PDA

View Full Version : What army would you get rid of?



dimetri1
05-12-2010, 22:43
There are many threads asking what Army would you add to WHFB. If you could choose, which one would you 86 and why?

Surgency
05-12-2010, 22:44
Elves


Teclis... that and the whole insulting the dwarves thing

Warwizard91
05-12-2010, 22:49
No more Squat treatments! In my opinion getting rid of a race shouldn't happen no matter what GW thinks. I missed squats and chaos dwarves because of this and I don't want to miss any more.

logan054
05-12-2010, 22:59
Ogres, awful army

Gandalf the Gay
05-12-2010, 23:01
Chaos Deamons. Reintroduce them as auxillaries to the other Chaos Armies.

tezdal
05-12-2010, 23:08
I'd just recombine Tomb Kings and VC, and Chaos daemons with WOC, then bring back Chaos Dwarves!

DaemonReign
05-12-2010, 23:16
Chaos Deamons. Reintroduce them as auxillaries to the other Chaos Armies.

*LoL*

What "other Chaos armies"?

There's no such thing.

On a more serious note, I wouldn't like to Any race removed. There are of course races that I prefer over others - I would never (ever) remove Dwarves, the Empire, Skaven, Brettonia, OnG, DoC, WoC, DE, WE, HE or VC..

Lizardman, Ogre Kingdoms, Beastmen, maybe TK.. If I had a gun to my head and simply had to remove One race from Warhammer I'd roll a dice between those four I guess.

Lizardmen because I dislike the Inca-theme (it refers to the "real" world too much for my taste, if they had just invented a symbology that didn't reak so much of American pre-European cultures I would have been fine with them).

Ogre Kingdoms because they just don't seem serious somehow.. I mean.. Couldn't we have had a "dogs of war" list instead? Or actually, I'd rather have a Dogs of War list AND Ogre Kingdoms but we're talking removal here..

Beastmen.. They're too disorganized to make an army, if anything, Beastmen are the ones that should have remained auxilliaries to WoC (whole alot of WoC units should have been incorporated in the DoC list instead - like Chaos Spawn, Dragon Ogres, Shaggoths maybe I don't know).

Tomb Kings.. Actually, no.. Come to think of it I wouldn't remove them either. I like them. Their fluff is cool albeit narrow. They just need a new AB and some better looking models (from what I hear).

But really.. "other Chaos armies" hahaha

RIDICULOUS. ;)

Sparowl
05-12-2010, 23:17
Chaos Daemons.

A.) To annoy Matt Ward.

B.) They shouldn't be an independent army, no matter what the GW bean counters say (things like "oh, another independent army means more money!" and "We can make it for both fantasy and 40k and make even more money! Who cares about quality products?"). They should be auxiliary for Chaos.

C.) But really, to annoy Matt Ward. Pretty much anything that can be done against him, I'll support.

Maoriboy007
05-12-2010, 23:30
Teclis.

I mean, he counts as an army...doesn't he......?

mrtn
05-12-2010, 23:56
The one you play.

dimetri1
06-12-2010, 00:22
The one you play.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. lol
Besides I play 5 different armies.

R Man
06-12-2010, 00:43
Lizardmen because I dislike the Inca-theme (it refers to the "real" world too much for my taste, if they had just invented a symbology that didn't reak so much of American pre-European cultures I would have been fine with them).

Wha...?

1stly, the Lizardmen are Meso American Aztec/Mayan themes. Which is completely different from the Inca. And how are Lizardmen more 'real world' than Bretonnians with Grail and Arthurian themes, or the Empire with their Germanic themes? Why are Daysign take off wrong, but the Fleur-de-lys right?

giant stegadon
06-12-2010, 01:02
Deamons.

OR..... everyone BUT chaos armies so GW can introduce more chaos armies. I just feel like there's not enough.

Wakerofgods
06-12-2010, 01:05
Probally wood elves.

I just don't see them ever being made into the type of army that I would like to see in the game. Also they are the most fluff appropriate to be gone. Everything they do is very much on the sideline.

I appreciate all the other people in this thread saying no more armies should be done away with (and I agree!) - but this thread is playing the what if game so come on guys let's play!

Souppilgrim
06-12-2010, 01:19
Daemons. I don't even think it's very fluffy to have a pure daemon army. It just doesn't make sense. They should added to the mortals list, but with restrictions on what can go with what.

overlordofnobodies
06-12-2010, 01:21
Most likely the Bretonnians but that only because there to much like the redneck bother of the Empire. Hopeful that will change with a new book.

mrtn
06-12-2010, 01:28
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. lol
Besides I play 5 different armies.
Well, in that case see it as a vote for "don't screw with people's armies, I don't think anyone should be removed".

:)

Kevlar
06-12-2010, 01:49
Recombine the chaos armies, and recombine the undead armies.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 02:09
Lizardmen because I dislike the Inca-theme (it refers to the "real" world too much for my taste, if they had just invented a symbology that didn't reak so much of American pre-European cultures I would have been fine with them).

So Lizardmen being too Incan puts your off, but Tomb Kings aren't too Egyptian? That's a little absurd.

Also, what Kevlar said. Chaos Warriors, Beastmen, and Daemons should be reunified into a single book and streamlined with restrictions based on characters. It is a bit more difficult to unify Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts, but I think it can be done, again, streamlined with restrictions based on characters.

Lars Porsenna
06-12-2010, 02:18
NONE!

In this thread, half of the armies I play or collect have been mentioned as being canned. I certainly wouldn't want any of my armies squatted, and I would not wish that on someone else, no matter how much I think they're meh (FREX Empire).

Damon.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 02:25
I don't think any army has to be canned/squatted, but I also don't see why folding the 3 Chaos armies into one would be harmful. You could field a purely Warrior, Beast, or Daemon army, but you could freely mix them as well.

DaemonReign
06-12-2010, 02:27
To everyone questioning my logic for attacking the Inca-style while accepting the Germanic (Empire) style or the Egyptian style of TK..

You're right. I haven't looked at it like that when it comes to the Empire actually. So I must say I stand corrected. In the case of TK the Egyptian style DOES actually bother just as much as the LM-thing.

About Daemons: It's my fav army by far. I would revert to whatever Ed still had them if they were gone. So of course I am biased.

And if any of the three (WoC, beasties, DoC) should be removed it's definately Beastmen as far as I am concerned.

DoC needs to be there as the all powerfull EVIL by which all other evils can be measured.

I think Mat Ward would agree with me on that one.:evilgrin:

vorthain
06-12-2010, 02:33
I think Beastmen can be easily folded into Warriors of Chaos, but the option should be there for an all Beast army. I think the same could work with Daemons. You would still have the option for an all Daemon army but it would also be viable to have more worldly units there too.

bluemage
06-12-2010, 02:54
I don't want any more armies being dropped. I mean really, if GW drops one of my armies I'll probably just drop the hobby.

TheRatsInTheWalls
06-12-2010, 03:05
I'm with most of the people here in saying that, if something must be removed, it should be rolled into another armybook.
I played a Deamonic Legion during the Storm of Chaos, but it didn't need to become it's own armybook. Really, a nice large Warhammer Armies: Servants of Chaos would serve quite fine, and allow GW to pick up the pace updating their rules. A new edition of the game should never have to come out before all the different armybooks get renewed. It's bad for game balance and pisses many players off.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 03:08
I'm all for Chaos armies being rolled into one. A huge Chaos book would be fantastic. Also agree that there should be new books for every edition (or at least a nice big pdf).

Kevlar
06-12-2010, 03:25
People say they would quit if their demons got rolled into another book, but that is only because demons have been given good rules and recent updates. I doubt too many tomb king players would complain if a new undead book came out combining vamps and tks, but still allowing them to field a legal (and updated) army list with their current models.

Just like not many beastmen would be upset if they could field their mostly beast army with some flamers and some chaos knights added in.

Schmapdi
06-12-2010, 03:37
Fold Chaos Demons as special/rare units - into Beastman/WoC armies. Or better yet fold all three back into one big book and get rid of some of the more boring units alltogether (chaos Trolls, chaos Ogres, etc).

vorthain
06-12-2010, 04:10
I think it would be possible to have a 'Chaos Monstrous Infantry' type slot as a special, then you can pay more or less points based on what it is. So it would start as an Ogre, then it's +10 pts for regenerate, vomit, and stupidity (and stat line changes) to be Trolls, +20 for the lightning special rules and options of Dragon Ogres, about the same for blood frenzy and they are minotaurs. This is easier for Warriors (pay more points for a better guy and they become Chosen) and Beasts (Gors to Bestigors).

Then something can be done based on what characters you have. For instance, if you have an Exalted Hero and Bray Shaman, you get mortals and beasts at their current slots and daemons' core would be special and so forth. If you have a sorcerer and herald, same thing but the beasts become a more exotic unit in the army.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
06-12-2010, 04:42
I'd scrap Daemons as a separate army and have them as limited choices in Warriors (and maybe Beastmen). For example, for every two units of warriors/marauders in the army, you can take a unit of bloodletters/horrors/daemonettes/plaguebearers, with similar workings for specials and rares, maybe even lords/heroes. This would also consolidate both Daemon Prince versions, allowing it to easily become a good choice.

SamVimes
06-12-2010, 05:10
Get rid of Fishmen. Its not like anyone even plays them :shifty:

Christophbs
06-12-2010, 05:11
Why do so many people vote for combining the undead? I think the idea is absurd. "Hey I'll buy an army book that is literally half the book I used to be able to buy?" :confused: I think that would really open the door for "half as good as they used to be" books. I think that WoC will eventually flesh out enough to completely make up for the lack of daemons.

AMWOOD co
06-12-2010, 05:35
I played Chaos before, and if I had my way I'd play Chaos again and not Warriors of Chaos.

DaemonReign
06-12-2010, 05:36
Why do so many people vote for combining the undead? I think the idea is absurd. "Hey I'll buy an army book that is literally half the book I used to be able to buy?" :confused: I think that would really open the door for "half as good as they used to be" books. I think that WoC will eventually flesh out enough to completely make up for the lack of daemons.

Yeah I couldn't agree more. Then again This Thread is about "what army to remove" so like someone else said, that's what we got to play with.

Combining VC and TK doesn't seem like a fun idea to me.

All this general bad sentiment about DoC just seems soo "7th Ed" really. I maintain that if any one of these three armies that used to be just One should go it's Beastmen. By logic of Fluff.

Daemons are the very basis of Chaos.

WoC worship Daemons.

Beastmen would only really be structured into and ordered and accountable force by the strict whipping and ruling of WoC.

Hence, DoC should be there if there are to be any Chaos at all. Beastmen could be driven back into the WoC book - this [alone!] would make WoC an incredibly extensive List to play with - even if one took out the purely Daemonic things like Spawns and gave them to DoC (because DoC needs variety aside of a general ban of SC's).

The idea of making One Large Chaos Codex is also interesting IMO. One Gigantic book for all the three armies plus the possibility to mix them at one's own whims and inclinations.

In the end, though, even though it goes against the spirit of this thread, I really just feel that no armies should be scrapped. It's a shame that Kislev and Chaos Dwarves are gone.. And if we need anything, really, it's just more variety in each and every List.

So I am having a hard time getting all invested in this issue.. Safe for the fact that I really [I]wouldn't accept DoC getting the boot 'cause hey I just painted 20k of DoC-models but that's just personal bias I know.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
06-12-2010, 06:02
The problem, Daemonreign, is that it almost seems like you have never read any background information about the Warhammer Fantasy world. Daemons don't hang around all over the place, except for perhaps the extreme north areas. When you do see them hanging around the Old World, it's a few here and there, or a unit or two summoned by some of those human Chaos worshipers you deride. Daemons pretty much only get into the material world by being summoned by humans, mostly intentionally. That's why it'd make much more sense to roll them back into a big book with Warriors and Beastmen. I know that you've totally fallen in love with them, and it's been a heady no-greater-than two year relationship, but a lot of us enjoy the older established background and would enjoy a return to it.

sulla
06-12-2010, 06:42
I'm all for Chaos armies being rolled into one. A huge Chaos book would be fantastic. Wasn't it 5th, where Chaos was organised on a warband fashion? You could have whatever you wanted, but needed a character of that race/mark to lead that warband. I think that would still work in 8th edition.

Lordsaradain
06-12-2010, 07:03
Skaven. I just find the notion of rat-men repulsive.

Shadowsinner
06-12-2010, 07:21
Chaos dwarves... oh wait :P

Ratbeast
06-12-2010, 07:43
Combine the 3 chaos armies into a massive army, free up room for DoW and CD to return

VC and TK would be awesome when combined too :p

Trains_Get_Robbed
06-12-2010, 07:51
Beastmen are a boring, low-tier, fluffless red-headed step brother of the chaos triplets. Hell, even Dark Elves and Skaven are more chaos'y' then Beastmen are, and thats quite pathetic. If you can't even take marks you shouldn't even be classified under the unification of 'chaos.'

So after them, one looks at all the other races and Ogres, or Wood Elves come to mind as the next candidates. I say this mainly because others have said that such-such army would be great auxillary? Uh, how about Ogres in Empire or WoC armies, armies that one would logically think fo where Ogres could/would be placed.

Meanwhile, the W.E also like the Ogres, offer very little fluff-wise and unit-wise to not just simply be picked up in say a Bret book. The G.G and W.R and W.D and tree spirits would all stay and could be taken as a rare or special choice depending on the type of commander at the helm. Limited cross over though with things such as Treb and 5 units of G.G 15, in a 1,500 point game would be mean and broken (hence, the limited crossover).

LordZombie
06-12-2010, 07:55
Wasn't it 5th, where Chaos was organised on a warband fashion? You could have whatever you wanted, but needed a character of that race/mark to lead that warband. I think that would still work in 8th edition.

Yes it was, I really liked the way Chaos was set up back then. Chaos should be all together, that way it can be chaotic. As for dropping an army, Ogre Kingdom should be dropped or better yet, not made in the first place.

slayerofmen
06-12-2010, 08:01
People you forget they already combined VC and TK in 5th ed, it was called UNDEAD and having played it, i can say it was a mess, it did a bit of everything but it didnt do them THAT well imho

Spiney Norman
06-12-2010, 08:02
If I had to drop one army it would have to be beasts of chaos, if only so the abominable sculpting displayed in the pumbagor and minos doesn't spread and infect any other army book, think of it more as a quarantine action ;)

But seriously, wood elves occupy a pretty important place in the game, at least they did before 8th Ed killed them. Their play style was totally different from all the other armies in the game. Most armies operate in a broadly similar way, a mix of varying amounts of troop blocks, warmachines, cavalry/chariots and ballistic troops, ok they look different, move at different speeds and some armies are better at one aspect than others, but broadly speaking the format is pretty similar. After BoC got redone to be pretty much like every other army, wood elves were the only army to retain a truly original play style.

Now the problem is that play style just doesn't work in 8th, so either they have to get a pretty smart designer (god please not Matt Ward) to adapt it, or I fear their time may have run out.

Leogun_91
06-12-2010, 08:06
Hmm......tough choice but I'd guess I would have to combine WoC and DoC into hordes. With general based core a daemon army could still be playable as could a Warriors army. The fluff in the book would suffer and so would the options for pure armies of warriors or daemons but at least nothing have to completely disappear.

DarkMark
06-12-2010, 08:20
If I had to drop one army it would have to be beasts of chaos

Beasts of Chaos were dropped!:p Beastmen are a new army.

Personally I wouldn't drop any army, I respect that somebody somewhere has spent time and money putting an army together, and don't deserve to be kicked in the privates just because.:angel:

Harwammer
06-12-2010, 08:35
I say drop beastmen and replace it with beasts of chaos. 4-wide for the win :rolleyes:
Alternatively drop warriors, daemons and beasts and release a huge 50+ compendium including all the above, chaos dwarfs, more monsters of chaos and cults of chaos.

solkan
06-12-2010, 09:36
All in favor of going back to the glory days when the army book for Chaos was not only bigger than the main rulebook, but it came in TWO separate hard cover books? :rolleyes:

The last time I got bored and dug through the old books, the pattern was that each Chaos edition flip flopped on how daemonic animosity worked and also flip flopped on whether the armies were combined or separate. So, taking blind faith in historic patterns, right about the time that GW's getting ready to switch over to licensing printing patterns for its figures and plotting out 9th edition, they'll come out with another $90 Chaos boxed set.

malladin.ben
06-12-2010, 10:10
As someone who is about to start a Beastmen army, and who has a small Ogres army knocking about for use with the school club I run, it really disappoints me that these are the two armies that seem most favoured for the chop.

I think Spiney Norman's point about Wood Elves having an interestingly different play style can also be said to apply (perhaps to a lesser extent) to ogres - where the bulk of your army is MI.

I personally wouldn't drop anything, I'd just like to see more added. I think Warhammer has done a great job over the years of blending fantasy gaming with a range of pseudo-historical styles to create some very interestingly flavoured armies. If anything I'd like to see that expanded - how about an Albion army with some british napoleonic themed troops or celtic woad-painted warbands, or warring states china inspired Cathay army?

I want more, not less!

xxRavenxx
06-12-2010, 10:22
My top two picks:

Dogs of War: - To stop people trying to claim that theyre not "officially discontinued".

Bretonnians: Because they just dont stand apart in their rules. You could field an empire list using bret models, and I'm sure noone would notice a difference in play.

Prokrustes
06-12-2010, 10:28
Hmm..I sorta like Beastmen...
Anyway.. fuse the 3 Chaos armies. Fuse the 3 elven armies. 4 books less to take care off.
Concerning the elfs, well, they might be sorta different but have enough in common to be in one book. Like High-Elf Spearmen/Dark Elf Spearmen, Swordmasters/Executioners, etc.
Maybe also fuse Empire, Bretonnia, and ye ol Kislev into a book called "Human Nations".
And, if you are really in the mood, fuse the Undead into book, because skeletons with spears are skeletons with spears....
Would open up 6 book slots, and GW would most likely still not manage to balance the game and update regularily.

DigbyWeapon
06-12-2010, 12:00
I'd like to see Skaven gone. I just hate the whole concept of them!

ScytheSwathe
06-12-2010, 12:22
I would recombine the chaos' and reduced ogres to a Dogs of War Faction, with a real dogs of war book, as would many others on here.

If something had to be completely removed, it would be beastmen for me. I just dont really see that they add anything, while i find skaven to have masses of character.

I wouldnt removed bretts, as the human factions help the 'earth' the genre, and make things more identifiable. The real problem is that empire dont really have a niche of their own, and hence can do the brettonian thing

kyussinchains
06-12-2010, 13:03
I'd recombine the 3 chaos books into a single flexible volume

I'd also probably get rid of lizardmen... their awful saurus models and annoying attempts at humourous names (tiqtaq'to.....grymloq... :rolleyes:) wind me up a treat....

TK and vampires need to be seperate, after all, they do pretty much hate each other.....

I'd also roll back dwarfs to the days of wooden war machines and slightly more comical miniatures, I dislike the metal war machines intensely, and hate how the dwarfs have become viking-like.....

Brets are fine as they are, although I'd like to see a return of drunken barons throwing peasants to the dogs, and formations of knights trampling over commoners on the charge.....

Ville
06-12-2010, 13:07
I would recombine the chaos' and reduced ogres to a Dogs of War Faction, with a real dogs of war book, as would many others on here.


Like me!

I would hate it if anything disappeared completely, it would be a real shame. I've played around with warhammer critters since early brathood and even today, as a grown up brat, they all still manage to fascinate me.:p

arthurfallz
06-12-2010, 13:11
Skaven.

I've never had the chance to fight them, but I just see them as a different orc and goblin army. From what I've read on them they're irritating in the narrative (no one knows about them?). Ultimately I just think everything they do Chaos or Orcs n' Goblins could do.

Duke Georgal
06-12-2010, 13:24
There are many threads asking what Army would you add to WHFB. If you could choose, which one would you 86 and why?

SKAVEN need to go away.

I would replace them with something less stupid. How about 5 armed squid men that fly and shoot nails out of their cheeks?

If I hear one more Skaven player try to explain why it makes sense that rats developed drilling technology and ranged weaponry while they squeak and eek like a fool, I will lose my mind.

GW... end the skaven nonsense now. You are losing customers because of it!

dragonet111
06-12-2010, 13:30
I'd recombine the 3 chaos books into a single flexible volume

I also wish for that book. I liked my Realm of Chaos box:)

As for others armies no armies deserve to disappear.

Urgat
06-12-2010, 13:50
As most other, I would porobably just want a new Realm of Chaos book. Unless the Undead armbook which was a strange melting pot with little sense or rhyme (Mmmh, i'll take Nagash, then a vampire lord, a liche, mmh, I think I've reach 50% characters... Ok, I'll fill the rest with mummies, horsemen (could already move through walls) charriots and FSC! Oh, maybe some wights.). The chaos book was full of character, and the rules were cool enough to allow for freedom while enforcing some fluff, or take a risk.
I'd removing nothing otherwise.

Nuada
06-12-2010, 13:58
I'd recombine the 3 chaos books into a single flexible volume

I'd release a book for each of the 4 main chaos powers. Khorne book, Nurgle book etc. In each book are beastmen, chaos mortals and daemons.

Poseidon_II_
06-12-2010, 13:58
I would choose Skaven, I don't like their fluff, their miniatures are ugly and their warpstone tecnology is just to random

scarletsquig
06-12-2010, 14:15
Empire.

Just have the warhammer forge storyline as canon, have the Empire destroyed then everyone else has a party. :)

Lars Porsenna
06-12-2010, 14:17
I'd also roll back dwarfs to the days of wooden war machines and slightly more comical miniatures, I dislike the metal war machines intensely, and hate how the dwarfs have become viking-like.....


Frankly, the only reason I started dwarfs again was because the imagery was "rolled-back" to mini vikings. The core dwarf models of 4e-5e (whenever they were redone and many of the Marauder minis made their way into the army) were terrible, and until 6e's revision came around, hadn't bought a single GW dwarf since 3e.

Damon.

Urgat
06-12-2010, 14:19
I'd release a book for each of the 4 main chaos powers. Khorne book, Nurgle book etc. In each book are beastmen, chaos mortals and daemons.

And then what about chaos undivised? Besides fluff and a hadnful rules, it would also be 4 times the same book besides demon troops. I wonder why it would be better than a single book, it would just **** off a lot of people if they got to buy up to 4 books.

Nuada
06-12-2010, 14:22
And then what about chaos undivised?

Personally i'd dump chaos undecided

Urgat
06-12-2010, 15:06
Right... so people don't have the right not to take marks at all >> Let's throw the fluff outta the window, northmen MUST be aligned, and from now one Archaon and Be'lakor will be... mmh, marked depending on what book you have. Wooh with Nurgle Archaon, you paint him green :p

Charistoph
06-12-2010, 15:09
I would dump the prejudice against combined army books. One of the armies I got excited about was how Hordes and Beasts of Chaos interacted. Dumping the Dogs of War entries and army book reduced a lot of fun options. The Allies rule could have made it interesting, but...

H33D
06-12-2010, 15:12
I wouldn't really dump any of them unless I had to.

And if I did I would dump Tomb Kings. Just because.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 15:22
If I hear one more Skaven player try to explain why it makes sense that rats developed drilling technology and ranged weaponry while they squeak and eek like a fool, I will lose my mind.

GW... end the skaven nonsense now. You are losing customers because of it

I can understand why people would want to drop Skaven, but I feel like they are one of the only truly unique GW creations, so they won't be going away. Beasts play much more like O&G than Skaven do. Also, it's a fantasy game - why is there magic? How does warpstone work? Why do elves/ogres/gods/etc exist? How do dwarfs get drunk all the time and still make the best artifacts?

And is there really evidence that Skaven are causing them to lose customers? From what I can tell, they are one of the most popular armies at the moment. [/rant]

I think a Warhammer Armies: Nations of Men would be interesting, which may have an Empire base but allow Bretonnia, Kislev, and others to exist. A Warhammer Armies: Realms of the Elves type book would be a bit more difficult given the major differences between Asur and Druchii alone.

Nuada
06-12-2010, 15:47
Right... so people don't have the right not to take marks at all >> Let's throw the fluff outta the window, northmen MUST be aligned, and from now one Archaon and Be'lakor will be... mmh, marked depending on what book you have. Wooh with Nurgle Archaon, you paint him green :p

Not sure what they'd do with Archeon, does Be'lakor still have rules in the game?
As for changing background, it's the same as others are suggesting by getting rid of skaven. To remove skaven/lizardmen/empire/Tomb Kings would require a change in the background. This entire thread is about that.

Take into account i'm not considering things like..... cost, hassle for players getting new books (which happens with every army anyway)
I'd just have all khorne daemons in one book, along with chaos warriors on juggers etc.

Could even do two chaos powers in one book (like the lost and the damned books) Nurgle and Slaanesh. Then Khorne/tzeentch, and an undecided. Three chaos books, instead of ....... three chaos books.

EDIT.... hang on a sec, i've got you on my ignore list from ages ago. It must have changed

loveless
06-12-2010, 15:56
Dogs of War. I would erase them from the history books in an effort to stop the "when do we get a new DoW book?" queries.

Tymell
06-12-2010, 16:02
None. The closest I'd want is to put the Chaos books back together.

Delicious Ron
06-12-2010, 16:06
None.

And in the defense of Beastmen, they used to be a interesting army before the latest armybook.

I also support the idea of rolling the chaos books back together, Realm of chaos style! have it be based on Warbands and I would be a happy man.

Spiney Norman
06-12-2010, 16:19
I cast another vote for skaven, on reflection they'd be very easy to get rid of fluffwise, just have some imperial hero turn up irrefutable evidence that his government was infact correct and the ratmen actually don't exist at all. :D

Keith_Lupton
06-12-2010, 16:19
Combine Daemons with WOC. Similar to the summon rules from codex CSM in 40k. But the army i dont see a point in in Brettonia. But i wouldnt want them removed because some people like the whole French knight thing. Me being English, would just field a army of Bowmen on hills to defeat them if i ever faced them in a game lol.

cosy
06-12-2010, 16:28
Frankly, i love the fact that they separated the chaos books, even if i cannot use my shaggoth/trolls/ogres anymore for my beastmen army. Separating the books mean a lot of cool new units, (special) characters and new fluff!

I love every army, even if some of them could use some more fleshing out.
I regret they took out Kislev and the Dawi Zharr, there is so much they could do with them.

First post ever btw ;-)

Lars Porsenna
06-12-2010, 16:30
I think the only way I would support rolling the chaos books back together would be if it was a 3-fer list rather than one combined list and you "theme" it out.

I recently picked up a Daemons army book, with the intention of them being my 2011 army (I tend to build a new army yearly, and have been doing this for several years), specifically themed Tzeentch. As it stands now, I only really have 3 different troop types to use in my army (Horrors, Screamers, Flamers), as well as Lord of Change/Daemon prince/characters. I would be afraid that if the lists were combined in a big book of Chaos, there would either be less variation (and less opporunity to do specifically a themed Tzeentch list), or variation would be "stuck" with the next edition. Similarly with WoC and Beastmen.

That being said, the best solution I could see would be a book with 3 different army lists in it, rather than just one. But IIRC GW as said they don't want to do this, so it may never actually happen...

Damon.

Nuada
06-12-2010, 16:32
Skaven, ... only truly unique GW creations.

Slightly off topic. But skaven aren't a GW creation. Jes got them from a popular book in the 70's, can't remember the name. Someone on here will know.
Lankmarr maybe?

I might be wrong, but i think the only original miniature that wasn't copied from another source was the Zoats.

shakedown47
06-12-2010, 16:49
This is what I would like to see done.

The stand-alone, single-faction books would be Dwarves, High Elves, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Orcs & Goblins, Empire, and Skaven.

Every other book would be combined forces, with large troop selections and "allies" rules. We already know how this would more or less work via the Hordes of Chaos book. It's also important to note that it would also be possible to field an entire, legal army out of just one of the "races" in a combined book.

So, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, and Beastmen would be combined into one large book, with troop selection and availability strongly influenced by character choices.

Bretonnia and Wood Elves would be another combined book, again with majority troop selection dictated by character choices. (I.E., no Grail Knights if your General is a Highborn or Spellweaver.)

Vampire Count and Tomb Kings would be combined into the "Undead" book, with unified unit entries and mechanics. You could have only one entry for skeleton warriors, for instance, and Grave Guard and Eternal Guard could effectively be made into the same thing. Unit restrictions would be on the order of not allowing heavy cavalry to serve Tomb Kings and not giving light chariots to VC.

Ogres I'm unsure about. Either let them be a stand alone army, with rules for inclusion in Empire, Skaven, Chaos, and Orc & Goblin army lists, or more preferably bring back a Dogs of War book and have all the Ogre units in there, with options for fielding an all-Ogre force.

If done right these combi-books would allow much of the flavor and individuality of the current offerings to remain while keeping the game more balanced with more frequent releases. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to cycle 15 books, they could instead release a more manageable 11 books on a tighter and more reliable schedule.

From Games Workshop's perspective I believe it achieves a few very important things: First off, players will be slightly happier at the increased release schedule. Secondly, producing books and any stripe can be very expensive and time-consuming, let alone books stuffed full of many different formats and artwork. The combined books would be more expensive than current offerings, naturally, but the margins would be better.

This may lead to an overall decrease in book revenue, which brings me to the third point. I firmly believe combining the books in such a way would lead to a noticeable and possibly even drastic increase in same-person model sales, and we all know the margins on the plastics are huge, if not at least much more substantial than the margins on their paper products. Once they have their "core" army firmly established, many players would of course be tempted to branch out to collect more models from the book. For instance, I have a very large WoC force that I love, but being able to take daemon allies or beastmen ambushers would be awesome. A pure Beastman army appeals to me now, but the initial cost of starting such a force, combined with the mind-numbing thought of all the modeling and painting that would lie ahead is more than enough to discourage me out of it. As it stands now GW has a 0 percent chance of getting any money for me for Beastmen or Daemon purchases, and my WoC is full of everything I have any interest in fielding. In other words, my Warhammer spending is on an indefinite hiatus. However, if all I had to do was buy and paint three or four boxes of beast of daemon infantry, I would do it right away. I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks that way, either.

Tymell
06-12-2010, 17:14
Really surprised at votes for Skaven being removed, considering they're one of the most characterful and least Fantasy-setting-staple of the races.

Lars Porsenna
06-12-2010, 17:15
So, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, and Beastmen would be combined into one large book, with troop selection and availability strongly influenced by character choices.


I think I would be OK with this ONLY if by character choice, you're not talking about a named character (like 40K has done with a few books; take a named character and he alters the FOC).



This may lead to an overall decrease in book revenue, which brings me to the third point. I firmly believe combining the books in such a way would lead to a noticeable and possibly even drastic increase in same-person model sales, and we all know the margins on the plastics are huge, if not at least much more substantial than the margins on their paper products. Once they have their "core" army firmly established, many players would of course be tempted to branch out to collect more models from the book. For instance, I have a very large WoC force that I love, but being able to take daemon allies or beastmen ambushers would be awesome. A pure Beastman army appeals to me now, but the initial cost of starting such a force, combined with the mind-numbing thought of all the modeling and painting that would lie ahead is more than enough to discourage me out of it. As it stands now GW has a 0 percent chance of getting any money for me for Beastmen or Daemon purchases, and my WoC is full of everything I have any interest in fielding. In other words, my Warhammer spending is on an indefinite hiatus. However, if all I had to do was buy and paint three or four boxes of beast of daemon infantry, I would do it right away. I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks that way, either.

There is something to this. In historicals, when I did my Marian romans, I bought a few units of Celts and Germans to be used as allies. That later expanded into full Celtic and Germanic armies. SImilarly, for my Repub Romans, I later branched out to include Spanish troops, which is leading to an army now.

Damon.

Lockjaw
06-12-2010, 17:16
honestly, I go with none, it would suck, having spent time and money on an army, to see it get dumped. alot of the replies singling out an army to squat-ify, comes across more as 'I don't like this army', and personaly, I can see the appeal in just about any of them.

covering a couple armies in one book, like WoC, Boc, DoC used to be, wouldn't be as bad.

but keep VC and TK seperate, the old undead book was kind of a mess

Urgat
06-12-2010, 17:48
Not sure what they'd do with Archeon, does Be'lakor still have rules in the game?
As for changing background, it's the same as others are suggesting by getting rid of skaven. To remove skaven/lizardmen/empire/Tomb Kings would require a change in the background. This entire thread is about that.

That's true, sorry about that.

EDIT.... hang on a sec, i've got you on my ignore list from ages ago. It must have changed

Me? Ah. Your loss :p

vorthain
06-12-2010, 18:03
Slightly off topic. But skaven aren't a GW creation. Jes got them from a popular book in the 70's, can't remember the name. Someone on here will know.
Lankmarr maybe?

I might be wrong, but i think the only original miniature that wasn't copied from another source was the Zoats.

You are thinking of the city of Lankhmar, which was inhabited by sentient, yet normal sized, rats (that presumably did not have steampunk tech). Obviously the idea of rat-men is not a GW creation, but the idea of mutant ratmen using magic stones to power insane constructs is more uniquely GW than good elves wearing white on their magic island or axe-wielding underground dwarfs in the mountains.

I like the idea for Ogres being expanded as the new Dogs of War with options for an all Ogre army, and I'd never thought about Brets and Woodies being allies.

WarmbloodedLizard
06-12-2010, 18:03
If I really had to remove one:

Dark Elves (easily, no contest really)

If I had to choose a second army to be dropped:

Daemons

Other Than that I would never want to drop an army.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 18:16
As the first person who has said Dark Elves, what is your rationale?

WizzyWarlock
06-12-2010, 18:32
I'd have to choose two to remove, but if I was forced to pick one it would probably be Lizardmen, the other being Tomb Kings. I don't know, I just don't find they fit in Warhammer, they just don't seem to belong. Chaos, Beastmen, Empire, Elves, Dwarves, Vampire Counts.. they all belong, they're all an integral part of the world, but the Lizardmen and Tomb Kings seem a bit of a random addition.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 18:45
I think its because they are pretty much just based in their region. If you aren't in Lustria (or southern Naggaroth), you don't really have to worry about running into Saurus. Same with Tomb Kings - I may be wrong, but I don't feel like they venture outside their realm very much. I don't think they're random, but to have them included basically means other nations have to go to them, which is a weakness.

theunwantedbeing
06-12-2010, 18:45
Ogres.
Mainly as they were an added in army that got in the way of wood elves.

Failing that, Daemons.
Simply as they work well enough as a Warriors of Chaos/Beastmen add in, plus you can then put Daemons into the miscast results...ie, a double 1 result has an option of a greater daemon appearing.

None of the other's really seem to be overly easy to remove.

WarmbloodedLizard
06-12-2010, 18:47
I find them too similar to HE and I think they should be integrated as a sub-army for them. Both the HE and DE sub-armies would have a core of similar choices with some unique choices that can be taken if your general is a DE/HE character. For DE it would be something like (Hydra, Witch Elves, Harpies, Assassins, ...), army rules(lore, any number of dice...), special rules/options (different equipment, killing blow on "White Lions" but no stubborn, etc.) and items.

Warriors/warriors, Sea guard/corsair, DR/Reavers, Guard/swordmasters, boltthrower, etc. would all have the same profile with slightly different options/rules depending on sub-army.


(I would also completely remove ASF + Hatred (it's just too similar) and just give all elves in the book re-roll to hit + ignore ASL of GWs.)

Warp-Juicer
06-12-2010, 18:53
Beastmen are a boring, low-tier, fluffless red-headed step brother of the chaos triplets. Hell, even Dark Elves and Skaven are more chaos'y' then Beastmen are, and thats quite pathetic. If you can't even take marks you shouldn't even be classified under the unification of 'chaos.'

So after them, one looks at all the other races and Ogres, or Wood Elves come to mind as the next candidates. I say this mainly because others have said that such-such army would be great auxillary? Uh, how about Ogres in Empire or WoC armies, armies that one would logically think fo where Ogres could/would be placed.

Meanwhile, the W.E also like the Ogres, offer very little fluff-wise and unit-wise to not just simply be picked up in say a Bret book. The G.G and W.R and W.D and tree spirits would all stay and could be taken as a rare or special choice depending on the type of commander at the helm. Limited cross over though with things such as Treb and 5 units of G.G 15, in a 1,500 point game would be mean and broken (hence, the limited crossover).


This. I started up Beastmen BECAUSE of the last book, and the awesome flavor it had in it.

But now? Everything is so bland. The lore in the book goes mostly unused in favor of Beasts, and the Rares would only get used IF I ever used the Wild Lore and could summon one on.

WarmbloodedLizard
06-12-2010, 18:56
I started up Beastmen BECAUSE of the last book, and the awesome flavor it had in it.


I still don't really know why they turned one of the greater books around into a bog standard one.

VoodooJanus
06-12-2010, 19:03
Hmm, I dunno man. The DE and HE are pretty different in terms of playstyle. Yes, they share a few units. Beyond that though, the difference between the armies becomes quite a bit more distinguishable.

DE always had more boots on the field than HE, for one, so you'd have to give each army choice separate point values and racial traits, at which point you're already making two army books, just contained in a singular text (although at one point I did think it would be kind of cool to release 3-4 army books, each containing a few armies, divided up regionally.)

I guess my question is, what makes Dark Elves identical (or nearly) to High Elves?

As for Wood Elves, yes, they don't play a huge part in the overall scale of things (from the empire-centric point of view, I might add) but they provide a unique playstyle you can't really find anywhere else. It doesn't work well in 8th due to updated skirmisher rules and the change in marchblocking, but it was an annoyingly movement oriented army that would reward the experienced player. I'd say that out of the lot, the Wood Elves are actually the most defined in terms of playstyle (at least in their current incarnation.) Hopefully, the hippies won't get the Beastmen treatment though. That would be really sad.

Lordy
06-12-2010, 19:03
I would hate any army to be removed but if I had to get rid of one it would probably be Beastmen despite me being a Beasty player.
As others have said there is nothing to them, no fluff, dull characters, even the army itself is pretty weak, bring back the last book!

Really hoping in the future they bring Daemons, Warriors and Beastmen back into one big armies book, it's the only way i can see Beasts ever getting redone.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 19:04
I find them too similar to HE and I think they should be integrated as a sub-army for them. Both the HE and DE sub-armies would have a core of similar choices with some unique choices that can be taken if your general is a DE/HE character. For DE it would be something like (Hydra, Witch Elves, Harpies, Assassins, ...), army rules(lore, any number of dice...), special rules/options (different equipment, killing blow on "White Lions" but no stubborn, etc.) and items.

Warriors/warriors, Sea guard/corsair, DR/Reavers, Guard/swordmasters, boltthrower, etc. would all have the same profile with slightly different options/rules depending on sub-army.


(I would also completely remove ASF + Hatred (it's just too similar) and just give all elves in the book re-roll to hit + ignore ASL of GWs.)

I agree the elf armies are somewhat similar, but the difference between the two is that the armies are basically exclusive of each other. If the only overlap is core with different varieties of specials and numerous exclusive specials and rares, I don't see this working out. This is especially true because, unlike an allied beasts/mortals/daemons force, allied dark elves and high elves does not and cannot make sense.

WarmbloodedLizard
06-12-2010, 19:29
I agree the elf armies are somewhat similar, but the difference between the two is that the armies are basically exclusive of each other. If the only overlap is core with different varieties of specials and numerous exclusive specials and rares, I don't see this working out. This is especially true because, unlike an allied beasts/mortals/daemons force, allied dark elves and high elves does not and cannot make sense.

even the specials are pretty similar. you would of course have different names. DE "While Lions" would be Executioners, for example.

(of course the two armies would not be as unique as they are now, but close)

and before I see great unique armies like Ogres, Lizardmen, TK or Beastmen go, I'd let DE bite the dust.

vorthain
06-12-2010, 19:39
I think we may just have to disagree on that one, my friend.

de Selby
06-12-2010, 19:43
You are thinking of the city of Lankhmar, which was inhabited by sentient, yet normal sized, rats (that presumably did not have steampunk tech).

But they did have a council of thirteen IIRC, and plenty of evil sorcery. GW's innovation lies in making the rats man-sized rather than shrinking the humans down to fight them (the book in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swords_of_Lankhmar and a great read).

Anyway, Skaven are awesome, don't get rid of them. Roll all the chaos factions back together, it makes each of them better at a stroke. The daemons and beastmen seem more un-natural/bestial when they're fighting alongside humans, and the humans seem more weird and evil if they're fighting alongside daemons and beastmen. It's just cooler that way.

Bgmique
06-12-2010, 19:52
playing the game: I'd say drop Deamons for reasons already mentioned in this thread

*climbs on soapbox*

TK and VC need to remain seperate. The difference in mechanics and fluff is what makes having two undead armies work. Not to mention that the TK despise all vampires as evil creations of the usurper.

As for combining multiple army books into one in general, I think to make everyone happy they would have to remain as completely seperate books combined into a single binding. If I had 3000 points of deamons, and all of a sudden they were all specials and rares, I'd be pretty pissed. But if I had 3000 points of deamons and all of a sudden I could add chaos knights, I'd be pretty psyched. Plus that would lend to some people collecting a whole new army once they realised they bought two units of marauders and those knights to go with their deamons. Hell, they'd only have to buy a single blister to get a legal force.

I pretty much did this with my WoC and Ogres. Hey! I have two units of ogres and a gorger as Scyla/Throgg! I think I'll buy the ogre book and a character.

Also, with the rules for allies, there is no reason to combine all three into a single book ala Flames of War. Just buy your beastmen and realise they come with restrictions to be used with your marauder war-band. I understand these rules apply to multi-player (>2v2) games, but why cant you apply them to 1v1? even if you have to use a legal army (Hq/troops %)

You've actually got me wanting do up some kilt-wearing goats to run along with my marauders now......ooh, with tzeentchian tattoos.:D

Charistoph
06-12-2010, 21:30
I would like to point out that there are colonies of Lizardmen all over the world, the closest to the Empire being Albion. And since their main body is on the same landmass as Dark Elves, you really can't exclude one without the other.

R Man
06-12-2010, 22:07
I think that the only way to choose an army to die is if it's already dead.

As long as an army is financially viable GW will continue to support it. Most people choices are often highly biased based on emotion than rationality. For example Skaven and Lizardmen, both are popular and relatively unique in war gaming. They have some excellent imagery and make the setting something other than 'generic Tolkien clone 4'. Then there are armies that are important to the setting like Empire, Dwarves and Orcs (Which I don't think have been mentioned) who can't go because they are central to the plot. Then there are armies like Tomb Kings, Bretonnians and Dark Elves which act as a nice alternative to the central 'basic' factions of their kind.

So if you had to remove an army it would inevitably have to be either Chaos Dwarves or Dogs of War for a few reasons. Neither have been updated recently, so they are half dead anyway. Both are 'outside' of the main centers of conflict. Dogs of War don't provide a counter point to the Empire's playstyle, or at least not more so than the Brets. Chaos Dwarves could be seen as the counter point to Dwarves, but Dwarves are quite restricted in playstyle and I distinctly remember the army as being largely greenskin so it was confused.

On the plus side some of these units could easily be moved into existing armies. Some DOW units would go well with the Empire and Chaos Warriors could pick up Chaos Dwarves (and they already have a little).

Anything else just annoys too many people.

pointyteeth
07-12-2010, 00:28
I'd have to agree that to drop an army entirely is just a kick in the junk to anyone whos invested the time and money it takes to build an army in this game. That said I'd be ENTIRELY happy with a recombination of Warriors, Daemons, and Beastmen into a single book.

DivineVisitor
07-12-2010, 02:11
Woah, seems to be alot of votes going for Daemons, and reasons usually like it doesn't work with the background. Because of course armies of Daemons have never existed in the Warhammer World, oh no there just summoned or results of magic gone wrong :rolleyes:

There are plenty of stories of the Daemonic Legions in the Fantasy Lore if your willing to look for them, been playing my Daemonic Princess led Slaaneshi Daemons since Realm of Chaos.

As to who i would choose to Squat though i don't think i could choose of the current armies, they are all unique in their own ways. Though i'd not complain if they glued the Chaos Factions back together, as long as i could still field my Daemonic Legion, they could maybe beef up the Daemon Prince again while there at it, return it to it's former glory rather than the cripple it has currently been reduced to.

burad
07-12-2010, 02:26
Chaos Deamons. Reintroduce them as auxillaries to the other Chaos Armies.

I agree with this one.

Charistoph
07-12-2010, 04:17
Woah, seems to be alot of votes going for Daemons, and reasons usually like it doesn't work with the background. Because of course armies of Daemons have never existed in the Warhammer World, oh no there just summoned or results of magic gone wrong :rolleyes:

There are plenty of stories of the Daemonic Legions in the Fantasy Lore if your willing to look for them, been playing my Daemonic Princess led Slaaneshi Daemons since Realm of Chaos.

It's not that they hate Daemons, for the most part (though Mr Ward did make them worthy of hatred), it's that until recently, they were incorporated in another army. That makes them among the easiest to fold back into another army book with a minimum of loss to the range.

dragonet111
07-12-2010, 08:26
Horde of Chaos wasn't really good if you wanted to play a Daemon only army.

As long as I can still play a 100% daemon army I don't care seeing them in a Realm of Chaos army book. Actually I want to see a Realm of Chaos army book again:)

Stimpson J Cat
07-12-2010, 09:37
Chaos Deamons. Reintroduce them as auxillaries to the other Chaos Armies.

seconded. Allow beastmen, warriors of chaos and maybe Dark Elves to incorporate daemons.

Whitehorn
07-12-2010, 10:05
Stupid Ogres. Put them back into Empire.

oldschoolmonk
07-12-2010, 10:07
Recombine Chaos. Hire better designers if they cant handle unit balance with so many choices (the reason they originally split imo). Currently they don't have the same feeling that they used to.

And yes, remove Ogres if you have to pick an army. They are mercenaries and need a better fit for the warhammer world. Even if they were the only Dogs of War available I think it would be an improvement.

Putty
07-12-2010, 13:20
Skaven.

Stupid army shouldn't have access to the BRB's items.

Power Scroll + Dreaded 13 = HELLO?!?!?!

myrdinn
07-12-2010, 14:41
A definite vote for recombining Realms of Chaos. USed to be probably the most colourful thing you could field and allowed for single-power chaos armies which aren't much cop now using either WoC or DoC book. Oh for the days of a full-on nurgle horde. Green-stuff-tastic ...

whYnoT
07-12-2010, 15:08
I think Daemons and Beasties are pretty lame, I'd definitely merge those with WoC somehow. I'd prefer being able to call them all just "Chaos", no Warriors, Beasties Daemons etc... The ones I'd remove... TK because they look stupid, never hear anyone talk about them and no one at my LGS even plays them.

vorthain
07-12-2010, 15:13
I just started working on 8th edition rules to recombine the Chaos armies and will playtest them over winter holiday. Thinking Core should be available to everyone, whereas you need a character of the same 'type' (Warrior, Beast, Daemon) to field that same 'type' as Special, otherwise it is Rare. I also rescind my vote for Tomb Kings and Vampires to be combined - it really doesn't make as much sense as I thought. Dark Elves should definitely not have Daemons - they are not a Chaos army.

Charistoph
07-12-2010, 21:14
For those wanting the combination of Tomb Kings and Vampires, let me just suggest the concept of Blood Knights being supported by Screaming Skull Catapults and Liche Priests... Then there's that lovely Scorpion being supported by all those bats and wolves and the Varghulf...

Not my idea of a fun time.

Lord_Elric
07-12-2010, 21:22
Dark Elves should definitely not have Daemons - they are not a Chaos army.

they should but only under very specific circumstances aka the cults of pleasure should be something like if morathi is leading your army then you can take one unit of daemons of slannesh + 1 for every sorceress, death hag, unit of witch elves (mayb the units would require slanneshs sacred number)

special and rare slannesh unit/model choices counts as 2 and 3 units respectivly

sound about right tbh

vorthain
07-12-2010, 22:03
Witch Elves are Brides of Khaine and are antithesis to the Cult of Pleasure. I would say that for every Sorceress that you have, you may have one unit of Daemonettes, but you may not including any Khainite units (Witch Elves, Executioners, Assassins) in your army. If you have a High Sorceress, perhaps you could get a Special daemon choice as a Rare. That is the only way I could see that happening.

Kevlar
07-12-2010, 22:26
For those wanting the combination of Tomb Kings and Vampires, let me just suggest the concept of Blood Knights being supported by Screaming Skull Catapults and Liche Priests... Then there's that lovely Scorpion being supported by all those bats and wolves and the Varghulf...

Not my idea of a fun time.

Why not, thats how it was in the old book. Screaming skull catapults aren't new. Wight cavalry had like 3 wounds each. With magic wight blades. Granted the tomb king magic would need to get axed and they would get necromancy and or dark magic like they used to get.

malmen77
07-12-2010, 22:29
I would have to say lizardmen, i realy dont like the inca theme, dont fell like it fits into the warhammer world to me.

Ogres fits in better but i am unsure if it should be a stand alone army.

Roark
08-12-2010, 02:20
I agree with Malmen77 to some extent. Lizards are off on their own little peninsula, a race from a long bygone era. They don't seem to fit as well as the other factions. I mean, the Dark Elves are separated from the Old World too, but they have a massive navy and Black Arks floating around and whatnot. Plenty of contact.

But my #1 pick would be Daemons.

UberBeast
08-12-2010, 02:27
Ogres gone.

tezdal
08-12-2010, 02:30
They could drop the Empire, every time I line up against them I feel like it's an army of Jerry's from the Pirate shirt episode of Seinfeld.

herohammer
08-12-2010, 02:35
Lizards control the better part of 2 whole continents, Lustria and the Southlands and are in pretty much direct cross border contact with Dark Elves, High Elves (outposts and not that far to Ulthuan from north-east Lustria), Tomb Kings, and Araby (not that Araby has any presence outside of warmaster though). They are a major part of the settings backstory, they have enough naval reach to colonize Albion and start building a big city there.

Really in terms of removal due to lack of connection with other factions the LM don't make much sense as a faction to remove. They have a pretty good amount of reach, the only factions that beat them out in worldwide reach are the HElves who literally can sail around the world and have the outposts to prove it, and maybe the Empire with all of their cross-land caravans to Cathay and Ind.

Now the Wood Elves on the other hand barely ever seem to leave Athel Loren which really is only directly contiguous to the Brettonians and Beastmen. I guess there is a dwarf hold somewhere near it too, and the Empire across the mountains to the east, and Skavenblight to the south-east.

That being said WE can't be removed as they have been around for a million years and fill in the fantasy trope of "elves/trees/nature/lololol" pretty damn well.

Really the only removals that would make much of any sense would be a recombination of the Chaos or Undead books into big tomes with modular army lists based on what kind of general you take. That isn't really getting rid of a faction though, just a book.

Grey Mage
08-12-2010, 03:13
I wouldnt want anyone canned, but I think a Chaos-Superdex would be very cool, and if done well could add alot of variation and well... chaos... to the game.

Hrmm.... though in an entirely different sense, I wish they had all been chucked- and replaced with black lists. 8th edition had so many changes, so many balance changes, I think it would have helped alot and put people more in the mindset of a new edition.

Roark
08-12-2010, 05:05
Herohammer: All they seem to be about is defending a crumbling empire in the middle of the jungle. (No offence to any Lizards players...) They may share borders with others, but their contact seems to consist almost exclusively of:

*Lizards sit in jungle*

*dudes invade jungle*

*Lizards defend the homeland with ferocity*

*Lizards sit in jungle*

In fact, are there any Black Library novels written from the Lizards' POV? The fluff seems real thin to me outside of the actual army book...

Darkien
08-12-2010, 05:18
As someone who plays Beastmen, TK, Ogres, and Daemons I say get rid of the empire... just have the chaos warriors take it over already.

but seriously i agree with the wood elf argument that they just sit on the fringes of the main stories, not really aiding either side unless they need allies to defend their forests. Other than that it's the same thing as lizardmen.

*Wood Elf sits in forest*

*dudes invades forest*

*Wood Elves (and forest spirit allies) defend the forest with ferocity*

*Wood Elves sit in forest*

Also, the idea of recombining the undead books from a fluff standpoint is crazy as the tomb kings are complete opposed to nagash and the vampires.

Charistoph
08-12-2010, 05:28
Herohammer: All they seem to be about is defending a crumbling empire in the middle of the jungle. (No offence to any Lizards players...) They may share borders with others, but their contact seems to consist almost exclusively of:

*Lizards sit in jungle*

*dudes invade jungle*

*Lizards defend the homeland with ferocity*

*Lizards sit in jungle*

In fact, are there any Black Library novels written from the Lizards' POV? The fluff seems real thin to me outside of the actual army book...

If you've read the army book, there are a Slann or two that are being... more proactive in dealing with the other races. But one reason they sent Kro-Gar to setup a major outpost (complete with teleporting mists) on Albion, just off the shores of Bretonnia and the Empire.

tezdal
08-12-2010, 05:57
Don't lizardmen ride giant sea turtles? They can be ANYWHERE.

Pink Horror
08-12-2010, 06:03
Dwarfs. The fluff is the same boring crap that all Dwarfs in fantasy settings always have. They have no interesting units, no cavalry, no tactics - just turtle, shoot, and wait. They are the leaders at being boring. Beastmen are currently in second place, which is a huge shame. I personally think beastmen and wood elves belong together, not wood elves and the brets. Fluff can be rewritten.

Gerod253
08-12-2010, 06:39
I am of the line of thought which says that no models should be made unuseable. However, I have no issue with the models changing roles.

If I was to re-structure things this is what it would look like.

Army Book: Humans. Combine the Brets, Empire, Cathy, Araby Dogs of War, and all other traditinally human Kingdoms and their allies, halflings ect. Heroes and Lords can unlock different builds

Army Book: Chaos. Combine WoC, Daemons, Beastmen, and Chaos Dwarves together.

Army Book: Elves. Combine WE, HE, and DE into one book.

Army Book: Undead. Combine TK and VC together and make Wights and Necromancers a real Lord and Hero option instead of just the TK and Vamps

Army Book: Savage Races. Combine Orcs and Goblins, and Ogres.

Army Books Dwarves, Lizardmen, and Skaven I can't figure out a way to combine with each other so perhaps they would have to stay seperate.

Fewer books, but each one is thicker and filled with many options. This should leave to better game balance. Also, since there are fewer books then GW can spend more time and money doing what they do best. Making great minies. i'd rather have the rules and books take a back seat to the minitures themselves. These days it seems like the rules matter more then what is on the table.

P.S. For the record I play Brets, WoC and have a fledgling TK army and I still support the combinations.

Duke Georgal
08-12-2010, 12:42
Dwarfs - just turtle, shoot, and wait. They are the leaders at being boring.

I guess you have not played Dwarfs in 8th edition. They fly around the table with amazing speed now.

bluemage
08-12-2010, 16:59
I know what armies we could recombine. Orcs and goblins, there's no reason for those two armies to each have their own book. Therefore I say gw should combine them both into one army book, which solves everyone's' problems.

/sarcasm

McLucien18
08-12-2010, 17:27
Warhammer Armies: Chaos would be amazing. Hordes of Chaos was what brought me into Fantasy Battle, because of the oodles and oodles of variety. Now I feel a lot more restricted. Besides, having an army book that was actually larger than the main rulebook would be hilarious. They'd have to bring out a mini-version.

But seriously, I would find it amazing if they included all of them, including CD, under one roof. There could maybe be variant lists within it, but in one thing it would be the god of army books.

Pulstar
08-12-2010, 18:10
Chaos shouldn't be 3 armies, it should be 4. One for each of patrons.

I wouldn't want any of the armies to go away, but since I'm planning on starting a TK army when the new book comes out, I'm sure that is the one that will go first.

Bgmique
08-12-2010, 18:10
why doesn't anyone just take the units they want using the allies rules? Even if you have to take a character and fill a % of core? I would take a beastman HQ in order to have 2 units of ungor raiders with my WoC. My marauders would get a chance to see a bow close up for once.

If the average game now is really 3000 points, then I would even say to go so far as play 1k beastmen plus 2k WoC. Even if the beasts couldn't use my WoC army banner.

Finally, lizardmen have jungle bordering khemri. Real close to the city of Rasetra. After Nagash, Rasetra was so weak, they feared and saw an increase in lizardmen attacks. Some interesting fluff because there was an equivelant of a demilitarized zone in the jungle where the rasetrans had a temple or something.

Charistoph
08-12-2010, 21:09
why doesn't anyone just take the units they want using the allies rules? Even if you have to take a character and fill a % of core? I would take a beastman HQ in order to have 2 units of ungor raiders with my WoC. My marauders would get a chance to see a bow close up for once.


Because of the wording behind it, this is more of a House Rule than a standard rule. Don't expect a tournament to accept such an army as regular fare.

dimetri1
09-12-2010, 01:22
Thanks for all of your comments. I don't want to 86 any ones army. I just thought it would be fun to play the other side of the coin.

skullkandy
28-12-2010, 16:52
Chaos Deamons. Reintroduce them as auxillaries to the other Chaos Armies.

this. deamons should never have been their own army. some people might not like ogres, tomb kings, or some of the least played armies but at least they have a reason to be their own book and are enough of a force to warrent it. Deamons are summoned by mortals and make no sense as their own army. Logistically wise they aren't even a fully fleshed out force due to the limited choices.

Bergen Beerbelly
28-12-2010, 18:10
When I first read the title of this thread my gut reaction was " CHAOS...GET RID OF CHAOS...ALL OF IT! grumble grumble grumble."

It was because I remember the days of Herohammer where Chaos in both Fantasy and 40k was SO stupidly overpowered that I just hated to play against anyone that played Chaos.

But then I remembered that I was one of the people that had bought into Squats right before GW decided to nix the army from the 40k game.

The anger I felt when 3rd edition 40k came out and there were no Squats in it made me want to burn all the books for the new addition of the game.

It sort of leaves you with a hollow feeling inside when you realize that the army you bought is removed from the game and you wish you would have saved the money to buy the other army you were thinking about...but it's too late now....

So...because of that experience, even though I have a severe hatred of the way GW loves to overpower their chaos love child in both versions of the game, I wouldn't ever wish anyone to go through what I went through with the Squats...so no....no army should be removed, not Chaos, not Skaven, not even Dogs of War or Chaos Dwarfs.

AFnord
28-12-2010, 18:42
Don't lizardmen ride giant sea turtles? They can be ANYWHERE.
Apart from the cold north.
LM, while mainly being a defensive army, does send out forces to other parts of the world, as others have pointed out.

Wood elves are not exclusive to Loren, they live in other forests too, although in smaller numbers, so they do come into contact with beastmen, chaos, empire, brets, VC, dwarves, O&G, chaos dwarves, skaven & ogres.

TK are the ones with the most limited presence in the rest of the world.

As for merging armies, I don't agree with people who want to merge TK & VC. While they were once a single army, that army was more of a generic "undead" army, with most of the common undead stuff thrown in haphazardly. Most of the character that you got out of the army came from how you built your own army, not from the army book.

I agree with people who want to merge the chaos armies back into one big army book again. While daemons once roamed the warhammer world, such events are very rare these days.
(note: Chaos dwarves do not belong in the chaos army, it does not suit their fluff. The name Chaos dwarves is a bit misleading, as they don't actually worship the chaos gods).

Triple7s
28-12-2010, 18:51
If I had to outright get rid of an army it'd be without a doubt Ogres. I just personally can't take them seriously at all. A close second would be Wood Elves.

Also, I must say even as a Daemons player, I'd tone Daemons down a bit. And i'd nerf Teclis too.

Thazi Battleseeker
28-12-2010, 19:03
Empire :)

If not replace, at least a major overhaul.

I just feel they would be much different given their history, influences, and setting.

Jind_Singh
28-12-2010, 21:17
I would vote for Tomb Kings - just because their fluff doesn't really make them aggressive enough to really influence the way the Old World works, and from a gaming point - I don't really know that many TK players so it would be the least painful removal at our local store.

But the lizardmen were like this too - until their new book - and now they have been updated with a much more aggressive fluff perspective that makes them reach out to affect world events. I can see that happen to the TK as there is a small story in the big rule book were Setra has rebuilt the fleets and landed off the coast of the Border Princes/Badlands

CaliforniaGamer
28-12-2010, 21:45
Chaos Dwarves and DoW have already been removed, isnt that good enough?


Aside from that, I think most would agree Daemons get added back to both the Beastmen and WoC or adding a Horde book to provide rules for allies. Discontinue a stand alone Daemons army concept.

14-15 books is good enough, certainly I wouldnt add anymore.

Torpedo Vegas
29-12-2010, 05:57
Empire :)

If not replace, at least a major overhaul.

I just feel they would be much different given their history, influences, and setting.
I don't think removing Empire would be a good idea, as the Empire is more or less the most "important" faction in the timeline WFB. Care to elaborate why the army needs a re haul, I am curious.

exodusofman
29-12-2010, 09:10
Make all the Chaos factions into one book.

I agree beasts do suck(even tho I play them) they bring nothing to the table and are too similiar to orcs. Big says hey all you small guys lets go fight humans and die cuz thats what always happens-Orc and Beastmen mentality

The armies I would remove are Ogres, wood elves and brettonians. I dont know much about the armies but none of them have contributed sigificantly enough to the warhammer background story for me to even consider they deserve a place in the world. Every other faction has done something that has impacted the warhammer world greatly.

AlphariusOmegon20
31-12-2010, 04:58
*LoL*

What "other Chaos armies"?

There's no such thing.



But really.. "other Chaos armies" hahaha

RIDICULOUS. ;)

Really? So I take it you are unaware of the existence of Beastmen and the Warriors of Chaos?

Sparowl
31-12-2010, 06:48
In fact, are there any Black Library novels written from the Lizards' POV? The fluff seems real thin to me outside of the actual army book...

None written from the perspective of:

Orcs and goblins
Skaven
Tomb kings
Wood elves
Beasts of chaos

Let's get rid of all of them, then, eh? I mean, no black library novels, no good fluff.

Torpedo Vegas
31-12-2010, 06:56
None written from the perspective of:

Orcs and goblins
Skaven
Tomb kings
Wood elves
Beasts of chaos

Let's get rid of all of them, then, eh? I mean, no black library novels, no good fluff.
Lizardmen and Skaven do have BL books though.

Ar-Gimilzor
31-12-2010, 07:30
Most likely the Bretonnians but that only because there to much like the redneck bother of the Empire. Hopeful that will change with a new book.
+1... in a world where Chaos is supposed to be the biggest threat, these guys just bask in the sunshine and drink wine 24/7 while the poor Kislevites are doing most of the heavy lifting. Also, Beastmen... kind of crap. They should be part of a consolidated Chaos faction imo.

Sparowl
31-12-2010, 11:57
Lizardmen and Skaven do have BL books though.

Really? Which books?

Razakel
31-12-2010, 12:32
I believe Grey Seer and its sequel Temple of the Serpent are black library books written from the point of view of Grey Seer Thanquol (not sure if I spelled the name right). I don't believe there are any Lizardmen books but I could easily be mistaken.

@ Thread: I wouldn't remove any armies, I think things are pretty good right where they are. :)

rodmillard
31-12-2010, 13:24
I'll add my vote for consolidating the 3 chaos books into one uber-tome.

I also think that they could rejig the human nations of the Old World in a similar way, rolling DoW, Empire, Brettonia and Kislev into a single supplement that would allow you to field an army from anywhere in the Old World with the availability of units determined by your choice of general.

Pug118
31-12-2010, 15:30
I'm in the camp for rolling things in together rather than getting rid of.

I think I'd like to see the three Chaos factions rolled into one BRB sized army book. It could contain a huge amount of fluff and if they put enough thought into it you could field a large array of army types. God specific forces, faction specific forces or the big gribbly mix that large chaos forces should be.

HE and DE might go together owing to their shared background, WE could go in with the other elves or maybe in with Brets, the only other natural pairing I can see would be OK and DoW for the mercenary background.

What I'd realy like to see is a large army book that gives several basic lists for the side lined armies. (Kind of like the 3rd edition.) It could cover Araby/Ind/Kislev/DoW/CD/Hobgoblins/Nippon/etc, maybe even include TK, WE and OK if they're not going to be fully supported.

I'd have a brief fluff section for each army and four or five pages for each list. A combined colour section showing the figures for those armies that have them and some examples of how to convert figures for those that don't. The rest of the book could include rules for using these factions as stand alone, allied or mercenary forces.

Kind of introduce some variety, and throw a life line to the oop armies, at minimal investment. If something proved popular they could expand on it.

Tah Kazak Rik
31-12-2010, 16:00
I would not get rid of any army because the current armies allow a great diversity of players. But if I had to get rid of one or more:

I would get rid of Ogres as its own army. I would then put Ogres as a rare unit in the Empire book, and keep them in the WoC book. Gnoblars should go into the O&G book.

I would also get rid of Tomb Kings because they are, like many have said, far removed from things are are rarely dealt with. I feel that if they are included then the nations of Araby should have their own army, and since I couldnt see GW doing that, Tomb Kings should go.

And I would not make Kislev its own army, but rather include their units into the Empire's army book.

bluemage
31-12-2010, 16:33
What's wrong with some of you people? Why would you get rid of the armies with a unique playstyle like WE, TK, OK? If you have to drop some armies, drop the armies that bring nothing unique to the table. Really if you have to drop an army, drop High Elves or Dark Elves. Those armies are so similiar, for obvious reasons, but you could drop one of those armies and game wouldn't really change.

Anyways dropping fantasy armies is one of the worst ideas since hiring mat ward or turning LoTR into a minatures game.

AlphariusOmegon20
31-12-2010, 17:11
What's wrong with some of you people? Why would you get rid of the armies with a unique playstyle like WE, TK, OK? If you have to drop some armies, drop the armies that bring nothing unique to the table. Really if you have to drop an army, drop High Elves or Dark Elves. Those armies are so similiar, for obvious reasons, but you could drop one of those armies and game wouldn't really change.



But the history of the Warhammer world would.

LaughinGremlin
31-12-2010, 17:51
Dogs of War is discontinued by GW, but like those Gods that remain as long as they still have believers, DoW still has players, and the recent indy list is wonderful. It inspired me to get some pikemen. I'm getting the "Khaos Dwarfs" from MANTIC too.

I realize that this is just a fun, "what if" thread, so I say all this light-heartedly:
One doesn't need to put much stock in what GW thinks (or what this thread thinks) about what should be a dropped army.

It is difficult to debate something subjectively, so saying what is best or worst based on fluff or model appearance or play-style, is not as debatable as which army is worst because of its rules and how those rules/abilities fare relatively in the 8th Edition rules.

Haravikk
31-12-2010, 18:11
I don't really like Ogre Kingdoms, and don't see why it was made into an army. At the same time though now that it is here it's actually fairly unique and interesting to play against, though I doubt I'll ever warm to the army itself, only the way it functions in the game.

I didn't understand why undead were split into two, I love the idea of Tomb Kings, despite how tricky they are to use right now, and don't really like Vampire Counts much (though they have some sweet models). In the end they do make two fairly unique and interesting armies.

Likewise with the Chaos split, but now Beastmen really do stand on their own extremely well, and have a ton of great kits to boot.

I think if I were to drop any, it would be demons of chaos; I'd much rather see them lumped back in with Warriors of Chaos as supporting Special and Rare units. As to me they seem a logical choice for creating themed armies such as Khorne Warriors with Bloodletters and so-on.
On their own they're a fairly horrible army in game-play terms as they're very much like an undead army but with a load of very powerful units, and I've yet to see an all demon army that looks any good. The kits themselves, some aren't bad but like I say, I think they make more sense as a supporting cast for Warriors of Chaos. There's a load of fat that could do with trimming from the Warriors of Chaos list anyway, so there's plenty of room for the main demon types in there, otherwise make them more of a supplemental list designed to be added on rather than fielded separately.


On the issue of Chaos Dwarfs; I always felt that dropping them was a mistake. I can understand why as at the time I don't think they were all that unique an army, but there is a ton of potential behind them, and many of the continuing supplements that try to form playable Chaos Dwarf rules show some promise (though perhaps not enough of a shake-up). So I'd actually quite like to see them reappear as something other than Hellcannon crew.

Drasanil
31-12-2010, 23:57
I wouldn't get rid of any armies per say, but if it were up to me I would fold some armies together, along either thematic or racial lines as follows:

Chaos - I would fold all armies back together in a single book, and streamline some of the options/entries while keeping all the models viable.

*Ungors and Marauders, are Core no matter what.

*Chaos Warriors/Knights are Core if your General is Mortal (or a DP with approriate gift) Special otherwise, and can be Updraded to Chosen becoming Special/Rare as appropriate. Same for Gors/Bestigors if your General is Beasts/DP with Gift.

*Lesser deamons all have the same statline, with a manditory upgrade to either Bloodletters (KB), Deamonettes (ASF), Plaguebearers (Regen), Horrors (Ranged Attacks) or Furies (Flight). They're Core so long as you have a Deamon General or you General has the same Mark as the Upgraded unit, otherwise they're special.

*Fold Ogres/Trolls/Minautors/Dragon Ogres, into the same unit with an upgrade to differientiate them, Trolls (Stupid, Regen, No Weapons), Minotaurs (Frenzy), Dragon Ogres (Lightning, Scaly Skin).

*Chaos Giant/Shaggoth/Beast Thingies, are folded together with an ugrade to differentiate them.

*All other units the same.

*If your General is Undecided, all marked units move up one slot, and rares becoming unusable, if your General is Marked only units sharing the same mark or undecided/unmarked units may be fielded.

--- --- --- --- ---

Dogs of War/Ogres - Keep the fluff as is but add in the option to make Dogs of War and/or Ogres armies.

*Ogre Bulls/Leadbelchers, same unit differentiated by Weapons/Armor, core if General is Ogre, special if not.

*Ironguts/Maneaters, same unit differentiated by upgrades/Weapons, Special if General is Ogre, Rare if not.

*Knights are core if you have a human general, special if not.

*Gnoblars are Ogre Generals only.

*Add in a 0-1 generic Elf and Dwarf Lord option that must be your general if taken and a generic Elf unit entry similar to the dwarf one in the current list. Elf/Dwarf generics are core if your general is an elf/dwarf respectively, special if human and rare if your general is an ogre or a dwarf/elf respectively.

*An Ogre general disallows human lord choices and vice verse with a Human general.

*Artillery as is, but cannons have the option to be upgraded to a dwarven crew and become special if your general is a dwarf.

*Hero Level Wizards/Heroes have the option to be ugraded to elves/dwarves respectively, provided you take an elf/dwarf gen or generic unit. Mostly for flavour, no additional rules though.

*The rest stays the same, most regiments of the renown can simply be folded into normal units.

--- --- --- --- ---

Bretonia/Wood Elves - Folded together but mostly stay the same.

*An Elf/Forest Spirit General, disallows any unit with the Peasant Rule, as well as human lords choices and you don't get the blessing unless a unit/character has a Vow/Rule that automatically grants it.

*A Bret General, disallows Elven/Forest Spirit Lord choices, and all Elven/Forest Spirt choices move up one slot, rares becoming unusable.

*Knights of the Realm/Questing Knights become the same unit, with questing being an upgrade that moves them to special.

*Glade Guard/Eternal Guard become the same unit with different weapon lay outs.

*Wild Riders become an upgrade for Glade Riders that moves them to special/rare depending.

--- --- --- --- ---

Dwarves/Chaos Dwarves - Folded together, Chaos Dwarf Lords/Heroes have monster mount options, where as Dwarven ones have an extra 50/25 point allowance for rune items respectively ad are mutually exclusive. Sorcerers and Rune Priests are also mutually exclusive along the same lines.

*Chaos Dwarves unlock bull centaurs, hobgoblins and Hellcannons.

*Dwarves, unlock Slayers and Gyrocopters, Flame Cannons and Organ Guns.

*Chaos Dwarves with at least one sorcerer can take Lesser Deamons as rares.

--- --- --- --- ---

Vampire Counts/Tomb Kings - Folded together.

*Vampire/Necromancer Generals, lock out mummies, liche Priests, undead contructs and chariots. Unlock armor options for skeletons/wights.

*Mummy Generals, lock out Necromancers, all units with the Vampire rule, zombies, ghouls, dire wolves and ethereals.

*Scarabs/Bats Swarms, same thing different flavour, same with carrions and vamp-bats.

*Nagash, or maybe Arkhan, comes back as an SC and allows you to use everything in the list except Vamp/Mummy Lords and Liche Priests.

Voss
01-01-2011, 00:15
Wouldn't axe any of the fantasy armies, but vampires counts need to be put back into their place as auxiliaries to Necromancers, the true lords of the undead.

Craze_b0i
01-01-2011, 01:34
There are certain armies I was never so bothered about, TK and beastmen for example. But I wouldn't axe any armies because it would be unfair to those who have spent/time money on them. With those I would update the army lists to correct any inbalances but otherwise not invest more time on them than necessary.

I also think certain armies have gone too far with technologies. Dwarf gyrocopter anyone? And some of the advanced Empire stuff like the Hellblaster or the Stank. It is inconsistent that Empire and Brets are neighbours yet about 500 years apart in technology. However it would not be nice to scrap any units or war machines that people have already bought and painted.

Wood Elves I have a problem with the fluff. They basically only live in one location and sit about waiting for the various contrived plot devices that will make someone invade their forest. If I were the author of the WE book would write fluff on smaller colonies scattered across the old world. Rather than sit at home the elves would be actively waging a guerilla war to clear forests of beastmen and goblins and so forth.

Regarding undead, I'd like to see vampires list expanded out to include necromancer led armies - and including the likes of Heinrich kemmler, Dieter Helsnich, Arkhan the Black and Nagash.

tezdal
01-01-2011, 02:13
I don't think removing Empire would be a good idea, as the Empire is more or less the most "important" faction in the timeline WFB. Care to elaborate why the army needs a re haul, I am curious.

1.Cod-pieces
2.fluffy sleeves

HereticHammer01
01-01-2011, 02:18
I think all the armies have their fans and yes you probably could extinguish one of them, but fluff could develop to make them interesting and important so why get rid of one? More races the better in my opinion. I think if anyone was to be streamlined it would be chaos but only because demons don't really need to be separate.

Charistoph
01-01-2011, 03:14
Dwarves/Chaos Dwarves - Folded together, Chaos Dwarf Lords/Heroes have monster mount options, where as Dwarven ones have an extra 50/25 point allowance for rune items respectively ad are mutually exclusive. Sorcerers and Rune Priests are also mutually exclusive along the same lines.

*Chaos Dwarves unlock bull centaurs, hobgoblins and Hellcannons.

*Dwarves, unlock Slayers and Gyrocopters, Flame Cannons and Organ Guns.

*Chaos Dwarves with at least one sorcerer can take Lesser Deamons as rares.

--- --- --- --- ---

Vampire Counts/Tomb Kings - Folded together.

*Vampire/Necromancer Generals, lock out mummies, liche Priests, undead contructs and chariots. Unlock armor options for skeletons/wights.

*Mummy Generals, lock out Necromancers, all units with the Vampire rule, zombies, ghouls, dire wolves and ethereals.

*Scarabs/Bats Swarms, same thing different flavour, same with carrions and vamp-bats.

*Nagash, or maybe Arkhan, comes back as an SC and allows you to use everything in the list except Vamp/Mummy Lords and Liche Priests.

I can see most of the ones you said, but these two groups just don't fly. Might as well try to put Dark and High Elves together or Israelies and Arabs. Heck, it would be easier to put Dark and High Elves together than both Undead armies and both Dwarf armies, because at least there are a lot of similarities between the Elves fighting styles (cost and their special toys, or a different story, but the main units are basically the same). Could you imagine Vampires Counts with Screaming Skull Catapults and Bone Giants? Not to mention the story line for them have been separated for long enough now that they do have their unique identities.

Drasanil
01-01-2011, 04:15
Heck, it would be easier to put Dark and High Elves together than both Undead armies and both Dwarf armies, because at least there are a lot of similarities between the Elves fighting styles (cost and their special toys, or a different story, but the main units are basically the same).

In my experience High and Dark Elves play very differently, the only thing they really have in common are Spearmen and RBTs, all similarily armed units play different roles, Black Guard and Pheonix Guard, Sword Masters and Execs, not to mention both are main armies as opposed to Tomb Kings and Chaos Dwarves that are on the perephery at best.


Could you imagine Vampires Counts with Screaming Skull Catapults and Bone Giants? Not to mention the story line for them have been separated for long enough now that they do have their unique identities.

VC, or rather Undead, used to have Screaming Skull Catapults, as for Bone Giants they're undead constructs and would be disallowed by a Vamp/Necro general. TK and VC's main play style difference are in the magic phase and that difference would be preserved by mutually exclussive heroes, if Mummy General also confered the unmodified shooting it would servely cut down on possible shooty VC lists. Not to mention a generic undead skelly kit with a few extra egyptian and medival bits would be rather easy to produce and would not diminish the over all feel of the armies in question.

I lumped in Dwarves and Chaos Dwarves, because otherwise the Dawi'Zhar would be unlikely to see another play list and a Dwai'Zhar army could be constructed from the dwarven model range a few chaos bits. There Core Differences between the armies would be preserved by mutually exclussive units.

Torpedo Vegas
01-01-2011, 04:21
1.Cod-pieces
2.fluffy sleeves
Are you implying cod pieces and sleeves are a bad thing?

Craze_b0i
01-01-2011, 12:36
The major flaw in folding these armies together is you won't have room to keep all the current fluff in the books. Either that or you have to make a book twice the size that costs twice as much. You want to play High Elves you say? Well first you need to buy the all-elves book for 40.

Brother Alexos
01-01-2011, 23:59
I think that if I had to remove one race, it would have to be Daemons, and make them into the auxilary units they were. I think that since it takes so much to summon 1 Daemon into the world, and that's if you do it flawlessly, then there is no feasible way to actually make a whole army of them, what with that Giant Elven Portal Thing sucking all the chaos energies out of the land. They would grow weak and starve.

I mean, face it, it may seem as if making a Beastmen, or Orcs and Goblins army, may seem impossible, but at least they are able to stay in this realm of existance coherently. Though that doesn't mean I wouldn't change anything for the other armies. Like, how come Dwarves don't get any steam tanks, but they have war balloons?

But, I guess that actually having the option of fielding a Daemons army is cool. In all the books and short stories I have read, it takes alot to summon a lesser Daemon, but that is from a mortal's standpoint. I mean, if you're a Daemon Prince, who can actually call upon the Warp at any time, you could feasibly summon an army by way of slaughtering another guy's army.

I think that each race has its role to play when it comes to the Warhammer world. some armies are there just because another army is there. Take Skaven, for example. They are the anti-Dwarves. Since GW didn't make a Chaos Dwarves army, they had to have something else that tunneled underground and could fight the dwarves on their own terms. Because as the Orcs and Goblins got dumber and dumber, they would need bigger and bigger armies to crack a Dwarven hold.

Same thing with Elves and Dark Elves. Wood Elves and Beastmen, too.

Either way, that is enough ranting for me.

big squig
02-01-2011, 05:37
I'm all for a big chaos book. Separating chaos makes about as much sense as separating orcs and goblins. But hey, GW would make more money if they did!

AlphariusOmegon20
02-01-2011, 15:03
Dwarves/Chaos Dwarves - Folded together, Chaos Dwarf Lords/Heroes have monster mount options, where as Dwarven ones have an extra 50/25 point allowance for rune items respectively ad are mutually exclusive. Sorcerers and Rune Priests are also mutually exclusive along the same lines.

*Chaos Dwarves unlock bull centaurs, hobgoblins and Hellcannons.

*Dwarves, unlock Slayers and Gyrocopters, Flame Cannons and Organ Guns.

*Chaos Dwarves with at least one sorcerer can take Lesser Deamons as rares.



I can't get behind this one. If you really have to fold the CD into something, fold them where they belong: into the Chaos warriors army.

There's already CD's in a WoC army anyways (thanks to the Hellcannon), so it makes sense.

yabbadabba
02-01-2011, 15:41
I think that since it takes so much to summon 1 Daemon into the world, Or you just weaken the broken Chaos Gates at the poles and let them go on the rampage. Daemons should stay for those people who love playing fluff games, for all those battles where hordes of daemons turn up.


I can't get behind this one. If you really have to fold the CD into something, fold them where they belong: into the Chaos warriors army. Two different concepts. Chaos (chaotic) Dwarves are renegade dwarves subverted to Chaos and operate in the Chaos Wastes. Chaos Dwarves are totally different, and have their own place in the world. Yes, there is some crossover between the two, but they are distinct.

Dogs of War - they have already gone, so its no real loss. There is an allies rule in the BRB so this can be used. You can't really give the kingdoms like Tilea, the Border Princes, Estalia etc the rich and varied treatment they could get, under GW's current business structure, so it would be best to cut them loose altogether.

UberBeast
02-01-2011, 17:48
Chaos dwarves have a "evil mechanical genious" element that Skaven have been borrowing more and more heavily. Still, I think they have a place in the warmachine department.

Ogres, still my vote for army most in need of kicking.

AFnord
02-01-2011, 17:49
I'm all for a big chaos book. Separating chaos makes about as much sense as separating orcs and goblins. But hey, GW would make more money if they did!
Separating beasts works rather well, from a fluff point of view, after all you will often find all beasts warbands (they are quite common according to the fluff, more common than warriors of chaos warbands at least). I would not mind beasts staying the way they are (as a separate list), but WoC/DoC still feels like they should be one army. BoC could well get a few daemons as rare choices (at least the lesser ones).

rodmillard
02-01-2011, 18:44
Ogres, still my vote for army most in need of kicking.

The thing is that they originally split ogres off and gave them the mercenary rule as a kind of "dogs of war lite." I would be all in favour of them bringing back Dogs of War (as a stand-alone mercenary list that can ally with anyone as per the rules in the FBRB) and incorporating the current ogre list in it.

Since Warriors of Chaos got to keep their own ogres, maybe mercenary ogre units could be put back in the armies that used to have them - Imperial Ogres were cool (although they really did make Empire the catch all list). You could very easily get rid of ogres by putting them back into the other army books, but this would require either a Ravening Hordes style reboot or a massive step up of the release schedule when they seem to be going in the opposite direction...

Torpedo Vegas
02-01-2011, 18:54
I'm making a case against Ogre being booted. They have have a very unique play style, look, and fluff. Now, if we went back to DoW, but one could still have an all Ogre army then that would be fine.

pkain762
02-01-2011, 19:36
if i had to choose i would say chaos dwarves and DOW.... Just take them out back and put them out of their misery already.... they have been in limbo for far too long, i am tired of people using the old rules in RT tourneys.... it just creates too many problems

Mystic_Weasel
02-01-2011, 19:44
So much skaven hate, jealous man-things. Yes, we are the ONLY army to have a game winning spell with a power scroll. Maybe i should repaint my skaven's armour blue, and paint a nice big white U on the armour (for under empire obviously), and say everyone hates them because all other races want to be like them!

I would say i would love a combined chaos book, just because when i was a young'n thats how chaos was, and though they have changed alot over 20 years i would still like to see a United nations of the ruinous powers. Even if my beloved rats were battered by them on some occasions...ahh when chaos warriors were basically empire lords with less attacks and wounds.

That said Vampire counts and tomb kings should remain seperate in my opinion, i like the gothic counts and the more egyptian, shooty (kinda), cavalry/chariot based kings.
Mummies in a vampire count army never felt right to me, even with my love of the old days.

I gotta say i would say lose no armies, but if i had to pick one i would choose Ogre kingdoms, and move them back to a mercenary style unit.

Torpedo Vegas
03-01-2011, 04:47
if i had to choose i would say chaos dwarves and DOW.... Just take them out back and put them out of their misery already.... they have been in limbo for far too long, i am tired of people using the old rules in RT tourneys.... it just creates too many problems

Chaos Dwarfs never had an official "army book" and DOW aren't officially supported by GW, so people using them at tourneys is the circuit you play at's fault.

Speaking of Chaos Dwarfs, tey are proof that not supporting an army will kill it. Just look at all the fan mad army books and custom models. A well like army will always have a core of fans who won't abandon them, even if GW puts the boots to them.

UberBeast
03-01-2011, 05:16
I'm making a case against Ogre being booted. They have have a very unique play style, look, and fluff. Now, if we went back to DoW, but one could still have an all Ogre army then that would be fine.

Personally, I always thought the current ogres fluff made them seem too much like orcs. They talk like orcs, they kick around little greenskin buddies, they eat everything in sight and they use huge brutal looking weapons. They are just bigger fatter orcs. GW really needs to give them proper fluff instead of just making them big, greedy, and hungry.

Torpedo Vegas
03-01-2011, 05:27
Personally, I always thought the current ogres fluff made them seem too much like orcs. They talk like orcs, they kick around little greenskin buddies, they eat everything in sight and they use huge brutal looking weapons. They are just bigger fatter orcs. GW really needs to give them proper fluff instead of just making them big, greedy, and hungry.

I see where you are coming from, they do talk like orcs, and are very violent. I find the key distention, however, is that orcs fight because its fun. Ogres fight because they are hungry. The Maw needs some fleshing out though, it could be so much cooler than it is.

yabbadabba
03-01-2011, 09:30
Speaking of Chaos Dwarfs, tey are proof that not supporting an army will kill it. Just look at all the fan mad army books and custom models. A well like army will always have a core of fans who won't abandon them, even if GW puts the boots to them. I don't know how you define not supporting an army. CD had a complete model range at the time, more than some others if I remember, and of a similar lay out to others at the time. They appeared in battle reports, modelling articles and playing articles. They just never sold. Sounds to me like the "well liked army" was not liked enough to sell, and that will kill an army faster than anything GW does.

Anyway, to others, moving Ogres into DoW makes no sense, especially as you could take them as allies anyway. Dropping them on aesthetic grounds I can understand but moving them into a non-existent army book and reducing the spread of the units of a stand alone army... why?

Sparowl
03-01-2011, 11:12
Personally, I always thought the current ogres fluff made them seem too much like orcs. They talk like orcs, they kick around little greenskin buddies, they eat everything in sight and they use huge brutal looking weapons. They are just bigger fatter orcs. GW really needs to give them proper fluff instead of just making them big, greedy, and hungry.

You raise a very good point, sir.

Grunge
03-01-2011, 17:18
Bretonnians: Because they just dont stand apart in their rules. You could field an empire list using bret models, and I'm sure noone would notice a difference in play.


Bretonnia is, along with Ogres, Tomb Kings and Wood Elves, the one army that stands apart. Especially in their rules. Especially when compared to the Empire.

Drasanil
03-01-2011, 19:37
Anyway, to others, moving Ogres into DoW makes no sense, especially as you could take them as allies anyway. Dropping them on aesthetic grounds I can understand but moving them into a non-existent army book and reducing the spread of the units of a stand alone army... why?

Because Ogres are little more than big orcs sans the coolness factor, introduced a world changing retcon and took the place of a much more awesome army; namely DoW.

yabbadabba
03-01-2011, 19:46
Because Ogres are little more than big orcs sans the coolness factor, introduced a world changing retcon and took the place of a much more awesome army; namely DoW. That you don't like then aesthetically I can understand and accept. The rest - not so much. Writing was on the wall for DoW and if GW are ever going to open up the rest of the Warhammer World then retconning will have to happen.

Tokamak
03-01-2011, 19:54
Ogres fulfill a niche to maintain the diversity between armies.

UberBeast
03-01-2011, 20:57
Ogres fulfill a niche to maintain the diversity between armies.

Hmm, I think that they could do what you suggest with more work from GW, but currently I'm just not convinced they are doing this niche/diversity thing very well.

Schmapdi
03-01-2011, 21:19
Yes Ogres fluff could stand fleshing out/refining a bit - but it's a bit unfair to compare the fluff of an army that's had but a single army book to ones that have decades of history (and authors!) shaping them.

Ogres are a keeper on their unique model range/playstyle alone, imo.

Charistoph
04-01-2011, 05:03
Ogres are the only naturally occurring Monstrous Infantry army in the game. The only other option is to take a Special Character in the Warriors of Chaos army book, which isn't always allowed. Beasts of Chaos had the ability, but when they converted to just Beastmen, they lost even that. Combine that fact with them being the easiest army to field (and therefore get people playing on the cheap) is why Ogres need to stay.