it. I mean, it was his notes, but vampirisim wasn't his fault.

I guess it depends on which version you're reading. I remember from the 6th and 7th books that Nagash was exiled and he went to Lamia and kept is undead research there which lead to him creating the Vampires as the next step to immortality. The Khemrians then marched on Lamia to destroy it because of Nagash. Now, I didn't read any of the 8th Ed fluff, so that may have changed by then.

The rules that your army dies when one model disapears is very bad design.

Thematic, yes. A good balanced rule, no.

That rule was from an era where wargaming was more thematic and storytelling vs competitive sport like it is today.

That type of rule has no place in a competitive sport version of the game.

auticus wrote:
That rule was from an era where wargaming was more thematic and storytelling vs competitive sport like it is today.

That type of rule has no place in a competitive sport version of the game.

That might be worth considering if GW ever actually makes Warhammer in to a competitive sport game...

The player base today treats wargaming like a competitive sport compared with the people twenty years ago where rules like the undead general dying kill your army existed.

If it is not a good rule now, was it a good rule then? Was there ever a time when that was a gios rule?

 Niiai wrote:
If it is not a good rule now, was it a good rule then? Was there ever a time when that was a gios rule?

It depends on how easy it is to target that single model. In the instance that I described above, my opponent made a foolish mistake. He put his necromancer in the front rank of one of his units, where the necromancer could be targeted. Even if I hadn't been running Dark Elves, who played the ever popular "Which unit is my assassin hiding in?" game, he still could have been targeted and killed with a little bit of luck on my part. It would have been a lot safer to stick him in one of the deeper ranks of the unit. That would partially limit his abilities, but it would keep the army safe.

On the other hand, weapons like cannons, that (depending on the edition) allowed you to target your opponent's characters, always made this sort of thing a bit dicey. The 6th edition Dark Elves didn't have anything like that. And frankly, I don't think that any of the weapons should have had that ability. Without that ability to single out a specific model, it's not an issue. In that case, the necromancer becomes a goal worth trying to work toward, but you still have to outplay your opponent in order to pull it off as it generally requires you to wipe out most of the unit that the character is hiding inside of.

An unbreakable army that causes Fear has a weakness?


Yeah, I'm a fan of the rule. Undead had enough perks that a massive minus like that wasn't that much of a detriment.

 Just Tony wrote:
An unbreakable army that causes Fear has a weakness?

Yeah, I'm a fan of the rule. Undead had enough perks that a massive minus like that wasn't that much of a detriment.

A lot depends on the age, but yeah, that was the point. I did forget the Fear factor in that earlier estimation. Part of the issue is that the more you progress in edition, both in rules and in army books, Fear became less effective than when the mummies were made in to their own army, yet, only the Tomb Kings were given such a massive weakness when compared to their Vampire cousins who were able to minimize the issue. More units were made Unbreakable or gained Fearless either natively, another rule, or other artifice as the armies progressed from 6th's launch.

And then there were the Daemons...

auticus wrote:
The player base today treats wargaming like a competitive sport compared with the people twenty years ago where rules like the undead general dying kill your army existed.

What the player base considered it and considers it is immaterial to how it is considered when it is produced. Warhammer has never been designed to be a competitive game. It's getting a little better over the last bit, but their adjustment period has always been at a slow pace compared to other games designed to be competitive.

 Niiai wrote:
If it is not a good rule now, was it a good rule then? Was there ever a time when that was a gios rule?

Because all the other armies had their own version of this rule; all their units would have to take a panic test when the general died. This would often result in panicking units running through units that passed their own panic tests, causing a fresh round of panic tests.

It always struck me as rather unfair that the panic on general death rule got removed but the undead armies retained their equivalent.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
An unbreakable army that causes Fear has a weakness?

Yeah, I'm a fan of the rule. Undead had enough perks that a massive minus like that wasn't that much of a detriment.

A lot depends on the age, but yeah, that was the point. I did forget the Fear factor in that earlier estimation. Part of the issue is that the more you progress in edition, both in rules and in army books, Fear became less effective than when the mummies were made in to their own army, yet, only the Tomb Kings were given such a massive weakness when compared to their Vampire cousins who were able to minimize the issue. More units were made Unbreakable or gained Fearless either natively, another rule, or other artifice as the armies progressed from 6th's launch.

And then there were the Daemons...

Yeah, now you're starting to reference 7th Ed, and those army books are LEGENDARY in their imbalance.

Also, how could VC nullify crumble? It still applied to them and there were no modifiers.


Point still stands, though: given what Undead armies were capable of, their crumble rule was not only fair and balanced, but justified. Daemons should have had a similar rule, honestly.

In 8th (not sure about earlier editions), Vampire Counts could have another wizard with the Lore of Vampires step up on their next turn to stop their army from crumbling.

Tomb Kings couldn't. Once your (infinitely more squishy than a vampire) Heirophant died, you were doomed to crumble to dust forever.

All the more reason I'm glad I went back to 6th.

I only played the last edition of fantasy. It sounds like the rules where quite crappy beforehand if the non undead armies died when you killed the leader as well.

As for the TK vs Vampire discussion it probably did not help that the vampires had a very unbalanced armybook in the vampires favour. If you wanted to play undeas, why pick the clear weak choise? This comes back to GW poor lack of balance. That, to their credit, they are trying very hard to course correct in 8th edition 40K. Not just individuals within the company, but the company as a whole.

I would like to point out thag when the wood elves came out several of them could pinpoint snipe characters. No more hierophant come turn 1 or 2 in that match up.

Fixing 'small' things in gamr balance like that and marching would make them viable. Just rebox the old models make some new basic troops and they could be a funn rennegade/independent faction to oppose Nagash in the AoS setting.

The way the rules worked was if your general died, each unit would have to take a leadership test or "panic", and fall back at least some distance. They could attempt to rally each turn and reform, so it was not the end of the world. It was a good rule, because it gave people an alternate lever to push to win. You had to actually kill the general to trigger it, and this was pretty hard to do if the general was in a regiment (they got special rules to avoid cannonballs and the like, and also had usually a magical defense) and if you put your general on a monster or ran them around on their own this was just part of the risk calculus.

Undead were immune to panic, so instead they crumbled slowly each turn, to represent the downside of losing the general. It was a bit harsher than panic tests, but ultimately it was balanced around this in points.

6th and 7th editions were (to my mind) far better in terms of game balance and as tournament games than 8th edition, though the latter half of 7th edition was marred by very poor army book design by incompetent games designers.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
In 8th (not sure about earlier editions), Vampire Counts could have another wizard with the Lore of Vampires step up on their next turn to stop their army from crumbling.

Tomb Kings couldn't. Once your (infinitely more squishy than a vampire) Heirophant died, you were doomed to crumble to dust forever.

In the earlier editions, the old world undead (including the early vampire counts) couldn't stop the army-wide crumble. However, units that were led by their own hero or lord, as well as particularly powerful units, had a chance to stop it from happening on a turn by turn basis.

What the player base considered it and considers it is immaterial to how it is considered when it is produced.

I disagree solely on the context of what we are discussing. That being "that rule is so awful it never should have been".

Because 20 years ago few had a problem with that rule.

Today... people would and do hate the idea. Largely because today the game is played as a competitive sporting event, and a weakness of that magnitude, regardless of how narratively it makes sense, would be seen as a weak competiitive option, and thus shunned and avoided.

Which moulds the thought process of game designers.

Twenty years ago the rules team has it in there because they feel its narrative and fun and the playerbase is largely ok wiith iit.

Today it would never see the light of day... because the designers are also for the most part all tournament players and understand that todays player base is largely about tournaments and that rule has no place.

For the record I played undead and vampire counts extremely competitive in the 90s and early 2000s. I attended all the GTs I could go to in a year with them (the equivalent of hitting Adepticon, LVO, the Masters etc yearly) and even with the undead crumble rule, I did extraordinarily well, even banking 5th place (out of 80 players) and several top 10 placings. So to this day I personally don't think the undead crumble rule is bad or that big a deal. Especially with all the other strengths that that army had at the time.

If you wanted to play undeas, why pick the clear weak choise? This comes back to GW poor lack of balance.

Exactly right, which is why I feel the Tomb Kings did not sell. Why would you ever choose tomb kings when vampires were just exponentially better? If TK had had good rules in 8th, I am confident they never would have been "axed" out of AOS. They would have been renamed certainly to IP protected terms, but they'd have sold and not been removed due to just sitting on shelves. Rules sell the armies. Weak rules guarantee that armies will largely not sell. Strong rules will guarantee armies move fast regardless of their aesthetic being good or bad.

And that's a pattern we've seen over and over with GW. Remember when Dark Elves were hardly selling due to having missed out at least one whole edition of rules (and thus at one stage being two editions behind). Hardly anyone used them as they were already a delicate and higher skill to use army; then with two editions of out of date rules they were so far behind that they were broken and not fun.

Given updated rules they leapt back into popularity.


I think that whole attitude is broken at GW now, they've smashed it with 8th edition 40K and I think they are on their way to smashing it for AoS, AoS is just taking longer because it was honestly in quite a mess to start with.

 Overread wrote:
And that's a pattern we've seen over and over with GW. Remember when Dark Elves were hardly selling due to having missed out at least one whole edition of rules (and thus at one stage being two editions behind). Hardly anyone used them as they were already a delicate and higher skill to use army; then with two editions of out of date rules they were so far behind that they were broken and not fun.

Given updated rules they leapt back into popularity.


I think that whole attitude is broken at GW now, they've smashed it with 8th edition 40K and I think they are on their way to smashing it for AoS, AoS is just taking longer because it was honestly in quite a mess to start with.

I agree the only direction AoS has is up.. I was amazed all the financial / sales reports that said it was doing great when it came out.
As for Dark Elves not selling.. I remember when the Witch Elves first came out they were something like $90 USD
and one of the best units in the game. So if you wanted a strong army be ready to throw down some major cash.

There is improvement every day with GW now.. and I am very surprised with this.. Even allowing social media employees to respond
to their customers asking questions. That would been unheard of just a few years ago..

Do I think killing off an army like Tomb kings without really saying anything was a little dirty; but it did allow us to finally get sea elves.

Just Tony wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
An unbreakable army that causes Fear has a weakness?

Yeah, I'm a fan of the rule. Undead had enough perks that a massive minus like that wasn't that much of a detriment.

A lot depends on the age, but yeah, that was the point. I did forget the Fear factor in that earlier estimation. Part of the issue is that the more you progress in edition, both in rules and in army books, Fear became less effective than when the mummies were made in to their own army, yet, only the Tomb Kings were given such a massive weakness when compared to their Vampire cousins who were able to minimize the issue. More units were made Unbreakable or gained Fearless either natively, another rule, or other artifice as the armies progressed from 6th's launch.

And then there were the Daemons...

Yeah, now you're starting to reference 7th Ed, and those army books are LEGENDARY in their imbalance.

Also, how could VC nullify crumble? It still applied to them and there were no modifiers.


Point still stands, though: given what Undead armies were capable of, their crumble rule was not only fair and balanced, but justified. Daemons should have had a similar rule, honestly.

I've been referencing 6th through 8th the entire time, though I've tried to make sure I make reference to which I was commenting on, but I guess I wasn't direct enough.

Daemons did have something similar, but it was based on Leadership, and the Undead Troop LD was crap while Daemons was top tier. Not to mention, Undead troops tended to be weak and unskilled while Daemons were top tier.

Vampire Units with the Vampire rule from 7th on did not Crumble, and there were actually several of them like the Blood Knights. In 6th for both Undead, the only saving grace was to have a high Ld model, which was usually a Character, to mitigate the damage.

auticus wrote:

What the player base considered it and considers it is immaterial to how it is considered when it is produced.

I disagree solely on the context of what we are discussing. That being "that rule is so awful it never should have been".

Because 20 years ago few had a problem with that rule.

Today... people would and do hate the idea. Largely because today the game is played as a competitive sporting event, and a weakness of that magnitude, regardless of how narratively it makes sense, would be seen as a weak competiitive option, and thus shunned and avoided.

Which moulds the thought process of game designers.

Twenty years ago the rules team has it in there because they feel its narrative and fun and the playerbase is largely ok wiith iit.

Today it would never see the light of day... because the designers are also for the most part all tournament players and understand that todays player base is largely about tournaments and that rule has no place.

For the record I played undead and vampire counts extremely competitive in the 90s and early 2000s. I attended all the GTs I could go to in a year with them (the equivalent of hitting Adepticon, LVO, the Masters etc yearly) and even with the undead crumble rule, I did extraordinarily well, even banking 5th place (out of 80 players) and several top 10 placings. So to this day I personally don't think the undead crumble rule is bad or that big a deal. Especially with all the other strengths that that army had at the time.

Which doesn't explain why it was continued in the TK's 8th Edition Army Book when Vampires already had an easier time of countering it, and the next Vampires book was even easier. Tomb Kings literally did not change on this front between 6th Ed and 8th, Vampires did.

And no, GW has never considered their game to be a competitive one. They may have recognized the competitiveness of the purchasers, which led to the power marches of 7th and 8th Edition (which still left some armies in the dust), but to be a professional style tournament game has never been the goal of the Warhammer games' development cycles. Those are two separate concepts.

Ok. Well - based on what I"m reading on the twitter and the facebook page, GW's rules designs heavily include what they think would fail in the tournament world.

Their first attempt at a public litmus for narrative gaming, that being AOS pre GHB, failed utterly. To include narrative rules and silly things like having a beard giving you a bonus.

Regardless of whether or not they are designing a magic the gathering with models or not, they do take into consideration what the competitive crowd will do with their rule iin terms of rejection or acceptance and they are taking that into heavy regard with the rules they produce right now.

auticus wrote:
Regardless of whether or not they are designing a magic the gathering with models or not, they do take into consideration what the competitive crowd will do with their rule iin terms of rejection or acceptance and they are taking that into heavy regard with the rules they produce right now.

There is a big difference in concept when planning things out, though. There is a difference between trying to create a street car you can race with and a race car you drive on the streets. In GW's case, power is something that sells models, not competitiveness, and that has long been their target. What can be claimed on the internet needs to show results at home, and until we're seeing every army with a Tome and with regular updates not trying to one up the last tome, all they are is words.

Not to mention, most of that has happened within the last couple of years, long after 8th Edition was planned to dust, much less before the 8th Edition Tomb Kings Army Book was produced.

I think we're basically saying the same thing.

My original statement was in regard to the undead crumble rule, which was a part of the game for most of its history. Especially during the 6th edition days when Alessio was on the team, they did pay attention to the tournament crowd back then and discussed why they included rules and excluded others, and paid attention to what their target audience wanted.

The target audience of 1998 is different from the target audience of 2003, which is different from the target audience of 2010 which is different from the target audience of 2018.

I do agree that from 7th and 8th it appeared that GW didn't care what you wanted, they shoved it down our throat anyway.

I think THAT is why you had things like 7th edition demons (lol) and stinkers like 8th edition TK rules. Those stinker rules in 8th edition led TK to not be played much and of course not sell much.

Which led to them getting axed as they didn't move models.

auticus wrote:
I think we're basically saying the same thing.

My original statement was in regard to the undead crumble rule, which was a part of the game for most of its history. Especially during the 6th edition days when Alessio was on the team, they did pay attention to the tournament crowd back then and discussed why they included rules and excluded others, and paid attention to what their target audience wanted.

The target audience of 1998 is different from the target audience of 2003, which is different from the target audience of 2010 which is different from the target audience of 2018.

I do agree that from 7th and 8th it appeared that GW didn't care what you wanted, they shoved it down our throat anyway.

I think THAT is why you had things like 7th edition demons (lol) and stinkers like 8th edition TK rules. Those stinker rules in 8th edition led TK to not be played much and of course not sell much.

Which led to them getting axed as they didn't move models.

The biggest problem is when you have a distinct dichotomy in design scheme. Tomb Kings were mostly brought up to Vampires in 8th, except for their Crumble rule which didn't change at all for them, but had improved for Vampires a generation before, and improved for Vampires again a few books after the Tomb Kings was released, which also improved everything else about the book to grow beyond what they were before. Keep in mind, Tomb Kings were not a high level of power with their 8th book, but they were a distinct improvement and brought them up to a level of decent competitiveness and power when compared to other MID line armies of the time. Quite a different story from the Vampires and the Daemons of the same time frame.

It is a dichotomy like that which indicates a distinct level of apathy regarding actual competitiveness, or a complete ignorance of the difference between competitiveness and power.

It's weird because I never wanted to actually play Tomb Kings despite my love of Egyptian-style lore but I wanted them to exist as an army for other to play with.

I thought TK weren't popular, especially in 7th, because they were kinda a one trick pony: flank with chariots and do the casket thing. They didn't really have much going for them other than being a faster undead army than VC with more flavor and crappier models. When VC got new skeletons and TK didn't I was worried about their future.

I really hope they make a comeback and that players like them, I really fail to understand why GW wanted to add two more dwarf armies that are rarely played in my area and not TK who could've some really unique style.

I hope Lizardmen aren't axed because they're my favorite fantasy army along with big, heavily armored orcs.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
It's weird because I never wanted to actually play Tomb Kings despite my love of Egyptian-style lore but I wanted them to exist as an army for other to play with.

I thought TK weren't popular, especially in 7th, because they were kinda a one trick pony: flank with chariots and do the casket thing. They didn't really have much going for them other than being a faster undead army than VC with more flavor and crappier models. When VC got new skeletons and TK didn't I was worried about their future.

I really hope they make a comeback and that players like them, I really fail to understand why GW wanted to add two more dwarf armies that are rarely played in my area and not TK who could've some really unique style.

I hope Lizardmen aren't axed because they're my favorite fantasy army along with big, heavily armored orcs.

I would not worry about any army that has a massive plastic range.

I honestly expect at some point that we will get a Tomb Kings style AoS army. They've got at least two dual plastic kits to utilize. It would likely be similar to something like DoK. Maybe something with some mass constructs. Unless they've just trashed the molds, but I doubt that.

I would like a faction within undead that compete with nagash or oppose him.

Settra and minor kingdoms is the perfect solution for this. Fluffy as heck.

It wouldn't be hard to get Settra back into the game. I could easily see Tzeentch keeping his spirit around after End Times just for the "screw over Nagash" rationale, if nothing else. Sure, Settra wouldn't serve Tzeentch (SETTRA DOES NOT SERVE!l). But he'd be a potential problem for Nagash, who Settra hates more than anyone else. And I can also see Nagash inadvertently providing Settra's spirit with a new (mummified) body. After all, Nagash is the master of "my plan to secure world domination ALMOST succeeded, but then ended up backfiring in the most disastrous fashion imaginable". And the Skaven weren't responsible for all of those instances. Nagash accidentally providing Settra with a new body and powerbase would probably be one of the least disastrous outcomes that Nagash has had to date.

I know that a lot of people want a very hard distinction between 40k and Fantasy but I'd be totally in favor of TK making a return with hieroglyphs and references to Tzneetch and a certain one-eyed giant mage. Never explicitly say "Magnus" but just sorta hint at it.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I know that a lot of people want a very hard distinction between 40k and Fantasy but I'd be totally in favor of TK making a return with hieroglyphs and references to Tzneetch and a certain one-eyed giant mage. Never explicitly say "Magnus" but just sorta hint at it.

Undead for Tzeentch?

It has possibilities. There has been many notations about how connected the 40K and Sigmar universes are, if only by crossing through the Warp in a certain way at least. Between the daemons, Chaos Gods, and the Old Ones, there is a lot of background mixed between them.

Personally, I would like to see the Tomb Kings being the Undead from certain plains, like Fire and such. We already see the differentiation in the Dwarfs, so why not the Undead as well?

As a little side note, this discussion has kind of prompted me to start doing a Warmachine conversion of the Tomb Kings. I'm not very far, yet. I've only got the dissemination mostly down and worked on Khalida's and Settra's stats. I've started posting them on the Khemri and LormaHordes forums, and if interest is shown here, I may post it down board.

So like, If tomb Kings where considered unable to be copyrighted and therefore dropped, how come normal skeletons are still around?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So like, If tomb Kings where considered unable to be copyrighted and therefore dropped, how come normal skeletons are still around?

Nothing for people to steal from them. A basic skeleton itself is a pretty bare boned concept.

pm713 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So like, If tomb Kings where considered unable to be copyrighted and therefore dropped, how come normal skeletons are still around?

Nothing for people to steal from them. A basic skeleton itself is a pretty bare boned concept.

I see what you did there...

 Fajita Fan wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So like, If tomb Kings where considered unable to be copyrighted and therefore dropped, how come normal skeletons are still around?

Nothing for people to steal from them. A basic skeleton itself is a pretty bare boned concept.

I see what you did there...

I saw it, chuckled and approve completely.