So rummaging through the AoS app I found the tomb kings warscrolls. So in theory, could we use tomb kings warscrolls under say legion of sacrament? I randomly drafted a shooting heavy list as befits the AoS meta but with some refinement this could be scary Allegiance: Legion of Sacrament Mortal Realm: Shyish Royal Warsphinx (440) - Bladed Tail - Artefact: Ethereal Amulet Tomb King (100) - Dynastic Blade & Shield Tomb Queen (120) - General 30 x Skeletal Legionnaires (240) 20 x Skeletal Legionnaires (160) 10 x Tomb Guard (160) - Bronze Halberd 6 x Ushabti (240) - Great Bow 6 x Ushabti (240) - Great Bow 30 x Skeleton Archers (300) Total: 2000 / 2000 Extra Command Points: 0 Allies: 0 / 400 Wounds: 161 @NIGHTBRINGER want to try AoS now?
I can respect that, I was wondering if you wanted to beat the crap out of those golden poster boys in the name of Settra, the one true ruler
No interest at all. They don't even exist in my game and that is the way I prefer it. Plus I very much prefer the increased complexity of WFB. Tomb Kings are now a discarded race in AoS, but even before that, I had no interest.
The two running theories are... they didn't sell well enough the IP was difficult to protect Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if more armies got the ax in the future. With GW continually releasing new armies, the game will eventually get unwieldy. Some of the old stuff will eventually have to go in order to make way for the new stuff. Even outside of Tomb Kings and Bretonnia, we've seen it on a smaller level as units/models get cut and discontinued.
Agreed there, AoS might be more simplified and somewhat enjoyable but they need to tone down their army production. What they instead need to do is find a mid point between balancing old armies and editing them and releasing new armies. They are churning out to much stuff and as a result to much stuff feels haphazard and unbalanced. My concern is that power creep is now taking over and all the old stuff will get the cut. still think it’s stupid to chop Breton is and tk as they were some of the coolest stuff they had to offer. Brett o is because classic fantasy knights and tk cause they are just cool
It will be interesting to see how the game progresses over the next couple of years. I just don't see their current system remaining viable unless they start to get rid of more old stuff. Maybe it will turn into a revolving door sort of system as units are continually pushed out to make room for the new ones being produced.
I hate revolving door systems in model games. You spend years to invest in your army and boom it’s gone. It’s not viable as GW is so expensive. One thing that initially attracted me to AoS was that it was relatively stable (this was about 2 years ago) with power creep not being that blatant. Recently this seems to have changed significantly with them churning out half developed armies...
I agree. Of course, this is just speculation on my part. Maybe they won't go down that route. At this point they have only gotten rid of legacy stuff from the old WFB days.
Yeah, it’s grim that they got rid of the old fantasy stuff as it was pretty cool. I just really hope They don’t go down a revolving door route as that would suck
Pretty much. The current trend is atrocious. As far as i loved WHFB, GW made the right call in cutting it down.... it hurts me to say so (sorry @NIGHTBRINGER) , but that game was not selling good. 6th ed was excellent, and also 7th was good, but the game was being strangled by its own weight, with a bar set very high for beginners. The game community of WFB was not growing, and old players were buying less and less. One of the good things of AoS was the constant refreshing of rules and points adjustments, tnx to yearly releases of the GHB, thus mitigating the issues of "my army sucks" or "that thing's broken". But now, instead of pushing the game toward a balanced version, they are pushing it toward a continuous power creep, deleting old models and constantly evolving the meta, "forcing" players to buy new books / models / armies. which is understandable from their greedy pov, but it's not healthy for the game, and for the future of it. Discontinued and prideful Settra will have his revenge.
It's not really a fair comparison because the GW behind WFB 8th edition is not the same as the GW behind current day AoS. 8th edition received virtually no support. There was no community page. There was no fan interaction. There were no trailers. There was no YouTube painting channel. There was no story progression. There were no bundles that actually saved you money. There was very little in the way of FAQs (which would take years to arrive). Interestingly enough, as soon as they started to spice things up with the End Times, it sold exceptionally well. Also note, that under the same system, early AoS sold extremely poorly. If it wasn't for the changes that Rountree and company brought in, it would have failed.
True, but that was not my point. My point was that GW, during the course of the years, forced WHFB into a corner, adding rules upon rules upon rules... Leaving aside money, the entry level difficulty was staggering, and while the gamers were still numerous, the incoming new blood was virtually absent and old players, sooner or later, would have stopped playing. It's no good if you want to sell a product. To support a complex system won't bring new players, unless you tone down the complexity. SO, the alternative were basically 3: - cancel fantasy; - erase WFB and launch a totally new system - rewrite WFB, trimming the fat from it, with a new rulebook of no more than 40 pages, full release of new codex for each army, new models and possibly a couple of new armies. We all know how it ended.
I disagree. I don't think the rules were the downfall of WFB. I think it was all the supplementary points I raised in my previous post. If GW had released 9th edition with only relatively minor changes that are typical of edition to edition updates BUT changed their business practices as they recently did for AoS and 40k, WFB would have thrived. Of course, no one will ever truly know and this is admittedly speculation on my part. Alternatively they could have kept WFB alongside of AoS. As the games would share the same models, GW could effectively sell their product to players from both game systems. AoS would act as an "entry level game" (because it is easier for new players to learn) and WFB would act as its more complex/sophisticated counterpart for those that can handle the increased level of complexity and tactical play. The only thing it would cost GW would be to produce some rules for both game systems (which is relatively cheap, especially as the same artwork could be used in both). Don't get me wrong, this isn't the way I would actually want it to pan out. Oddly enough, I'm actually pretty happy with the state of WFB. It remains forever free of nonsense like SCE and Ossiarch Bonereapers. However, from a sales point of view, it seems like essentially free money as you can sell models to players of WFB without having to invest in model design and molds (because they have already been made to service AoS).
Oh, that would have been a smart idea and a wise development for the fantasy. But that would require GW to be able to accomplish such a level of good planning.
Yup. Maybe CEO Rountree might have done it, but the decision to kill WFB was made long before his time.
*Cough* Battalion boxes *Cough* Also note, that under the same system, early AoS sold extremely poorly. If it wasn't for the changes that Rountree and company brought in, it would have failed. Yes indeed, early AoS was reviled by the old Fantasy fanbase and didn't attract as many new people as they were hoping for. In addition to the changes you mentioned, I think bringing back the grimdark with the more recent lore in Malign Portents e.t.c also helped AoS to get on its feet as it drew in quite a few more players who had previously liked some of the other races but were put off by all the noblebright Sigmarine stuff. I also agree here. GW have had the opportunity to make a really balanced game what with their new policy of releasing the General's Handbook every year and frequent FAQs in between, but they keep upping the power of specific armies they like the most until it becomes an arm's race, principally to appeal more to powergamers - because all the armies have different power levels, more powergamers are attracted to the game because there are obvious stronger armies with more broken combinations. When they spot these combinations, they will often shell out crazy amounts of money to secure those winning combos. Then, GW can shift the meta to get them to shell out even more cash on other armies. If the game was fully-balanced, on the other hand, powergamers would be less attracted to play the game because there would be no obviously superior armies to automatically go for, there would be fewer deluges of cash from that audience and GW would lose their custom from that sect of the hobby. I agree that encouraging this type of gamer culture to make money is hideous (40K has been permanently ruined now because of this exact reason, and AoS will go the same way if GW are not careful), but I also see why GW do it, to make Even though Fantasy does have its balance problems, it never got as bad as 40K has become, and AoS is becoming, and perhaps its execution was the one thing that spared it from this fate.
Yes... you are correct. Although the savings never seemed as good as the "Start Collecting..." boxes (though I could be wrong). Very true. That is why I think that it is unfair to say that WFB couldn't have been made to be successful. It is also why I think that it is not quite accurate to believe that AoS outsells WFB purely on its own merits. Truth be told, we just don't know and will likely never know. My only point is that there are confounding variables that cloud the validity of any direct comparisons between the two systems. Does that mean that you might one day lose all interest in AoS? Fyreslayers (from a gaming standpoint)?