PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer today through the goggles of the past: a plea



Bubble Ghost
20-09-2009, 13:41
I've been away from the Warhammer scene mostly since the start of 7th ed. Enthusiastically returning to it now that I'm putting my foot down at work for more predictable hours off, I get back to reading up on it on forums like this. I find a new piece of jargon I don't recognise, which can only have appeared since the start of 7th ed and which I initially had to look up:

Deathstar.

I did some more reading. It seems there is something of a resigned attitude in many quarters, which is basically this:



"You aren't playing Warhammer any more when you play Warhammer, you're just having a special rule manhood-measuring contest that's over before it starts: either your mega-unit can beat your opponent's mega-unit, in which case you win, or it can't, in which case you lose. Regardless of what 7th ed army you play, you have a way of pumping up a unit of your choice with the same array of powerful special rules making them completely untouchable for anything but your opponent's equivalent. You can't break them because they're stubborn, you can't autobreak them because they're either immune to fear or cause it, you can't outfight them because they're disproportionately harder than anything else, outmanoeuvring them is futile because your flanking units will be swatted like flies… Used to be that putting all your eggs in one basket was a calculated risk, but these days GW have decided to hand players armour-plated reinforced baskets with machine gun posts to make sure no one can break their £60-a-unit eggs."


My renewed enthusiasm for Warhammer is already waning before I've even got my minis back out of the loft in the face of this dejection. I was already fairly alarmed as a Dark Elf player that I no longer seem to have any tradeoffs to make, I can quite easily include all the best stuff because none of it takes up anywhere near enough points and there is zero competition for composition slots. Is that now the norm? Is the only way to have a chance of winning these days to either pick a "deathstar" of my own or a gunline to mow it down with? Are we back to the dark days of 5th edition herohammer and invincible elites?

In short, has Warhammer become what I used to look down on 40K for being…?

So please, for the love of god, someone tell me they genuinely have as much fun with Warhammer these days as they did towards the end of 6th ed, before I give up before I've even started.

Condottiere
20-09-2009, 13:50
Find an army that everyone agrees isn't that much of a threat.

Geep
20-09-2009, 13:59
Although there's a lot of whining on warseer about Deathstars and ultimately powerful characters and combos it all comes down to your gaming group-

Do you play against people who will fiel the most powerful lists they can, and who don't care for anything other than winning?

Do you play against people who love fluff, or who take models because they look cool?

If the first situation applies to you then you'll have to adjust to it or find a different group to play with, but in my experience most people follow the second scenario in regular games.

In short, the game is what you (and your opponents) make of it. (a sell-out answer, but still true)

swarmofseals
20-09-2009, 14:09
Disclaimer: I did not play warhammer at all during 6th edition, although I did play during 5th edition.

There are significant balance problems in Warhammer today. Most of these imbalances are due to poor army book writing rather than fundamental design philosophy flaws. For example, I'd say that 5th edition had perhaps better balance between books but much worse fundamental design.

There has been a proliferation of army wide special rules, but I think that people exaggerate the effect this has on the game. Games are only decided before they are played when one player is picking a bottom tier army and the other a high tier army. There really is a vast mid tier in this game: Skaven, Tomb Kings, Brets, Empire, Dwarves, Wood Elves, High Elves, Lizardmen, and Warriors of Chaos can all make solid lists that can compete against all but the cheesiest the big three have to offer, and some of those that I mentioned have builds that are arguably as hard as ANYTHING the big three can muster. Similarly, Dark Elves, Daemons, and VC can all be designed with fairness in mind. It's actually really easy to create fair DE and VC lists. The only one that takes real effort is Daemons, imo.

Army wide special rules change the way the game is played, yes, but they force you to think about different ways of approaching your enemy and, in my opinion, that is mostly a good thing.


Also, and this is the most important point, YOU can balance the game yourself. If you don't want to play matches that are decided before they start then don't bring WAAC lists and don't play against others who do. I know in an ideal world game balance shouldn't be left in the players hands, but I say it's a lot better to take control of your gaming experience than it is to go QQ endlessly on the internet about how bad the game is.

I'm having a lot of fun playing in 7th edition -- it's way better than 5th, I'd say. It's far from perfect, but it's still a very fun game as long as you understand what aspects of the game you enjoy and tailor your experience to that.

Axis
20-09-2009, 14:14
I've been away from the Warhammer scene mostly since the start of 7th ed. Enthusiastically returning to it now that I'm putting my foot down at work for more predictable hours off, I get back to reading up on it on forums like this. I find a new piece of jargon I don't recognise, which can only have appeared since the start of 7th ed and which I initially had to look up:

Deathstar.

I did some more reading. It seems there is something of a resigned attitude in many quarters, which is basically this:



"You aren't playing Warhammer any more when you play Warhammer, you're just having a special rule manhood-measuring contest that's over before it starts: either your mega-unit can beat your opponent's mega-unit, in which case you win, or it can't, in which case you lose. Regardless of what 7th ed army you play, you have a way of pumping up a unit of your choice with the same array of powerful special rules making them completely untouchable for anything but your opponent's equivalent. You can't break them because they're stubborn, you can't autobreak them because they're either immune to fear or cause it, you can't outfight them because they're disproportionately harder than anything else, outmanoeuvring them is futile because your flanking units will be swatted like flies… Used to be that putting all your eggs in one basket was a calculated risk, but these days GW have decided to hand players armour-plated reinforced baskets with machine gun posts to make sure no one can break their £60-a-unit eggs."


My renewed enthusiasm for Warhammer is already waning before I've even got my minis back out of the loft in the face of this dejection. I was already fairly alarmed as a Dark Elf player that I no longer seem to have any tradeoffs to make, I can quite easily include all the best stuff because none of it takes up anywhere near enough points and there is zero competition for composition slots. Is that now the norm? Is the only way to have a chance of winning these days to either pick a "deathstar" of my own or a gunline to mow it down with? Are we back to the dark days of 5th edition herohammer and invincible elites?

In short, has Warhammer become what I used to look down on 40K for being…?

So please, for the love of god, someone tell me they genuinely have as much fun with Warhammer these days as they did towards the end of 6th ed, before I give up before I've even started.

The amount of deathstars in real life is much smaller than the internet would have you believe. They are also not quite as tough to beat as some would have you believe (though they are no piece of cake).

The enjoyment of warhammer comes a lot from who you play it with. If everyone has the same expectations then its an absolute blast.

NecronBob
20-09-2009, 14:18
I've played in a few tournaments in my area and have never seen a deathstar. Maybe they just haven't reached us yet, but I think most people still want to play sporting matches. Now, if you head to 'Ard Boyz or a GT, I'd imagine that you'll see a few. But if you and your regular opponents agree to keep that kind of stuff out of your games, it doesn't matter if some dude on the internet has a list with 4 vampires stuck in a unit of 40 Grave Guard with the regeneration banner.

So yes, I play games in my home and have a blast. I go to tournaments and have a blast. There are far more sporting players than not, making the nots easy to avoid.

Edit: Axis beat me to the punch.

Alathir
20-09-2009, 14:38
People can't get frustrated and stop playing or they can keep playing. I'd personally prefer to keep playing. Change the rules if you dont like them, modify the units if you dont like them. Whinging about how the end is nigh and they've now ruined what was apparently the greatest and most perfectly balanced game in the history of time will you get you no-where.

Bubble Ghost
20-09-2009, 14:46
Who's whinging? I have no basis to whinge, that's why I'm asking. I don't recall saying things were flawless before either.

rtunian
20-09-2009, 16:18
yes, the internet is full of epeen-wavers, but the internet is also a very, very small percentage of the population. warseer posters are probably 2-10% of warhammer players. so don't get discouraged because some johnny-bagga-douches on warseer are being... well... douchers.

sure, when you go to tournaments, you are going to find a disproportionate amount of waac-o's, but that's to be expected. it's a competition, and many people don't compete unless they think they can win. sure, some compete for fun of it, or to see how far their ultra-soft list can go, but those are probably the minority.

as others have said, it all depends on the people you play with. if your area has any kind of gaming community, then you'll probably find at least a few people who enjoy the game of warhammer for what it is... a social hobby for painters/collecters.

Bubble Ghost
20-09-2009, 16:48
It's certainly true that it's mostly down to your opponents. Thinking about it, I should perhaps refine the question: I guess what I'm really asking is whether the army books are becoming increasingly permissive of this type of thing, with it being left up to players to restrain themselves if they want a balanced game..?

guillaume
20-09-2009, 17:14
The answer to your question is Yes. It can be done with most of the newer army books.

BUT, there is a very good counterattack against deathstars which is why you don't see them much on the table.

Good players just ignore them. You are facing a 700pts invincible unit, just ignore it. Kill all the other units and you'll win the game.

It is THAT simple.

Whilst it is not a too many eggs in 1 basket anymore (as you mentioned), it is a case of 1 big egg that opponents won't touch with a barge pole. The death star owner becomes frustrated with the unit because it doesn't recoup its costs.

That is why you see few death stars on the table. You try them once and realize they are not worth it because you lost the game because everything else was killed and you can only contest 1 quarter of the table (leaving another 300VPs for your opponent).

We talk about them a lot in this forum, but purely as an exercise in unit construction.

Jedi152
20-09-2009, 17:15
Hmm, i was wondering where you were the other day. Welcome back!

Sadly, i feel that the game is going downhill lately. I having played in about a year, concentrating on WFRP instead.

The state of power creep in the last few army releases has gone through the roof. Points are being dropped like mad to force people to buy more models to the detriment of the game. 4 point marauders? Crazy.

Every army is almost the same now - all lizardmen armies have lots of stegadons, all vampire counts have bloodknights etc. Army lists are full of dead units that no-one takes, and you're ridiculed by other players if you do.

A lot of the problem lies in the hands of gamers. Tournaments are won by the most cheesy armies and inflates the egos of the players who sneer at players under them. People laugh at players that take zombies and swarms.

It's not as bad as 40k, but it's getting there.

DDogwood
20-09-2009, 17:20
It's certainly true that it's mostly down to your opponents. Thinking about it, I should perhaps refine the question: I guess what I'm really asking is whether the army books are becoming increasingly permissive of this type of thing, with it being left up to players to restrain themselves if they want a balanced game..?

I've been playing Warhammer for around 15 years, and I don't think that the army books are increasingly permissive of this. I remember Undead armies with huge units of Wraiths that were nigh-unbeatable, because most armies didn't have any units that could make magical attacks. I remember animosity-free Orc armies that had Black Orcs leading every unit. I remember Chaos Lords on flying mounts who simply couldn't be beaten in combat, and who would destroy low-Ld armies in turn 2 by assassinating the enemy general.

The change that I've seen is that players have become more permissive of this kind of stuff. It used to be that someone would pull out a cheesy combo once, everyone would have a good laugh, and then agree that it wasn't fun to play that army so we'd never see the list again. At least, this is how it worked in gaming groups in 3 different cities where I lived and played WFB.

In the last several years, there's been a major shift towards seeing tournaments as the "real" gaming environment, with "casual" or "friendly" games being the exception rather than the rule. It seems to me that this started around the time Tuomas Pirinen started working for GW, not that it's his fault. That's brought with it a raft of win-at-any-cost army lists, and an attitude that it's OK to base your army of of some horrible cheese-fest that someone posted on the internet. The response to this new attitude was to make army composition rules and sportsmanship scores part of the tournament scene, instead of remaking 'tournaments' into 'conventions' (which would be an excuse to play a bunch of games and show off your armies, and where there are no prizes for winning).

In my mind, bringing unbalanced lists is similar to cheating, because it entails one player putting his own need to win ahead of everyone else's goal of having fun. While bringing unbalanced lists might not be as unethical as outright cheating, it's certainly as pathetic to think that coming up with an overpowered combo represents any sort of "skill".

Alathir
20-09-2009, 17:20
Who's whinging? I have no basis to whinge, that's why I'm asking. I don't recall saying things were flawless before either.

Wasn't saying you were, but rather the people out there who do, I wouldn't bother listening to.

Draconian77
20-09-2009, 18:01
Deathstars do exist(Don-Don-Don! :D), but like everything in Warhammer they do have their weaknesses.

Now, assuming that you don't have the hard counter, normally it's a simple matter of redirecting the unit. This will take it out of the game for 2-3 turns of a 6 turn game. (A 6 turn game where the 1st turn normally sees little to no action in terms of combat.)

Now, the only Deathstar that I see as genuinely unfair is a Vampire Counts one, because being able to cast Van Hels multiple times per turn allows them to migitate(or in many cases ignore) the only available option to counter them.

At the end of the day, it's still not as big a problem as say, the need for artillery against large flying monsters, or the imbalances between infantry and cavalry. Just my 2 cents.

Nephilim of Sin
20-09-2009, 18:14
I agree with DDogwood in the fact that this is really nothing new, just a different extension of the same problems we have always had. We had HEROHAMMER in 4th/5th, which was focused on using ultra-powerful special characters and minimal infantry.

*Except that no one remembers the fact that despite the MASSIVE 50% you could spend on characters, your command was taken from that. Not to mention there were restrictions in each book (i.e. in order to take a Black Orc leader, there must be at least 1 unit of Black Orcs...etc...). Once you actually take everything into account, you are spending the same amount of characters (and, with some armies, more) than before, except some infantry have gotten cheaper to allow more models on the table.

Then, in 6th, we had reduced frontage requirements, which was supposedly changed because there were constant sights of 'long columns of infantry with only a four frontage', and that didn't fit the image of the game (which I never really saw these, but, again, I think it was just a way to ensure more models made the tabletop). But this was the age of the one-trick pony, where you had SAD (and other army equivalent lists) and massive powergaming, while Storms of Chaos had created 'hugely broken armies'.

*Although many people seem to prefer this era, I wonder if it is just because that is when they started. Not to mention that there still was 'power-creep', just look at such armies like Dark Elves, which had to be redone, and Dwarves, which had their 7th edition book published under the 6th edition system. Not to mention the long gap where Wood Elves didn't get an update until almost the very end of 6th. And then they were the 'most broken army'.

Which brings us to 7th. Which has Deathstars. No wait, it has power creep. Wait, it is like HEROHAMMER again. No, wait, there is less focus on infantry....

*People are going to have complaints. The system is not perfect, but it is usually most perfect for the edition we mainly played in. Yes, we have Death Stars (which have a weakness, hence their name), and this usually requires a huge investment both points-wise and money-wise to pull off. Yes, there is power creep, although it is really only the O&G book that completely feels this (I am only saying that since it is a real 7th edition book... Ogres, Beastmen and the rest are feeling it because they are not updated), and that is only because they changed their mind on how to make the system work. Yes, we can use special characters, but it is not Herohammer, not that I found Herohammer to even be that bad (as it was a Deathstar of another name), i.e. it could be dealt with. Just like it can be now. As for less focus on infantry, we are back to needing more just to get that rank bonus.

The point is, everyone had something to complain about with each system, and each system was completely Broken. Yeah, there are legitimate problems, but there always have been. Look up some of the 'hate' threads from the archives, just to refresh all the complaints there were with 6th. The difference is just that they fixed one problem, so another problem arose. They will fix that when 8th comes around, and we will have something completely new to complain/worry about.

Condottiere
20-09-2009, 19:00
Deathstars that can be diverted, great. Deathstars that have shooting and 360 sight, awkward.

Seville
20-09-2009, 19:36
It's certainly true that it's mostly down to your opponents. Thinking about it, I should perhaps refine the question: I guess what I'm really asking is whether the army books are becoming increasingly permissive of this type of thing, with it being left up to players to restrain themselves if they want a balanced game..?

In short, no.

You honestly should not put to much stock into what you read here on Whineseer. There's a very small, very vocal minority who, for whatever reason, seem to hate GW and Warhammer, yet have about 4,000 posts discussing it. I suspect they don't actually play the game. Instead they pore over the rulebooks and theorize about every potential abuse that could possibly ever come up and whine about it very loudly from their parents' basement.

Deathstars are far from unkillable. They are still a calculated risk.

Warhammer is still a fun game. Just jump back in. You won't be disappointed.

rtunian
20-09-2009, 21:24
*Although many people seem to prefer this era, I wonder if it is just because that is when they started.

it's a case of
everything was better when i was younger !! ! !!
syndrome

sulla
20-09-2009, 21:47
So please, for the love of god, someone tell me they genuinely have as much fun with Warhammer these days as they did towards the end of 6th ed, before I give up before I've even started.I've never played a GW game where someone didn't try to deathstar, or something equivalent (lik stacking one side of the field with titans, etc).

Basically, it always comes down to you. Either you give in and play them at their own game (which typically becomes a rock/paper/scissors game of who has the most powerful deathstar), or you go the other way and make an army that can slow down/hurt that massive points sink while monstering the rest of his army. your DE are emminently capable of either option. I win plenty of games while ignoring the deathstar completely, and have just as much fun as I have with every other game I played. You definately shouldn't give up now BG. 7th ed DE have the tools to construct an army at any level of competition. You don't have to just take the most useful stuff (I doubt you would anyway). You can tailor your army to the level of your opponent's list and have a fun game with several different armystyles.

Actually, there is a third option; make up more complex missions. Deathstars and gunlines suit pitched battles where the goal is to kill each other and everything else is just icing on the cake. make mission where multiple buildings must be held and both armies are reduced in power while the requirement for more infantry becomes increased, further reducing the points available for big deathstars and extra shooting/magic units. Make the points on offer per turn, per building occupied and that deathstar is worth no more than 10 basic grunts because it simply can't rack up, nor prevent the enemy racking up serious vps. just an idea.

Caligula
20-09-2009, 23:31
I agree with, Seville, Bubble Ghost, jump back in and have a blast. I'm still playing games and having a great time, and for the most part, ignore the vast majority of power creep/deathstar/whatever moanings that seem to permeate many of the discussions here on Warseer as of late. For the most part, it's still a game about having fun with two or more beautifully painted and characterful armies played on some sweet terrain, and it's a ball.

Don't be put off by all the negativity that seems to dwell here and on other forums, Bubble Ghost, as I find them far from the reality of the situation when playing Warhammer. I'm having a great time with it, and I think it's a great time to get back into it. It is what you make it, of course(not that I need to tell you that!), and that's that. I would love to see the mighty Bubble Ghost back in action around here too, by the way. Welcome back...hopefully.

DDogwood
21-09-2009, 02:46
it's a case of
everything was better when i was younger !! ! !!
syndrome

Sometimes, as in my case, it's kids these days! syndrome. Many things are better than when I was younger - the current WFB rules are better, but still not nearly as good as they could be. 40k has really gone downhill, sadly, but I prefer skirmish games, so I liked 40k better when 40 Space Marines comprised a 2,000 point army.

Overall, the minis these days are better quality, and the plastics are brilliant, even if it's all far too expensive.

Johnnyfrej
21-09-2009, 03:04
In short, has Warhammer become what I used to look down on 40K for being…?

You'd be surpirsed by how many people I hear say that. Thank the Warp for 5th Ed and people that can actually write good army books (I <3 you Cruddace).

Seville
21-09-2009, 04:21
You'd be surpirsed by how many people I hear say that. Thank the Warp for 5th Ed and people that can actually write good army books (I <3 you Cruddace).

Yeah, completely agreed. 5th ed made some big improvements to the mechanics of the game and addressed a lot of the huge, stupid balance issues of 3.5 (which was known as "4th" edition, for some reason). I enjoy 40k much more under 5th ed.

dwarfhold13
21-09-2009, 05:30
i must have the most engineer way of looking at building a list, because i just can't bring myself to put that many points in one unit.
hardly do i ever bring more than 3 characters too just to get more on the table.
the necessity of special and rare choices is all in the army selection as well. but on the term of deathstar, i know it's really tough to get rid of, and yes a new version of hero hammer is back, but it honestly makes the game all too boring and predictable. as long as i've played around town, i still have yet to see a deathstar army on a local table, and the only time i've seen one was at the lonewolf tournament with the VC list..
find a good group of guys (and gals) to play with and keep it friendly, and i say, welcome back to warhammer and have some fun!
when you find that guy that wants to play uber-cheese list, do what they told you to do when you were little... JUST SAY NO :)
Jon

Jedi152
21-09-2009, 07:22
You'd be surpirsed by how many people I hear say that. Thank the Warp for 5th Ed and people that can actually write good army books (I <3 you Cruddace).
Apparently the IG book is one of the most balanced and all round lovely books out there. True?

Tokamak
21-09-2009, 09:06
I wish all army books were simply like the O&G book. I seriously have no idea what the designers were thinking with the last couple of releases.

enyoss
21-09-2009, 15:06
It all comes down to your opponent I think. If you're playing against reasonable people (and all but one of the people I have played since 7th edition came out fit into this category), then you don't have much to fear from `deathstars'.

Admittedly, there do seem to be more annoying over-the-top things out there when compared to 6th edition, for example Hydras, Star Dragons and Flamers. However, as a High Elf player who refused to go all cavalry and who hated much of 6th edition as a consequence, I'm actually really enjoying 7th!

Zilverug
21-09-2009, 15:15
The answer to your question is Yes. It can be done with most of the newer army books.

I am not certain. The most recent army books (Warriors of Chaos and Lizards) are better in this respect (balance) than their immediate predecessors.

Bubble Ghost
21-09-2009, 16:25
Thanks for the replies everyone, and apologies Alathir.



BUT, there is a very good counterattack against deathstars which is why you don't see them much on the table.

Good players just ignore them. You are facing a 700pts invincible unit, just ignore it. Kill all the other units and you'll win the game.

Yeah, I get that, but what makes me sad is that excessively powerful units or characters change the game just by being there, either by kicking you in or by forcing you to deal with them. I liked the dynamic of 6th ed compared with the previous versions I'd played, and although admittedly it was sliding this way anyway as the 6th ed books were released, it wasn't to the extent that would have caused the background rumbling I'm noticing now, which is what made me wonder what had changed.



I've been playing Warhammer for around 15 years, and I don't think that the army books are increasingly permissive of this. I remember Undead armies with huge units of Wraiths that were nigh-unbeatable, because most armies didn't have any units that could make magical attacks. I remember animosity-free Orc armies that had Black Orcs leading every unit. I remember Chaos Lords on flying mounts who simply couldn't be beaten in combat, and who would destroy low-Ld armies in turn 2 by assassinating the enemy general.

This sounds familiar to me too. I started in 4th ed, which in hindsight was rubbish, comparatively - 5th was a small improvement, while 6th, at first at least, was a revelation, with massively improved composition and much lower discrepancy in power between elites and characters to the basic core troopers. Suddenly actually playing the game of Warhammer was the important bit, rather than finding as many clever ways as possible to opt out of the rulebook. That's what I liked about 6th ed, although like I said above, I recognise that it was hardly perfect and it was groaning at the seams towards the end.



You honestly should not put to much stock into what you read here on Whineseer.

Oh hell yeah, I know this one. Look at my post count!:D

~

Thanks for the replies again. Food for thought aplenty in here. I'm certainly still intending to give it a go, featuring my own personal version of the Dark Elf army in which Black Guard are rare choices and the Pendant of Khaeleth (http://rawz.jimdo.com/s/cc_images/cache_1175581118.jpg) and Banner of Hag Graef don't exist.

Johnnyfrej
22-09-2009, 18:07
Apparently the IG book is one of the most balanced and all round lovely books out there. True?
And I suppose Vampire Counts, Dark Elves and Daemons of Chaos are far better written and much more balanced toward the other Fantasy armies, yes?

sulla
22-09-2009, 21:26
I wish all army books were simply like the O&G book. I seriously have no idea what the designers were thinking with the last couple of releases.
Damn those designers for making books where ranked infantry could actually be relied on. Let's all play fantatic, artillery and magic lines instead...

The designers got it massively wrong with O&G (no matter what your opinion of daemons, DE or VC, for example). Infantry that can't take a charge, fighter characters with no decent protection, animosity quelling characters who kill more orcs than they can kill enemies, the imbalance between the tactical worth of night goblins and common goblins, the general worthlessness of goblin armies despite the high demand for them... and that's not even touching the animosity rules or the magic rules.

big squig
23-09-2009, 08:55
Apparently the IG book is one of the most balanced and all round lovely books out there. True?
Yeah, it's pretty balanced. They went a bit over board with it and added, IMO, too many new units and special rules for the sake of being special, but it's still a very balanced book.

I like the way the eldar and ork dex were done better with their minimal rules/maximum options approach.

Roark
23-09-2009, 10:54
What Enyoss said. All you need to do is find some reasonable people to play against and almost every "problem" with the game mentioned in this thread becomes moot.

Seriously, it shouldn't be too hard to find some decent blokes unless you live in a one-horse-town or something...

Jedi152
23-09-2009, 10:57
And I suppose Vampire Counts, Dark Elves and Daemons of Chaos are far better written and much more balanced toward the other Fantasy armies, yes?
I'll assume that's sarcasm, but those books are what's wrong with the hobby.

Fenrir
23-09-2009, 13:18
I'll assume that's sarcasm, but those books are what's wrong with the hobby.

In your opinion.

ashc
23-09-2009, 16:33
I think the game would be better if other books brought in to the power line of Dark Elves and Vampire Counts than toning them down to the level of Orcs and Goblins.

In my opinion.

And Hi Bubble Ghost, nice to see you on here again :) your possible problems with the game rely on knowing what kind of gaming group you will be regularly playing in, and whether you are a tournament player.