PDA

View Full Version : Have Tomb Kings just been squatted?



Dwarf Longbeard
03-12-2014, 17:48
I decided to get back into fantasy just before the End Times started up, I've always enjoyed the variety of armies available and was glad to be getting back to doing Dwarfs and as a second army was looking at doing the Tomb Kings.
On the UK site I've just noticed that their army book is classed as no longer available, now I'm aware of the events in the Nagash book and rumours about combining armies together but for the book to disappear seems a bit of a bad show :(

SteveW
03-12-2014, 18:04
It's no longer available on the US site either. Looks like the rumors of combined army books is either true or Tomb kings are out next month.

Dwarf Longbeard
03-12-2014, 18:15
A new book would be nice (along with new models) but unfortunately I can't see it happening which is a shame, a combined book isn't too bad but it feels like a lot of potential has been lost with them.
If their discontinuing the army then it would have been nice if they sold off the range of models cheaper...wishful thinking I know lol
The other question is which other books might go next?

teddet
03-12-2014, 18:19
A new book would be nice (along with new models) but unfortunately I can't see it happening which is a shame, a combined book isn't too bad but it feels like a lot of potential has been lost with them.
If their discontinuing the army then it would have been nice if they sold off the range of models cheaper...wishful thinking I know lol
The other question is which other books might go next?

Considering you can't play any tomb kings in the end times list without the Tomb King book, i suspect this is a case of the book being temporarily out of print.

Tato
03-12-2014, 18:26
Actully, you should be a happy player since post-ET Tomb Kings are just so much better than before.

Ludaman
03-12-2014, 18:26
Considering you can't play any tomb kings in the end times list without the Tomb King book, i suspect this is a case of the book being temporarily out of print.

Yep. I wouldn't worry just yet

Malagor
03-12-2014, 18:32
Odd tho, if it's temporarily unavailable it usually says so.
Here it says that it's no longer available.

Dwarf Longbeard
03-12-2014, 23:17
It does seem odd that it's sudden;y gone out of stock, it's a really good book if nothing else.
Though I did wonder if it might get re-released as a soft cover book?
With parts of it being included in the Nagash book I'm hoping that they'll still have a good amount of background and a nice individual army, even if they are in a combined book

Spiney Norman
04-12-2014, 08:21
It does seem odd that it's sudden;y gone out of stock, it's a really good book if nothing else.
Though I did wonder if it might get re-released as a soft cover book?
With parts of it being included in the Nagash book I'm hoping that they'll still have a good amount of background and a nice individual army, even if they are in a combined book

Is it really that surprising? The Nagash book book provides a way to play tomb kings which removes their two biggest weaknesses (not marching and crumble), it doesn't surprise me too much that a lot of people might suddenly have gone out to pick up a book that was formerly probably not selling too well, even if that is a lot of vampire players intent on adding a casket/hierotitan to their army.

Did they ever get around to releasing the ibooks edition of tomb kings? I can't find it on the iBooks store, which is probably a better indication since electronic books can't go 'out of stock'.

m1acca1551
04-12-2014, 11:31
Is it really that surprising? The Nagash book book provides a way to play tomb kings which removes their two biggest weaknesses (not marching and crumble), it doesn't surprise me too much that a lot of people might suddenly have gone out to pick up a book that was formerly probably not selling too well, even if that is a lot of vampire players intent on adding a casket/hierotitan to their army.

Did they ever get around to releasing the ibooks edition of tomb kings? I can't find it on the iBooks store, which is probably a better indication since electronic books can't go 'out of stock'.

100% agree with this statement!

Alltaken
04-12-2014, 12:28
Odds are 9th ed combined army books.

Commodus Leitdorf
04-12-2014, 12:31
Or, OR! They just haven't been restocked yet. You know, like Brets who were out of stock for a good long while and when they finally restocked, sold out right away.

ShruikhanTK
04-12-2014, 18:05
Yea I agree with Spiney as well, I don't think they kept a large stock of Tomb King anything. The End times certainly pushed me to buy VC models for my undead army and there are a lot more VC players so I see TK just being bought out, which is good...why? Because Tomb Kings suddenly got popular = more love?.....please?

I already owned the VC book despite playing Tomb Kings, a few VC models, dire wolves, beastial vampire and sold the rest. I added two boxes to hexwraiths, 1 box of spirit host, 1 mortarch. I do plan to make this an official VC army eventually as well. Sales ploy...or just awesome?

Elajanos
04-12-2014, 19:20
TK are gona say by by VC just caught TK both in book and game. VC models are cheaper and they will just take best of TK like the casket or catapults.

Just Tony
04-12-2014, 21:57
My dream would be that they do something like Ravening Hordes, and have all the lists in one book, thus justifying the cost and forcing everyone to have the same book instead of spreading it around to each army.

Urgat
04-12-2014, 22:19
This topic reminds me I still need to get it. Oh, on the French site, the french version is still available, but the English version is noted as, roughly translated, "forever gone". Doesn't sound too good...

SanDiegoSurrealist
04-12-2014, 22:29
It just says sold out, think might be reading to much into the No longer available.
They usually just remove the item completely if discontinued.


204067

SuperHappyTime
04-12-2014, 22:59
It just says sold out, think might be reading to much into the No longer available.
They usually just remove the item completely if discontinued.


If you click on the link it says:

Availability: No Longer Available

Meanwhile, Questing Knights (Also Sold Out) says the following:

Availability: Temporarily out of stock

Will note that Hardback Nagash, Glottkin, and Khaine can't be found (Although they may just be well hidden)

*Fetches Popcorn*

Brother Haephestus
05-12-2014, 00:42
Something interesting to think about as well:

All the characters are limited to the Undead Legions army. However, the Morghasts can be included in either the Legions or the VC armies. But not the TK. I find that ... odd.

forseer of fates
05-12-2014, 00:49
Its not that odd, tk as a faction don't exist anymore, kehmri has been completely annihilated and nehkaraha is nothing but desert. The morghasts are cast down avatars of the sun god given new life from necromancy. I would not worry thou, they are not great for their points, as a vc player I would never consider using them, they are crazily overcosted.

Yowzo
05-12-2014, 07:59
All the characters are limited to the Undead Legions army. However, the Morghasts can be included in either the Legions or the VC armies. But not the TK. I find that ... odd.

Well, the Putrid Blightkings can be used on a Legions or a WoC army.

I don't think that means DoC and BoC are going anywhere.

Asked my LGS and they still have the TK book available for order (though presumably out of stock).

Enigmatik1
05-12-2014, 15:30
Its not that odd, tk as a faction don't exist anymore, kehmri has been completely annihilated and nehkaraha is nothing but desert. The morghasts are cast down avatars of the sun god given new life from necromancy. I would not worry thou, they are not great for their points, as a vc player I would never consider using them, they are crazily overcosted.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. TK won't cease to exist as a faction as long as Settra exists. If they were going truly intent on "squatting" TK, Nagash should've killed Settra when he had the chance (imo, of course).

The Clairvoyant
05-12-2014, 15:43
I spotted that this morning too. But its all ok, its back to just being temporarily out of stock

Scammel
05-12-2014, 15:43
Yes, GW are doing away with an entire plastic line, just like that. /thread

Damn, this new sig is coming in far too handy these days.

snyggejygge
05-12-2014, 15:53
Oh god I hope they are, splitting undead was almost as bad as splitting Chaos!

Col. Tartleton
05-12-2014, 16:05
If I was GW I'd put out a "Ravening Hordes" book, a dedicated "Legions of the Dead" army book, and then four supplements for forces led by Wight Kings, Necromancers, Vampire Counts, and Tomb Kings.

Likewise I'd put out a "Ravening Hordes" book, a dedicated "Hordes of the Dark Gods" army book, and then four supplements for pure Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, and Tzeentch specific hordes.

Then have the "Ravening Hordes" book, a dedicated "Swarms of the Horned Rat" army book, and then four supplements for pure Eshin, Moulder, Pestilens, and Skryre specific swarms.

And so on.

Ravening Hordes would be a completely bare bones straightforward (competitive tuned) army rules only volume as a companion to the core rules for those who are honestly just interested in gaming. Then your traditional general art, lore, and rules army book for those interested in a specific faction. Then lore and art heavy expansions on the core faction list to give more options. Special Characters would be limited to the supplements but they'd get proper treatment there.

Something for everyone and GW gets to print more books and books make them loads of money.

ShruikhanTK
05-12-2014, 20:14
Hmmm...what do you think the chaos gods did to Settra? I seriously doubt he will be a thrall we've already seen that, they restored his body the art work confirms that.....however I wonder if he got a Magical boost, he had always struggled to control magic and he just lopped Khateps head off so there goes our primary caster, scheming wizard had it coming though.

Yes I doubt that this army doesn't exist anymore, it serves GW nothing by deleting armies. Then again GW....doesn't seem to like our money beyond a point of charging crazy costs for plastic. Limited cards you say? Hardbacks? You want to give us money?.....but its limited go pay ebay a cut we're too busy to make more of a product we've already developed.

Liber
05-12-2014, 20:49
I spotted that this morning too. But its all ok, its back to just being temporarily out of stock


has a big SOLD OUT sign and 'no longer available' text on the USA site.


Edit - and it says no longer available on the UK site. where are you seeing this?

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
05-12-2014, 23:57
I'm so sick of this stupid rumour. Why won't it die already?

Squatting an army with a large list of kits already made is idiotic. It's not going to happen. And neither are they going to be "combined with VC," given that there are no overlapping units save skeletons.

The rumour that GW would be combining armies has already happened in the form of the legions lists. They're not going to go and invalidate all these expensive books they put all that work into within 6 months of releasing them.

Gobskrag 'Eadbasha
06-12-2014, 00:41
I really hope that TK will be able to keep their own book and that 9th will just have an allies system based on the Endtimes forces, but if GW isn't bothering to reprint it, it seems unlikely. Maybe they will make combined books. But some of those combinations wouldn't make much sense. If they do make compendiums this is the only way I could see them making sense: (empire and bretonnia) (chaos) (elves) (undead) (dwarves and lizardmen) (OK, orcs & gobbos, skaven). Maybe OK can chill with the dwarves and lizzies. But I really hope everyone keeps their books.

SteveW
06-12-2014, 02:12
Why does everyone keep on about the empire and bretonnia being a combined book? There are very few armies that are less like each other than those two and one of the two would have to lose its identity for it to happen.

So, combining them is squatting the bretonnians and I don't see that happening.

Urgat
06-12-2014, 08:13
I'm so sick of this stupid rumour. Why won't it die already?

Squatting an army with a large list of kits already made is idiotic. It's not going to happen. And neither are they going to be "combined with VC," given that there are no overlapping units save skeletons.

Squatting as in removing the entire line is obviously not gonna happen. Combined back in a Undead AB, however? I have an opposite reading to you to the fact there's no overlapping units. The models available to both armies are complimentary. If you put them both together, just the plastic stuff, you have an complete army, with pretty much nothing redundant (apart from GG/TG). Surprising how well it fits together if you ask me.

And, just for the record, I'm pretty much for them being combined back.

ewar
06-12-2014, 20:10
I don't see why anyone would be 'for' someone else's army getting changed so heavily? I play tomb kings, not vc or generic undead.

I'm happy if it stays the way it is now : two separate armies with a Legion list for anyone who wants to do that.

Muad'Dib
06-12-2014, 20:29
I'm so sick of this stupid rumour. Why won't it die already?

Because it's GW - think of them as Wile E Coyote and it all makes sense. They have squatted entire fully developed and supported games; which had wonderful, detailed fluff as the hallmark in many cases. They have squatted many armies, and given borderline useless rules to some. (Daemons, Sisters of Battle, Beastmen and Tomb Kings at various points. And others.)
They have ignored the results of largely advertised campaigns (Storm of Chaos and Eye of Terror).
It's not a stupid rumor - it might be an unlikely one in your opinion, but with GW, stupidity is the norm. This is a company that has made horribly imbalanced rules the accepted norm within Warhammer community.

The only reason(s) you consider it not possible for them to squat Tomb Kings is either cause you are (relatively) new to Warhammer/GW or have a very short/selective memory.
204154

forseer of fates
06-12-2014, 20:51
Indeed, but you know b4 they split the undead codex up, catapults, chariots, archers and such were all part of one army, will be nice if its all the same again in a proper codex instead of having like three:P

Scammel
07-12-2014, 09:08
They have squatted many armies, and given borderline useless rules to some. (Daemons, Sisters of Battle, Beastmen and Tomb Kings at various points. And others.)

Um, no. Two armies have been squatted (ignoring a bunch of rather tiny sub-factions and one of those armies effectively being an Empire counts-as) and you're being more than a little disingenuous about it. Sisters definitely haven't enjoyed much support, but the other 3 have actually been transformed into fully-supported armies in and of themselves - hell, Daemons get so much love with pretty much annual releases!

'Squatting' rumours have been the norm for the best part of a decade at least. On every occasion for the last 10 or so years they've been false. It's clear who has the selective memory here.

Muad'Dib
07-12-2014, 11:26
Um, no. Two armies have been squatted (ignoring a bunch of rather tiny sub-factions and one of those armies effectively being an Empire counts-as) and you're being more than a little disingenuous about it. Sisters definitely haven't enjoyed much support, but the other 3 have actually been transformed into fully-supported armies in and of themselves - hell, Daemons get so much love with pretty much annual releases!

'Squatting' rumours have been the norm for the best part of a decade at least. On every occasion for the last 10 or so years they've been false. It's clear who has the selective memory here.
Genestealer Cults, Lost and the Damned in 40k, Harlequins in 40k, Dogs of War in WFB - squatted armies. They were fully supported - for relatively short periods, but they were; they even had pretty interesting/robust rules. You could have gone out and put lots of $$$, time, effort and heart into those armies. Then GW just stopped supporting them - either slowly over time or by invalidating their lists with new codex releases that consolidated entire armies into one unit entry or forgot about them outright.

(ignoring a bunch of rather tiny sub-factions and one of those armies effectively being an Empire counts-as)
You know that, if you look at it under the right angle, one could say that the Tomb Kings are, all in all, just another "rather tiny sub-faction" ? ;) Just a bunch of skeletons that can be represented as Vampire Counts count-as. Especially following what happened in ET book.

I don't see what your comment about Daemons is meant to counter or prove - I wrote that some armies have borderline useless rules at some points. Daemons had borderline useless rules for much of 6th edition WFB, and didn't have a standalone army list for much of 3rd-4th edition 40k. Your point that Daemons later got so much love is not relevant to my point.
(Also - Daemons didn't need any "transforming" into a fully supported army. They were a fully supported, standalone army since the early 90s and the original Realms of Chaos books. There was only a relatively brief period in the ~early 2000s that Daemons weren't treated as a standalone army; largely because they had such a useless/barebones list in the WFB Hordes of Chaos army book they 'shared' with mortals.)

Beastmen were denied receiving rank bonus for their mainstay unit, for much of 7th edition, I think? No FAQ for the loathsome, dirty beasts of the forest! And no Marks of Chaos for the True Children of Chaos, either!
Tomb Kings...I'll just suggest you compare the 8th edition update Vampire Counts to what Tomb Kings got. Especially compare stuff like: in 8th edition Vampire Counts received a possibility of a new general arising to stop army crumbling; while Tomb Kings got nothing to mitigate the disadvantages of being undead. The 6th edition Tomb Kings book was very mediocre/weak, as well. The fact that they couldn't march until the ET book is ridiculous.

I really like your euphemism about Sisters simply "not enjoying much support" :) Presenting contrary evidence in the right light et al :D.

Scammel
07-12-2014, 11:35
ignoring a bunch of rather tiny sub-factions

who ended up staging a return in some form or another anyway, I might add.


I don't see what your comment about Daemons is meant to counter or prove - I wrote that some armies have borderline useless rules at some points. Daemons had borderline useless rules for much of 6th edition WFB, and didn't have a standalone army list for much of 3rd-4th edition 40k. Your point that Daemons later got so much love is not relevant to my point.
Beastmen were denied receiving rank bonus for their mainstay unit, for much of 7th edition, I think?

And this is relevant to the future of Tomb Kings how, exactly? I'm not seeing the leap from 'GW publishes rules I don't like' to 'Tomb Kings are going, guys!'

Oh, and Beasts just had 1 less point of rank bonus than other armies to my knowledge, the trade-off being much greater manoeuvrability and mixed units. They had issues, sure, but weren't the worst army in 6th/7th.


I really like your euphemism about Sisters simply "not enjoying much support".

It isn't a euphemism. They haven't enjoyed much support, but they have had some.

Muad'Dib
07-12-2014, 12:00
(ignoring a bunch of rather tiny sub-factions and one of those armies effectively being an Empire counts-as)

who ended up staging a return in some form or another anyway, I might add.
How did Lost and the Damned return? Surely you don't mean the cultist unit? (unless you mean the Vraks lists, which carry, like it or not, the disadvantage(s) of being from Forgeworld)
You know that, if you look at it under the right angle, one could say that the Tomb Kings are, all in all, just another "rather tiny sub-faction" ? ;) This is also part of what I mean by 'selective memory' - if something gets squatted, then surely it deserved it, because it was only a tiny sub-faction (despite the Lost and the Damned actually being the mainstay of Chaos forces in the fluff...)...but if an army receives an army book, then suddenly it is fully justified in it and there's no way it will be squatted in the future, because it is not a minor sub-faction anymore. Pretty Orwellian, if you ask me.

And this is relevant to the future of Tomb Kings how, exactly? I'm not seeing the leap from 'GW publishes rules I don't like' to 'Tomb Kings are going, guys!'
I'm not leaping at it either, but I'm pointing out that it's not that far-fetched either. Maybe not probable, but possible certainly. It is GW, after all.

Oh, and Beasts just had 1 less point of rank bonus than other armies to my knowledge, the trade-off being much greater manoeuvrability and mixed units. They had issues, sure, but weren't the worst army in 6th/7th.
There was a...problem with their rank bonus. The rule in their - written for 6th edition - book said that, upon engaging the enemy, they were supposed to be placed in ranks of four. But in 7th edition, rank bonus was changed to only be received from ranks of five. So beast herds, when played according to their rules, couldn't receive their rank bonus. And this wasn't FAQed...or it was, in the sense that we were told by GW in FAQ that this was the way Beasts were meant to be played now? http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=12770.45;wap2 http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?48958-Beast-herds-and-the-new-rules And this situation lasted for 2006-2010.
And I think they were pretty close to being the worst army in 7th edition hm. Especially once "those" armies started arriving.


It isn't a euphemism. They haven't enjoyed much support, but they have had some.
;) Sure.
Though I'm not sure if you could call the army list they received 'support'...:shifty:

Scammel
07-12-2014, 12:52
How did Lost and the Damned return? Surely you don't mean the cultist unit? (unless you mean the Vraks lists, which carry, like it or not, the disadvantage(s) of being from Forgeworld)

Bar Big Mutants and Hounds, every model in the list can be used in some form or another in a Chaos list. Now, clearly the allies system has issues and Unbound can take a trip down the Squig Drops, but pretty much any LATD army can be fielded with just the smallest modicum of creativity in current 40k even disregarding Vraks (which is an armylist produced by Games Workshop, so.... yeah).


You know that, if you look at it under the right angle, one could say that the Tomb Kings are, all in all, just another "rather tiny sub-faction"?

No, one couldn't say that. They have a greater range of models than several other standalone factions.


There was a...problem with their rank bonus. The rule in their - written for 6th edition - book said that, upon engaging the enemy, they were supposed to be placed in ranks of four. But in 7th edition, rank bonus was changed to only be received from ranks of five. So beast herds, when played according to their rules, couldn't receive their rank bonus. And this wasn't FAQed...or it was, in the sense that we were told by GW in FAQ that this was the way Beasts were meant to be played now?

Fair dos, I was unaware of the situation with the transition to 7th. Still, Ogres beat every other race hands-down for sheer cack in those days.


Sure.

The smileys really don't endear you to anyone.

Col. Tartleton
07-12-2014, 15:36
Plus the Tomb Kings geographically are a great power. Nehekhara is larger than the Empire, nearly as large as the old world.

Bigman
07-12-2014, 16:30
Has anyone mentioned the printing being taken up by other hardbacks?

No doubt GW has regular orders of army books to keep stocked replenished.

However in extreme circumstances, might they then forgo the tomb kings army book or it this cycle in order to put something else through the printers, like for example more End Times hardbacks, as the printers no doubt already have the proofs there for printing?


It would allow GW to get more copies and circumvent te problem of having to queue up production with other retailers who go to the same factory...

Voss
07-12-2014, 18:40
Oh, I hope so.

Bring back the Undead army and a focus on necromancers rather than B movie monsters.

TheMartyr451
08-12-2014, 01:25
If I was GW I'd put out a "Ravening Hordes" book, a dedicated "Legions of the Dead" army book, and then four supplements for forces led by Wight Kings, Necromancers, Vampire Counts, and Tomb Kings.

Likewise I'd put out a "Ravening Hordes" book, a dedicated "Hordes of the Dark Gods" army book, and then four supplements for pure Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, and Tzeentch specific hordes.

Then have the "Ravening Hordes" book, a dedicated "Swarms of the Horned Rat" army book, and then four supplements for pure Eshin, Moulder, Pestilens, and Skryre specific swarms.

And so on.

Ravening Hordes would be a completely bare bones straightforward (competitive tuned) army rules only volume as a companion to the core rules for those who are honestly just interested in gaming. Then your traditional general art, lore, and rules army book for those interested in a specific faction. Then lore and art heavy expansions on the core faction list to give more options. Special Characters would be limited to the supplements but they'd get proper treatment there.

Something for everyone and GW gets to print more books and books make them loads of money.

It would be great if they did this.

HK-47
08-12-2014, 03:48
On the American website it just says temporally out of stock. 204221

Gobskrag 'Eadbasha
08-12-2014, 04:47
On the American website it just says temporally out of stock. 204221
That's the Aussie site dude.

HK-47
08-12-2014, 06:02
That's the Aussie site dude.

Oops sorry. I have it set to America right now and yeah it says sold out no longer available.

Urgat
08-12-2014, 07:02
I don't see why anyone would be 'for' someone else's army getting changed so heavily? I play tomb kings, not vc or generic undead.

I'm happy if it stays the way it is now : two separate armies with a Legion list for anyone who wants to do that.

As if there was any real difference between a legion army with only TK units, and an actual TK army (besides getting access to VC units if you want and a couple better rules).
I'm for because when I started WFB it was undead, not VC and TK, and it was more interesting for more thematical armies. I'm for because it also removes the annoying VC focus on the other book, which makes the necromancers and wight kings pretty much irrelevant. By focusing on the undead as a whole instead of two lord choices among the whole damn lists, maybe the "other" undead will get some love.

Lord Cedric
08-12-2014, 07:21
I don't think TK will get squatted and I personally don't wish them too either. I, too, was playing when it was just 'Undead' and always thought that there seemed to be two or more types. Giving the TK their own faction, background, look, and army book was a good move in my opinion. There definitely is a separation now unit-wise that just seems so uncharacteristically wrong if combined... and the only thing I truly miss from the old 'undead' army is a unit of mummies. ;-)

- Cedric

Lilike
08-12-2014, 07:46
As if there was any real difference between a legion army with only TK units, and an actual TK army (besides getting access to VC units if you want and a couple better rules).
I'm for because when I started WFB it was undead, not VC and TK, and it was more interesting for more thematical armies. I'm for because it also removes the annoying VC focus on the other book, which makes the necromancers and wight kings pretty much irrelevant. By focusing on the undead as a whole instead of two lord choices among the whole damn lists, maybe the "other" undead will get some love.

My initial reaction was similar to ewars, why is the notion of TK being squatted or merged with VC attractive to a large number of people? Does such people not understand that there are individuals who has spent ages collecting, assembling and painting TK armies because they were drawn to the features of the TK army not to the original undead army?

Then on second thought, there were plenty of people who collected, assembled and painted armies consisting of entries from the old fused book that had their armies split into two novel entities each different in theme compared to the original book.

Since I did not collect the original undead army and has an extensive collection of painted TK models I would personally be happy if the TK army remains a separate, continuously supported entity but I realize that this standpoint is that of a heavily invested, special interest group.

Even so, what happens to the TK book may prove relevant to the WFB community as a whole. If TK and VC does indeed merge into a single list with the old armybooks no longer being supported as separate entities then this could suggest that GW is in the midst of consolidating the warhammer range. Such a decision was likely not taken by the games designers who would merely be in charge of implementing a strategy formed by more senior GW staff members.

If a consolidation strategy has indeed been formulated then the TK VC fusion is likely only the first in a series of AB fusions. If such fusions do take place my guess would be that the TK theme would be relatively better preserved in an united undead book than the HE/DE/WE themes will be in an united elf book. Interesting times.

snyggejygge
08-12-2014, 08:06
I don't see why anyone would be 'for' someone else's army getting changed so heavily? I play tomb kings, not vc or generic undead.

I'm happy if it stays the way it is now : two separate armies with a Legion list for anyone who wants to do that.

I played generic undead, my army was a liche lord (not the current boring liches we have in tk) in a big unit of wight cavalry flanked by undead horsemen & chariots, this was my hammer, while my anvil was a huge skeleton unit led by a vampire flanked by mummies & wraiths. This got split down the middle, why would I not wanta return of this army, it felt a lot more like evil dead than the current armies do.
Same thing happened to my chaos army, not to mention what happened to my dogs of war. My armies have been changed or squatted again & again, for Me going back is the best thing ever.
I never liked split up undead or split up chaos, End Times fixes it, maybe not in the most balanced way, but by not being a dick I can play the armies I want to play & keep a semblence of balance.

Rake
08-12-2014, 14:12
I would not be surprised to see TK get the axe. GW mismanaged that release horribly with beautiful monsters and special choices but TERRIBLE core troops and rules. Bringing all of the undead together once more strikes me as sensible as it allows them to sell their good models along a decent rule set.

Just Tony
08-12-2014, 14:55
Plus the Tomb Kings geographically are a great power. Nehekhara is larger than the Empire, nearly as large as the old world.

They had no problem squatting Dogs of War, and they are significant to the fluff. Hell, Ind, Nippon and Cathay are nonstarters. Fluff means nothing when it comes to rules and sales. If TK are underselling despite a few models, they will get folded up into VC with extreme prejudice.

Theocracity
08-12-2014, 15:14
All this talk of squatting seems to ignore the fact that the vast majority of squatted or minimally supported armies don't have plastic kits. The loss of investment in removing metal models from sale is very different than that of plastic models.

That seems like a much bigger flag than relatively meaningless stuff like significance in the fluff or competitiveness of rules.

Muad'Dib
08-12-2014, 15:32
Well, GW squatted entire 9 fully developed games with models, rules et al. (specialist games (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Specialist_Games))
I get your point, but it's GW and I'd say nothing is sacred if they put their mind to it. They did release 40k 7th edition after just two years..

Plus the Tomb Kings geographically are a great power. Nehekhara is larger than the Empire, nearly as large as the old world.
Dogs of War could have been used to make Estalian, Tilean and Border Princes armies; which IMO is indeed more significant than an additional army made to represent egyptian undead (boiling down to constructs and chariots, basically. And the monstrous stuff niche has been also taken by VC with Terrorgheists and Crypt Horrors). Border Princes especially I regard as being very representative of the essence of Warhammer.

Theocracity
08-12-2014, 16:12
Well, GW squatted entire 9 fully developed games with models, rules et al. (specialist games (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Specialist_Games))
I get your point, but it's GW and I'd say nothing is sacred if they put their mind to it. They did release 40k 7th edition after just two years..

Paradoxically I think it's easier for GW to squat an entire game system than an individual army. Sorta like pulling a bandage off quickly. I feel like its similar to how they made the decision about metal - the future cost projections for support weren't worth it, and it wasn't essential to their core money making product (plastic models for Warhammer and 40k). But pulling the previously invested support in their core product - especially for kits where the molds are paid for and whose profit margins are huge - doesn't make as much sense.

Just Tony
08-12-2014, 17:09
Paradoxically I think it's easier for GW to squat an entire game system than an individual army. Sorta like pulling a bandage off quickly. I feel like its similar to how they made the decision about metal - the future cost projections for support weren't worth it, and it wasn't essential to their core money making product (plastic models for Warhammer and 40k). But pulling the previously invested support in their core product - especially for kits where the molds are paid for and whose profit margins are huge - doesn't make as much sense.

They've replaced plastic kits that were still relevant to their armies, which were basically paid for and making nothing but profit. There were even a couple kits which were essentially the same kit but retooled to allow a few extras rather than tooling up an accessory sprue. Chaos Marines and loyalist Marines come to mind right off the bat. I don't put anything past GW at all. How long was it between the Beastherd sprue and the Gor and Ungor sprues? Squatting a book while keeping plastic kits in a combined book seems to be completely within GW's normal operating parameters.

Scammel
08-12-2014, 17:28
They've replaced plastic kits that were still relevant to their armies, which were basically paid for and making nothing but profit. There were even a couple kits which were essentially the same kit but retooled to allow a few extras rather than tooling up an accessory sprue. Chaos Marines and loyalist Marines come to mind right off the bat. I don't put anything past GW at all. How long was it between the Beastherd sprue and the Gor and Ungor sprues? Squatting a book while keeping plastic kits in a combined book seems to be completely within GW's normal operating parameters.

I can assure you that the changes to the Gor and Ungor sprues were definitely not minor enough for an accessory sprue. The extra detail on nearly every component part is extensive.

Theocracity
08-12-2014, 17:31
I can assure you that the changes to the Gor and Ungor sprues were definitely not minor enough for an accessory sprue. The extra detail on nearly every component part is extensive.

Yup. I'm not saying they'll never get rid of a plastic kit, I'm saying they'll rarely do it without offering a replacement that offers an improvement that drives more sales. Tac Marines with a new popular weapon choice, Clanrats that don't look like monkeys, etc.

Edit: And as for being combined into another book, I don't consider that being 'squatted.' And if the Tomb Kings are being rolled up, I think they chose an inefficient method to do it.

Just Tony
08-12-2014, 21:49
I can assure you that the changes to the Gor and Ungor sprues were definitely not minor enough for an accessory sprue. The extra detail on nearly every component part is extensive.


Yup. I'm not saying they'll never get rid of a plastic kit, I'm saying they'll rarely do it without offering a replacement that offers an improvement that drives more sales. Tac Marines with a new popular weapon choice, Clanrats that don't look like monkeys, etc.

Edit: And as for being combined into another book, I don't consider that being 'squatted.' And if the Tomb Kings are being rolled up, I think they chose an inefficient method to do it.

The Beast Herd example was me pointing out that replacing the sprue was only made necessary because of the weapons options. If it wasn't for that, there would be no reason to change it except for the separation of the units, which I guess was another reason. Given the investment in the new tooling for the mixed herd, though, was it really the best decision?

Clanrats, I can buy. Night Goblins, I can buy as the aesthetic changed with the Skull Pass set. Marines? Nope, all it needed was a different command sprue. Same with Chaos. I also think that unnecessary retooling is partially responsible for the severe rate of price increase in our hobby.

Katastrophe
08-12-2014, 21:58
Chaos Dwarfs were squatted through several editions until Forge World decided to revive them. If I remember correctly GW didn't even produce the whole model range prior to squatting them. And there were plenty folks playing the army at the time.

But this discussion begs the question, when is an army squatted?

From time to time armies get 2 editions behind (Brets and WEs in the past now soon to be Skaven). When are they effectively too old to play? Also, can you play an army that doesn't get updated (assuming it's not absorbed into another army (ie Harlequins).? Could I play a Dogs of War army using the old book?

Muad'Dib
08-12-2014, 22:14
A line seems to be drawn when there is a conflict with newly updated rules - like Harlequins having more recent rules in the form of the Harlequin unit in Eldar and Dark Eldar codices. Possibly another line is having absolutely no compatible army list for the current edition - like Genestealer Cults not getting a 3rd edition list (AFAIK).
Other than this - and especially considering the small sample size - I think it's purely a matter of conjecture for when an army is squatted. This is doubly so when we consider the virtually non-existent communication between GW and the community.
I can see someone getting the old Dogs of War 6th edition rules and trying to make them work in the current metagame :P. When I think how rife with imbalance Warhammer is, it could even work, if one could find enough point-efficient stuff in the list.

Theocracity
08-12-2014, 22:51
The Beast Herd example was me pointing out that replacing the sprue was only made necessary because of the weapons options. If it wasn't for that, there would be no reason to change it except for the separation of the units, which I guess was another reason. Given the investment in the new tooling for the mixed herd, though, was it really the best decision?

Clanrats, I can buy. Night Goblins, I can buy as the aesthetic changed with the Skull Pass set. Marines? Nope, all it needed was a different command sprue. Same with Chaos. I also think that unnecessary retooling is partially responsible for the severe rate of price increase in our hobby.

I'm not a Marine player, but I seem to remember some oohs and ahs around here when the new Marines came out, so people liked the redesign in addition to the new equipment. And you're probably right that the retooling drives up prices; after all, GW would rather resell you a whole kit of new Marines to replace the ones you already bought than just sell a $10 bit sprue. That is their (literal) business.

Gobskrag 'Eadbasha
09-12-2014, 00:09
Oops sorry. I have it set to America right now and yeah it says sold out no longer available.

Lol no problem. That happens to me sometimes and I always think "damn another price hike?!" Then I look in the top corner and am slightly relieved, lol.

SuperHappyTime
09-12-2014, 00:13
Lol no problem. That happens to me sometimes and I always think "damn another price hike?!" Then I look in the top corner and am slightly relieved, lol.

What does mean anyway?

Katastrophe
09-12-2014, 00:39
What does mean anyway?

$1.57 as of closing of the market. Lol

Col. Tartleton
09-12-2014, 01:52
What does mean anyway?

Livre or Libra. Or as we say in English "Pound". That's why pounds are abbreviated "lbs" and penny is abbreviated "d" for denier or denarius.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
09-12-2014, 02:16
Squatting as in removing the entire line is obviously not gonna happen. Combined back in a Undead AB, however? I have an opposite reading to you to the fact there's no overlapping units. The models available to both armies are complimentary. If you put them both together, just the plastic stuff, you have an complete army, with pretty much nothing redundant (apart from GG/TG). Surprising how well it fits together if you ask me.

And, just for the record, I'm pretty much for them being combined back.

Combining the two books together would require massively reworking all of the kits. VC have a very clearly-defined gothic theme. TK have an equally clear ancient egyptian theme. The only kit that is even remotely compatible are core VC skeletons.

I say this as someone painstakingly creating an khemric-VC army to match my TK. I thought it would be a simple endeavour, but the only truly straight-across swap has been TK skeletons for VC skeletons. Every model requires substantial conversions to keep the theme consistent. It's not something you can just accomplish with a splash of paint. I think some of the centrepiece Undead Legions units could be helpful to unify a mixed army, but even still you'll have units with vastly disparate theme.

Just Tony
09-12-2014, 02:19
I'm not a Marine player, but I seem to remember some oohs and ahs around here when the new Marines came out, so people liked the redesign in addition to the new equipment. And you're probably right that the retooling drives up prices; after all, GW would rather resell you a whole kit of new Marines to replace the ones you already bought than just sell a $10 bit sprue. That is their (literal) business.

There was barely anything added. Extra weapons, sure, but past that, three or four heads, a shoulder pad, a grenade army. That's it. What GW SHOULD have been focusing on is advertising and growing the market so they could sell sets they already had the tooling done for to new people instead of getting us turbonerds to basically rebuy what we already had. Bonus if they can get some people who have the all pewter forces to upgrade, but past that, I think their focus is off.

Back on topic, though: I don't look at them as being squatted, I look at it as being a renaissance of the older times, and that is what they've been doing across the board.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
09-12-2014, 02:36
There was barely anything added. Extra weapons, sure, but past that, three or four heads, a shoulder pad, a grenade army. That's it. What GW SHOULD have been focusing on is advertising and growing the market so they could sell sets they already had the tooling done for to new people instead of getting us turbonerds to basically rebuy what we already had. Bonus if they can get some people who have the all pewter forces to upgrade, but past that, I think their focus is off.

Back on topic, though: I don't look at them as being squatted, I look at it as being a renaissance of the older times, and that is what they've been doing across the board.

Getting turbonerds to buy new **** has been a cornerstone of their strategy for ages. Ever notice how every book has stinker units that are suddenly amazing in the next book, while last book's heroes languish in nerfs?

Blackguard were all the rage, but then Execs became better. TK only had HW/S tomb guard, but the new kit has halberds which are oodles better. WE went from armybook: forest spirits to Armybook: waywatchers. Every Warriors of Chaos players stuck their footsloggers and chosen stars into the bottoms of their closets to bust out chariots and skullcrushers.

GW loves pandering to nostalgia, but they'll never do that where it doesn't also encourage us to buy more of their product. They're a business...that's their whole purpose for existing. All squatting TK does is **** off a whole bunch of players who spent loads on their army, many of whom don't like combined undead. Why bother when they can produce BOTH combined AND separate TK/VC and pander to both audiences at the same time?

Lilike
09-12-2014, 05:06
All squatting TK does is **** off a whole bunch of players who spent loads on their army, many of whom don't like combined undead. Why bother when they can produce BOTH combined AND separate TK/VC and pander to both audiences at the same time?

One reason would be a consolidation of the ranges. I'm not saying it is happening but at this point it's hardly out of the question.

I have a vague recollection that one of the GW oracles came out and explicitly stated that the discontinuation of WFB has been brought up by senior GW staff. If so, no armybook is really safe from being squatted or merged with another. I would be surprised if TK and VC merges and DoC, WoC and Beastmen stay seperate. With Khaine, the same is true for HE/WE/DE which will be upsetting to a lot of players.

Before end times I would be equally skeptical to all speculation which suggested that one book or another is to be squatted but now I am not so sure. I think the current strategy of GW may be what you suggested with separate armybooks and a book for people to use them together (I would prefer this to be the case) but it may also be consolidation or something entirely different altogether.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
09-12-2014, 05:12
One reason would be a consolidation of the ranges. I'm not saying it is happening but at this point it's hardly out of the question.

I have a vague recollection that one of the GW oracles came out and explicitly stated that the discontinuation of WFB has been brought up by senior GW staff. If so, no armybook is really safe from being squatted or merged with another. I would be surprised if TK and VC merges and DoC, WoC and Beastmen stay seperate. With Khaine, the same is true for HE/WE/DE which will be upsetting to a lot of players.

Before end times I would be equally skeptical to all speculation which suggested that one book or another is to be squatted but now I am not so sure. I think the current strategy of GW may be what you suggested with separate armybooks and a book for people to use them together (I would prefer this to be the case) but it may also be consolidation or something entirely different altogether.

Consolidation makes no sense. The existing model range doesn't support it. The two armies don't go together as-is. How many times must this be said.

As for WHFB being dropped, that's just baseless speculation. There is no evidence whatsoever to support it. The closest is an informal survey of US-only hobby stores saying that WHFB has been displaced as the second most popular tabletop wargame. That doesn't mean it isn't profitable, and it doesn't mean GW has adequate reason to drop it.

...but this is the internet, where baseless speculation is the rule rather than the exception.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lilike
09-12-2014, 05:31
Consolidation makes no sense. The existing model range doesn't support it...

As for WHFB being dropped, that's just baseless speculation. There is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

...but this is the internet, where baseless speculation is the rule rather than the exception.



The ranges don't blend well together nor does the background. I am very invested in TK and would be sad to see them be folded into a single book with VC for many many reasons but that is beside the point.

It is speculation but it is not baseless, from Harry:

- Stopping development of WHFB altogether .... I heard it was discussed clearly they decided to try something else.
- Squatting several key armies .... I heard it was discussed and what survives may not be recognisable in 9th
- Dropping ranked units for skirmishing round based individuals .... I heard it was discussed.

Some more from Harry (which he admits is speculation but he typically knows more than we do):

I can't see them throwing out everything they have done either ... but the only way to own the IP is to loose all the generic Fantasy that other companies can copy ... normal Dwarves, Elves and sure as heck you have to get rid of the historical based human armies ... or you can go build an Empire or Bretonnian army from anyone's miniatures.
I can't see them getting rid of any armies either ... but they can not continue to support all of them so some of them have to go or some get mashed together.
I can't see them wanting to reduce the number of minis you need .... but if it costs too much to complete an army people don't even start an army ...so is it better to sell some minis for a scaled down game or no minis? Is it better to ramp up the Lords and monsters allowance and keep on selling the big kits so an army is 'more tanks and less infantry' and thus less minis and easier to paint .... or sell no minis.

Simple fact is so many people have so many armies now unless they do something drastic with the look of the armies no-one is buying enough minis. The only way to force folks to buy new stuff is if we cannot use our current stuff. Some folks may refuse to buy the new stuff on principal ..... what do they care? They were not buying the stuff anyway as they already had their army. Imagine how badly Fantasy must be selling compared to 40K if anyone even thought about knocking it on the head for even a moment .... they must be thinking .... it can't make things any worse!!! What have we got to loose??? But if they are doing this why even bother completing 8th edition? Why do all the books?

Urgat
09-12-2014, 07:14
If I remember correctly GW didn't even produce the whole model range prior to squatting them.

Afair, you remember wrong. Can't think of any unit that didn't get a model, even the SC got theirs.


Combining the two books together would require massively reworking all of the kits. VC have a very clearly-defined gothic theme. TK have an equally clear ancient egyptian theme.

No it wouldn't. You're assuming combining means removing themes. A combined book would just be TK and VC in the same book. It'd be up to people to decide to mix the models or not. I've never heard of anybody complaining about mixing forest and night goblins, and they're as thematicaly opposed as can be, they're like the wood elves and dwarfs of the goblin world.
Remember, the VC and TK themes were in the Undead book already, Sylvania existed, Nehekara existed and so on.
The problem here, maybe, is that people don't know what the Undead book was. The only real difference is that back then someone wanting to make a TK-themed army didn't have much models available for it. A good exemple would be if we used to have a goblin AB and an orc AB, and they got merged into what we have now.

HK-47
09-12-2014, 07:38
Lol no problem. That happens to me sometimes and I always think "damn another price hike?!" Then I look in the top corner and am slightly relieved, lol.

Yeah, I've done it so many times. I'm lucky that I barely order anything from their website.

I don't think they are being squatted but to be honest I don't really understand the point of doing such a major update. Was Fantasy doing so bad they needed to change it so dramatically?

dalezzz
09-12-2014, 08:06
The ranges don't blend well together nor does the background. I am very invested in TK and would be sad to see them be folded into a single book with VC for many many reasons but that is beside the point.

It is speculation but it is not baseless, from Harry:

- Stopping development of WHFB altogether .... I heard it was discussed clearly they decided to try something else.
- Squatting several key armies .... I heard it was discussed and what survives may not be recognisable in 9th
- Dropping ranked units for skirmishing round based individuals .... I heard it was discussed.

Some more from Harry (which he admits is speculation but he typically knows more than we do):


GW management1 : " so what we going to do with fantasy? Any good ideas on warseer?"
GW management2 : " Usual stuff about cancelling it , deleting Armys... Oh and round bases"
Rest of GW management " Hahahaah , what a bunch of tools "

there , those topics have all been " discussed" :)

Lilike
09-12-2014, 08:16
GW management1 : " so what we going to do with fantasy? Any good ideas on warseer?"
GW management2 : " Usual stuff about cancelling it , deleting Armys... Oh and round bases"
Rest of GW management " Hahahaah , what a bunch of tools "

there , those topics have all been " discussed" :)

Haha great stuff :D