The return of the Tomb Kings? Although I'd love it to happen, the sand is black, not golden. Perhaps evil Tomb Kings, rather than nearly-good ones? It is a good story, actually. Certainly reminiscent of the Fantasy ones.
Let's hope not. The Tomb Kings have earned their freedom from AoS. Settra does not serve, Settra rules.
I don't really need tomb kings in AoS but skeleton archers or chariots or horse archers or bone Giants or skeleton artillery would be something I'd want.
That does sound distinctly Tomb Kingy. Maybe they can make some Vampire equivalents. I just hope they leave my poor Tomb Kings out of it.
It would certainly be fun to pitch them against the Kharadron Overlords - like a fantasy equivalent of the Royal Merchant Navy (KO) against the Pirates (Ghost Pirates). Ghost ships vs Dwarf Ironclads!
But then they could be like the Flesh-Eater Courts and be independent from Nagash, only allying with him in common cause, say, to destroy some SCE. But if they were brought back, I would be more likely to start collecting TK because GW minis are far more accessible for me than Mantic ones, even though the Mantic Empire of Dust ones are cheaper and in some respects look better than the original GW ones... Certainly TK would be able to gain more followers if they were introduced into AoS with a competitive Battletome. If they became the best army in AoS, then all of a sudden there may be loads of new Tomb King players, and many of them may wish to delve into the past and buy Fantasy TK army books and stuff.
If, and it is a massive if, they brought back Tomb Kings, they wouldn't be called Tomb Kings... GW can't trademark that. I also don't see how that aesthetic fits into what they're spinning with Malign Portents currently... We'll be finding out soon enough anyway.
I have a question. I started Warhammer with AoS, and I would like to know what are the differences between Aos and FB? And why Tomb Kings are so great ?
I am also a pure AoS player so I might be not the best person to answer that question, but here are some big differences from the top of my head - AoS has a much more simple ruleset. The whole basic rules of AoS are not even the size of the WHFB rules covering movement of flying units. That has both advantages (such as being WAY more accessible for new players and making the games faster in some regard) and disadvantages - new lore of course. Some people dislike it and prefer the old WHFB because of that. Others just ignore parts of the new lore they don't like or actually like it. - WHFB works only with square bases, in AoS you can use square or round (tendency goes to round though, and IIRC some tournaments even require them) We have one or two AoS vs. WHFB threads here on the forums, but be careful reading them, it is a very hot topic for some users here. Here is the most recent one: http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/fantasy-vs-aos.20517/ Tomb Kings look great, they are egyptian undead. They also have a very complete set of units covering everything from Infantry, Cavalry, Monsters and Wizards and even Artillery. EDIT: Oh, and pretty epic stories in the old WHFB lore or at least that's what many people say.
Almost everything in WHFB was more complex than its counterpart in AoS. With much complexity, the "entry barrier" for FB was higher than AoS. Units in AoS don't have a real "front" and "back", units are very free to move, while the core of FB was Rank and File. Napoleonic warfare, so a totally different approach. Magic in FB was a completely different beast. Much more spells, but you have just a limited number of power dices for magic phase. Spells were generally more powerful, more dangerous and less reliable. I'm not going in the debate that less complexity doesn't necessarly means "easier to master" or "less balanced". Both systems got weird aspects of the rules. Tomb Kings are great if you like the idea of a skeletal undead army egyptian style, with pharaoh, chariots, sphinxes, statues and snakes.