PDA

View Full Version : Should 9th maintain combined army books?



Doommasters
11-12-2014, 20:06
The two questions I have been asking myself is that when 9th edition comes around will GW maintain combined army books and if they do so will I still enjoy the game?

My view is that WHFB needs less books to keep updated. It is unlikely that WHFB is ever going to be as popular as 40k and therefore I would much prefer to have fewer books with more options to keep me interested than waiting for years to get an update. One thing I have found with the new 40k system is that it is really easy to simply pick up a bunch of models from almost any army and put them on the table and play a game. This also means that when new models are released you can still buy them, paint them and put them in an army with few restrictions. My conclusion is that a new system is needed for this game and my preference would be to have fewer bigger books that are updated more often to keep the game fresh and enyoyable.


Update: seems the community is very divided by the early responses

Update:

Why combined armies is good for Warhammer Fantasy

First off you do not have to agree with me but please attempt to explain your reasoning rather than just flaming what I have to say.

What is my definition of a combined army book?

Multiple army books combined into a single book designed to work within a specific version of Warhammer Fantasy, balanced as best as possible around other books in the same system. End Times as it currently stands does not fit this criteria, yes it allows you to combine armies but that is where the similarities stop.

i.e. BoC, WoC and DoC combined into a single Chaos Hordes book developed with 9th edition rules and armies in mind

What this would likely mean at a top line level;
1) Less army books
2) Bigger army books
3) Rationalisation of ‘current’ units and models
4) New and possibly more complex army rules

Possibly there would be more to add to the list but I think that covers the big things. Obviously my personal view is that combined armies are a good idea however I will ‘try’ and be as objective as possible……you can be the judge.

Less army books

Downside: Armies as we know them could start to lose some of their rich history and identify. While it is likely that the books would become much larger in size it is unlikely that GW would be willing to maintain every nock and cranny. While it is highly unlikely the history would be lost all together there would be an increased need for summarising and ultimately detail would be lost that existed before.

Upside: GW would have less books to update ‘likely’ resulting in more frequent releases. Players would likely not have to wait for than 24 months to get an update to their army book.

Bigger Army Books:

Downside: Balance would likely be more difficult due to an increase in unit and item combinations. As a result we may end up with a less balanced game system as we know GW does not have the best track record of balance. The books would likely cost more due to the increase in size and resources required to produce….army books could quite easily double in cost. In competitive games you may see less variation in army lists as the internet would quickly identify the best choices within the book. The saving grace would be that books should offer multiple paths for army building.

Upside: Players would have more units available to build an army, giving you more freedom and choice to build lists and increasing the replayability of the army. GW would also have a wider pool of potential customers each time they release a new book or model as the community would be less fragmented. This would most likely result in more profitable armies and models resulting in increased interest and investment into fantasy. We know GW struggles with the profit side of the Fantasy equation and ultimately this is bad for future development into the game system.

Rationalisation of units and models

Downside: There would likely be huge overlap in units when combining books and while some overlap is a good thing models would likely be removed from the range in the short term. GW would keep what they see as the iconic units from each army and the rest would be up for possible deletion. You would expect the overall unit count to be much higher than any single book but substantially less that all the units from the previous books combined. Players that owned those models may find that they are no longer legal in the new system, this can be a hard pill to swallow sometimes. I would imagine a large amount of the rationalisation would come from the core and special sections with possibly increased options around decals for different factions to compensate.

Upside: GW is likely struggling with maintaining a wide portfolio of unprofitable models while looking towards how they can release new ranges. Rationalisation more often than not leads into an expansion phase, and in this instance GW would likely look to launch new models adding more variety to a wider range of players more frequently. Ultimately this will appeal more to those that enjoy collecting, playing and painting new things.

New and possibly more complex rules

Downside: Currently each army has a unique rule set that helps give the army identity. In some cases combining armies will create conflict a decision will need to be made whether or not adapt army wide rules, remove some or increase the rules for different units. Whatever the situation is the books will end up being more complex in terms of the rules set given how streamlined the 8th edition army books are. To some this is a good thing to other it is not. The other side of the coin is balance as mentioned previously. The more rules you have the harder balance becomes.

Upside: I am more sure what upside there is on this one outside the fact we would more options and it will take longer to unlock the books and how to play them most effectively.

In summary

Being one person it is hard to imagine that I have presented all the pros and cons of such a transition however I hope I have done enough to at least spark some debate amongst the community on this topic. The key points for me are that GW is clearly struggling with WHFB and with so many army books and models currently it is no surprise that they are struggling to find a balance. The second thing is that by having so many books GW has effectively divided the player base into very small pockets of players making model lines less profitable than they otherwise could be. Yes model rationalisation would likely happen, yes some of the history may be summarised or even left out and yes army books would be hard to balance, become more complex and expensive. The upside to that is a profitable game system for GW resulting in increased investment into the hobby, books being updated more often and players having a more options to play around with and more flexibility to play with a wider range of new and old models.

For me combined army books is a logical next step in the evolution of WHFB, for you it might be something totally different?

Malagor
11-12-2014, 20:07
I think they will or have a ally system that essentially does the same thing.

Col. Tartleton
11-12-2014, 20:08
If anything there will be more books not less.

N00B
11-12-2014, 21:14
I would rather have diversity through more things in the books being viable than diversity through lots of books.

I gets a bit boring when every dark elf player runs warlocks, every empire player runs cannons, every high elf player runs frostarse phoenixes and every WoC list runs at least one chimera.

There is more fun to be got out of a bit more thought and playtesting than there is to be got out of a whole new army.

Malixian
11-12-2014, 21:38
As a chaos player, definately. As a Warhammer player in general... I think they need to be really careful to preserve the ability to make armies based around the old books (fluff and aesthetics wise at least). So far its a mixed bag. Undead legions is okay as it just kinda smushes them together but the Host of the Eternity King is terrible, they basically destroyed the High Elf faction (don't worry, there are survivors who live in the Wood Elf Kingdom and have sworn alliegence to their mortal enemy cause reasons).

Just Tony
11-12-2014, 21:59
Should they? Absolutely not. Will they? All signs point to yes.

tiger g
11-12-2014, 22:02
Absolutely they should do it.

Askari
11-12-2014, 22:06
Yup, more variety is great.
While I may disagree with how they're doing it (liked most of the ET stuff... some of Khaine is a bit, weird, but there we go) it's fantastic for making armies and it will certainly sell more models; For example. I'm already looking at which Tyranid creature would fit in as a counts-as Warsphinx modeled up as a new, beefier Anub'arak.

Lord Inquisitor
11-12-2014, 22:27
How does that add up to more variety? Right now it seems the only lists that can truly keep up with End Times lists are other End Times lists. The jump in power level is pretty massive and the cherry-picking is worse. Why would you run a HE list if you can run one with the best choices from the WE and DE added in? If there were disadvantages to go with the lists that would be one thing but they're just mashing three lists together and that's terrible. Never mind the fluff justification for all of this is just terrible too. Nothing like sworn enemies battling for millenia just being bosom buddies. I guess with the Undead you can sort of say "Nagash did it with magic" but nothing makes for a convincing reconciliation of HE and DE to the point of a combined list.

BirchbarktheAncient
11-12-2014, 22:43
Is GW just trying to kill warhammer? I play Khainite dark elves, and have since long before ETK came out. Am I even going to have an army to play when 9th comes out. Where do witch elves, executioners, cauldrons, and most of the other dark elf models fit in this "aftermath". So, what, is GW planning on screwing over all of their elf players by just canceling whole swaths of their armies? Does GW think dark elf players want their individuality just stripped away from them just to combine a book. Don't blame your fantasy players, GW, because YOU can't sell your overpriced product line. GW has abandoned their fantasy line for 40k, but it's fantasy that made them!

Askari
11-12-2014, 22:45
How does that add up to more variety? Right now it seems the only lists that can truly keep up with End Times lists are other End Times lists. The jump in power level is pretty massive and the cherry-picking is worse. Why would you run a HE list if you can run one with the best choices from the WE and DE added in? If there were disadvantages to go with the lists that would be one thing but they're just mashing three lists together and that's terrible. Never mind the fluff justification for all of this is just terrible too. Nothing like sworn enemies battling for millenia just being bosom buddies. I guess with the Undead you can sort of say "Nagash did it with magic" but nothing makes for a convincing reconciliation of HE and DE to the point of a combined list.

The fact that ultra-competitive people will still cherry-pick the best parts doesn't mean there's less variety.
I couldn't go to a pick-up game with a Vampire Counts list but with a Warsphinx counts-as before, now I can. The ability for me to take all these interesting Tomb Kings units means I almost never have the same list twice - but if I want, I can still take pure Vampire Counts. Hence, variety.

Doommasters
11-12-2014, 22:57
How does that add up to more variety? Right now it seems the only lists that can truly keep up with End Times lists are other End Times lists. The jump in power level is pretty massive and the cherry-picking is worse. Why would you run a HE list if you can run one with the best choices from the WE and DE added in? If there were disadvantages to go with the lists that would be one thing but they're just mashing three lists together and that's terrible. Never mind the fluff justification for all of this is just terrible too. Nothing like sworn enemies battling for millenia just being bosom buddies. I guess with the Undead you can sort of say "Nagash did it with magic" but nothing makes for a convincing reconciliation of HE and DE to the point of a combined list.

If all you do is pick the best of the best of the best then I can see the point you are making, in saying that you would have been limited anyway. However for everyone else there is now a huge range of new options and models to play around with in endless new combinations....it also means if I want a few bolt throwers in my WE gunline army I can etc etc. I don't agree 100% with how they have gone about it so far, but I am sure 9th will tidy things up once the ends times is completed.

One of the great things about 40k is that you can build your own faction with its own fluff and army. This was not easy in WHFB as you were limited to one book, now you can build your own Chaos, Undead or Eldar force and customise it to what you want it to look and feel like....without breaking the rules of the game.

Scammel
11-12-2014, 23:03
I'm not seeing any option for the status quo. Why can't there effectively be two distinct 'army tiers'? Why can't those that want one or the other... just pick one or the other?

Doommasters
12-12-2014, 00:00
I'm not seeing any option for the status quo. Why can't there effectively be two distinct 'army tiers'? Why can't those that want one or the other... just pick one or the other?

That would be the option 'Other' at the bottom

kylek2235
12-12-2014, 00:11
Breaking the army book system is a bad idea. The 25% allied stuff was awful in 4th, expanding on it won't make it better. Nobody should believe that "this time will be different" because it won't.

SuperHappyTime
12-12-2014, 03:44
This poll sucks, mostly because everyone's answer (or rather the best answer) is having to buy fewer books (spending less money), but still allowing every army to have it's unique flavor (still having 15 distinct armies).

The problem with the "Army Book System" is how little it gets updated. In a perfect world where only GW makes Fantasy and 40k, this would be a new armybook update every other month. So ideally, WoC or Brets would be waiting for 2 and a half years (30 months) for new stuff or to fix the OP/UP stuff. This is a pretty long time period if something is game-breaking.

Dwarf Longbeard
12-12-2014, 05:19
Even though everything seems to show that they will but I don't think they should combine the army books, as quite an old game the history of the fantasy world and the armies themselves have become individual and each army has it's very own taste (I think the only ones which come close is the Beastmen and Orcs and Goblins being a bit too similar).
Going into 9th edition it would be nice if they brought back the ally system instead of combining the books and actually putting some effort into the game.

Personally I think the main reason GW is having to look at a complete overhaul and combining army books is because GW themselves have let Fantasy down by leaving it in the background for so long and just concentrated on 40k and each new Space Marine release, whilst it is good that they still updated the army books they could have put more effort into promoting the game itself and filling out the model lines overtime; back when they seemed to have a schedule of one month of 40k and one month of Fantasy releases through the year everything seemed fine then.

Col. Tartleton
12-12-2014, 06:12
How does that add up to more variety? Right now it seems the only lists that can truly keep up with End Times lists are other End Times lists. The jump in power level is pretty massive and the cherry-picking is worse. Why would you run a HE list if you can run one with the best choices from the WE and DE added in? If there were disadvantages to go with the lists that would be one thing but they're just mashing three lists together and that's terrible. Never mind the fluff justification for all of this is just terrible too. Nothing like sworn enemies battling for millenia just being bosom buddies. I guess with the Undead you can sort of say "Nagash did it with magic" but nothing makes for a convincing reconciliation of HE and DE to the point of a combined list.

I don't know, given that Naggaroth has fallen and Ulthuan has sunk beneath the seas, nearly everyone is dead, and the only leaders capable of keeping the peace are the now married couple in Eternity King Malekith and Everqueen Alarielle of Athel Loren it basically makes sense. The High Elves and Wood Elves follow Alarielle and the Dark Elves still fear the wrath of Malekith. The Gods are dead, the world is falling apart, its the End Times. You may as well just give up on trying to survive against the Storm of Chaos if you can't make peace among your own people.

Urgat
12-12-2014, 07:17
I'm for it when it makes sense. The undead and chaos lists make sense, and they managed to make the elf list plausible (at least to me). I'm kind of doubtful about other combinations though.


How does that add up to more variety? Right now it seems the only lists that can truly keep up with End Times lists are other End Times lists. The jump in power level is pretty massive and the cherry-picking is worse. Why would you run a HE list if you can run one with the best choices from the WE and DE added in?

The ET stuff is clearly made for casual play, not competitive crap. For me, the undead list is awesome, I can finally make the Barrow Kings army I've always wanted to make, and nobody can complain about my VC w/o vampires or zombies but with skeleton archers and chariots.
You ask why, I'd say, for the same reason I field common goblins or my chaos friend fields spawns. Does it need explaining?


Am I even going to have an army to play when 9th comes out. Where do witch elves, executioners, cauldrons, and most of the other dark elf models fit in this "aftermath". So, what, is GW planning on screwing over all of their elf players by just canceling whole swaths of their armies?

Sorry what? Nothng was cancelled, the witch elves and co are still there, just got plastic kits released, and aren't going anywhere. Stop over-reacting already, people :/

Spiney Norman
12-12-2014, 07:31
I think they will continue forward with the combined lists, it's going to be virtually impossible to separate the elves now without retconning the whole thing since they have actually destroyed Ulthuan, likewise unless Nagash cops it before the end of the end times I struggle to see the tomb kings rebelling against him in a credible and lasting way.

I desperately hope we don't see a 40k style allies chart or unbound mode where almost everyone can take anything from anywhere, if you think 'cherry-picking' is a problem with combined lists wait until everyone can bring a brace of cannons or a frost phoenix/chimera. Granted I don't think it would be such a problem in wfb because it's army books are far better balanced than 40k's codices but there are still enough 'top choices' to ruin the game at a competitive level.

snyggejygge
12-12-2014, 07:54
Yes, if they keep them balanced unlike the End Times are atm.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2014, 07:59
Yes, if they keep them balanced unlike the End Times are atm.

That's not so much the fault of combining the lists themselves though, it's more to do with the fact that they have gone dicking around with the army special rules at the same time. Because of course combining the three elven armies meant you had to give both prowess rules to ALL elves, and combining the three chaos armies meant you should give an improved reign of chaos table to all of them and amalgamating the undead requires that you remove crumble from both...

ShruikhanTK
12-12-2014, 11:26
Why would anyone want to throw out the unique feel of so many armies? Watering down fantasy is not going to save it....whos to say it even needs saving? 8th is a solid edition, if anything needs to change its how GW treats its player base and potentially new player base...LFGs owners...pricing omg seriously GW's managing is really whats strangling the hobby.

Undead/Elves/Chaos/Orc and Ogres/Humans and Dwarfs/Skaven and Lizardmen....congrats theres your watered down warhammer fantasy books. Im sure the books will be 100USD range or so you know because its hard cover colored pages with MORE RULES!

I can't imagine the updating getting better, 1 combined book =/= 1 army book, with so many units and combos don't you think balancing will be even harder or developing a theme. I don't see one good thing out of combining army books, on special occasions such as critical battles or end times we have allied rules in the warhammer army book theres nothing stopping a player from fielding two armies that way.

Lord Zarkov
12-12-2014, 11:28
I wonder if the way ET:Khaine works for lists is a harbinger for how books will work in 9th? So there could be a Warhammer:Elves say with all the elf units in it, but with 4 separate lists (like ETK's 3 lists) for HE, WE, DE & EKE each with a different combination of units and slightly different special rules. Similar for Undead and Chaos and maybe Humans.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TheMartyr451
12-12-2014, 11:45
Breaking the army book system is a bad idea. The 25% allied stuff was awful in 4th, expanding on it won't make it better. Nobody should believe that "this time will be different" because it won't.

^This. It also takes all the flavor out of the lore and game.

stortotta
12-12-2014, 12:07
This poll, if it's anything to go by, shows us that no matter how they do it, there will be nerdrage from a good quarter of the community... :P

Askari
12-12-2014, 12:16
I don't understand the argument about "losing army character".

You can still take pure Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Warriors of Chaos, Beastmen, Daemon, High/Wood/Dark Elves armies in these combined books; you only have the optionof taking other units too.
If you get annoyed that other people are just cherry-picking the best units from each race and make up a nonsense army... talk to them about it? Ask if you can have a reasonable/fluffy list battle?
If it's a tournament, well a combined list is really no worse in a characterful-sense than some of the lists already around.

I'm all for people not being happy with how they've done it... the Eternity King list is an abomination, Murderous and Martial Prowess for everyone?! End Times magic?... but as a concept, it's fine, gives options to those who wants them, haven't invalidated anything for the ones who don't.

Artinam
12-12-2014, 12:20
In a way I like the combination options, it just leaves so much open for abuse and creates a lot of 'double' units.
Ellyrian Reavers, Dark Riders or Glade guard, very similar basicly fulfilling the same role.
When the elves were seperate this made sense. Right now it just seems like a mess.

Undead has this as well in a way, for fluff players this is fun and creates option.
For a more competetive scene it means that certain options will simply never be taken.

bobhope99
12-12-2014, 12:28
I wouldn't mind seeing something like unbound for fantasy IF they introduced a tier system. Something along the lines of:

Tier 1). Army is all made up of same race and faction, they get army specific special rule. (eg strength in number, cold blooded, martial prowess)

Tier 2). Army is made up of all same alignment, (order, or chaos) characters can join each others units, General and BSB work for entire army.

Tier 3). Army follows % composition rules, You can take characters.

This system would let you take most any army you wanted while still stopping most of the abuse's that come with combined armies or unbound list. I am sure nothing like this is ever going to happen but I think it would work.

dalezzz
12-12-2014, 13:37
If they go combined surely it's only a matter of time till kits start disappearing ? I'm thinking spear elves and skeletons off the top of my head ( I'm sure theres more ) if this happened I don't doubt GW would retool a little and stick tomb king accessorys in the vamp skeletons box.... But I don't want to have pay another 5-10 for a box core

Wesser
12-12-2014, 13:48
The worst part is that a lot of weaknesses gets taken out of each list.

A lot of the character and challenge of each army was coping with the stuff you couldn't have. Look at 40k. Allies, flyers and Unbound was all heralded with hurrahs as "now people can build the army they want"

The truth however is that 40k is now a listbuilding game, where the game itself barely matters. You can basically compare lists before the game and most of the time one party can concede the game right there and then.


What I really don't understand is this: What has changed? I mean if you wanted you could always make a Barrow King army, Mono Nurgle Hordes of Chaos or whatever. GW just clumped the rules together with fluffs and SC's being the only real news. So you could always do this.

Oh sure such an army wasn't official and required your opponent's consent. So what changed? ET is fairly OP which combined with the magic system means it ain't suitable to pick up games anyway. If you have to agree you play End Times anyway is it then different than something like "Hey I got a Barrow Kings army = no vampires or zombies, instead I get chariots and archers, okay?". I really don't see ET being suitable for tournies either. TO's already struggle with restrictions, and EIT's just gonna make that impossible, so most tournies will likely disallow it entirely.

I just don't see how ET is different from Storm of Magic...

Scammel
12-12-2014, 13:55
I just don't see how ET is different from Storm of Magic...

This needs to be hollered from every rooftop. Storm of Magic is, was and remains a fun alternative way of playing the main game that doesn't invalidate a single damn thing in mainstream Warhammer and didn't bring the sky down - nor did Blood in the Badlands or Triumph and Treachery, for that matter. TET is also pretty clearly distinct from the 'standard' game and universally acknowledged to be unsuitable for competitive pick-ups, so what's the issue?

theJ
12-12-2014, 14:17
*sigh*
The Undead Legions are great(in theory) for those who want to play an Undead Legions army. It is terrible for those who wish to play a Tomb Kings or Vampire Counts army, as those armies got their identity largely neutered.
Chaos could've been great if they simply swapped limitations from "race" to "mark"; It'd be an arguably even more fluffy take on Chaos as a whole, while neither lessening the "traditional" lists, nor making the Legions of Chaos flat overpowered against a "standard" opponent.
The Elves got two lists with some decent themes going for them... and seemingly no real thought gone into their rules and options. If the Aestyrion were given hatred and rage-based mechanics to replace their traditional discipline and skill, they could've been near infinitely more enjoyable, just as the Host of the Phoenix King could've been miles better had they bothered with rules to represent their lack of trust for one another.

My point is... the problem with the "take whatever you want" approach is its inherent lack of thematics. In fluff, rules, and in models, these armies just plain don't fit together. Sure, the fluff can be rewritten, as can the rules, and GW can come out with a completely new model line that DOES work together... but which won't be the army I have standing in my cabinet. That army will be gone, and I will most likely be gone with it.


If you wish to learn from 40K, then you should learn from their inherently customisable "generic" unit choices, their focus on sub-factions over super-factions, their strong racial identities and character. You should NOT learn from the decision that is the reason why 40K is dropping off the hobby radar all over the place... except, y'know, as a warning.

Horus38
12-12-2014, 14:35
I think they will or have a ally system that essentially does the same thing.

^ This. I'm not as keen on straight up "combining" the books (ex. Hordes of Chaos). An alliance system/matrix would be much more to my liking.

snyggejygge
12-12-2014, 14:57
That's not so much the fault of combining the lists themselves though, it's more to do with the fact that they have gone dicking around with the army special rules at the same time. Because of course combining the three elven armies meant you had to give both prowess rules to ALL elves, and combining the three chaos armies meant you should give an improved reign of chaos table to all of them and amalgamating the undead requires that you remove crumble from both...

Still, If you pick the best options all the et armies are a lot stronger than a basic warhammer army, undead might be an exception, but the elf list makes up for it!

If you make themed armies however, then you can have just as balanced armies as any other while being even more fluffy!

Just Tony
12-12-2014, 15:00
This poll, if it's anything to go by, shows us that no matter how they do it, there will be nerdrage from a good quarter of the community... :P

Or that a quarter of the players will fellate GW no matter how bad they bork the game.

Scammel
12-12-2014, 15:14
Or that a quarter of the players will fellate GW no matter how bad they bork the game.

Or that people are just giving their opinions, o bastion of maturity.

Emperor Karl Franz
12-12-2014, 15:23
It depends on the situation. I'd like to see Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, and Beastmen combined into one list (Chaos). I'd also like to see Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings combined into one list (Undead). That's it, though. I have no desire to see Empire and Bretonnia combined, or High Elves, Dark Elves, and Wood Elves combined, or any other potential combinations.

Askari
12-12-2014, 15:29
It is terrible for those who wish to play a Tomb Kings or Vampire Counts army, as those armies got their identity largely neutered.

How? From what I can read in the Undead Legions list, you can still take nothing but Tomb Kings units, or nothing but Vampire Counts units. If you want your mono-faction theme, you can still do it.

I think those saying that thematic armies are dying off simply don't like that other people aren't also forced to also take thematic armies (and really, look at Chariots-for-core, DP and Chimera spam WoC armies... that's not thematic at all either).

I'd agree that the combined forces so far are overpowered compared to standard army book lists, but that's a problem with how they've done it, not with the concept.

If, down the line, Games Workshop no longer sell what they consider "overlap" units, then I'll agree that theme will take a hit, but so far, nothing of the sort has happened.

logan054
12-12-2014, 15:49
Yes, if they keep them balanced unlike the End Times are atm.

I think we all know that GW gave up on balance a long time ago. The only problem with combined armies is I can really see how the remaining armies would mix together and still make sense. I can kinda see Dwarfs, Empire and Brets, but thats really about it. The undead one is fine and I can that being the way forward for undead come 9th ed, perhaps if you had a Undead book and then VC and TK book that works much like chapter specific books they have been releasing for 40k. With Chaos it makes sense but would obviously need some changes. If It was min core and BSB had to be the same race as your general then it wouldn't be such an issue. I'd love to see the return of a Realms of chaos book with some god specific addon books I'd be pretty happy.

This does all seem to support what Harry and/or Hasting had been saying about few army books come 9th (I forget if they both said it).

Scammel
12-12-2014, 15:52
I think we all know that GW gave up on balance a long time ago.

Do we? We're just about to leave the most balanced edition of Fantasy in about 10 years and the new 40k books are massively toned down compared to the recent excesses in that system.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2014, 16:05
Do we? We're just about to leave the most balanced edition of Fantasy in about 10 years and the new 40k books are massively toned down compared to the recent excesses in that system.

40k has never been balanced, the most recent books have been bland an unexceptional, but that takes nothing away from the collosal damage that codex Eldar and tau did, and are still doing to the 40k meta game. 40k will never be balanced until those two are replaced.

More than that, now that unbound and superheavies are part of the normal everyday game it has become impossible to balance the game as every army now gets to use every other army's most powerful toys. Not to mention the hilariously overpowered psychic phases that chaos daemons and some others are now capable of. The problem with 40k as I see it is that most of the current potential for abuse in 7th edition stems from its core rules rather than the current crop of 7th ed codexes.

Wfb has been exceptionally well balanced throughout 8th edition and I am sad with the havoc they have wreaked with the grotesquely unbalancing end times rules and with a new edition apparently just around the corner it does seem as though the golden age of wfb is coming to a somewhat ignominious end. Unfortunately it does seem that current GW is more concerned with short-term wow-factor to sell its stuff than the long-term playability of its games.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2014, 16:14
Still, If you pick the best options all the et armies are a lot stronger than a basic warhammer army, undead might be an exception, but the elf list makes up for it!

If you make themed armies however, then you can have just as balanced armies as any other while being even more fluffy!

I don't think undead are an exception at all, IMHO tomb kings have long had stronger units than VC with their war statues and magic buffs, they were just hobbled with the utterly crippling version of the undead rules which forbade them to march. Now that is gone they are highly competitive. In terms of mixing units it is VC that massively benefit from being able to take key TK units like royal characters, caskets, hierotitans and sphinxes, there isn't a great deal that VC offer TK in terms of units IMO.

Consider the formally derided signature spell of the lore of nehekhara which now potentially allows a skeleton warrior block to move 16" in a single turn assuming they are within range of (or perhaps hosting) the army general.

Scammel
12-12-2014, 16:25
40k has never been balanced, the most recent books have been bland an unexceptional, but that takes nothing away from the collosal damage that codex Eldar and tau did, and are still doing to the 40k meta game. 40k will never be balanced until those two are replaced.

That wasn't the statement though - of course 40k is unadulterated dung at the moment. However, there's also a pretty clear drive to improve it and up until a few months back, I would, for example, wholeheartedly add GK to that list.

Just Tony
12-12-2014, 17:03
Or that people are just giving their opinions, o bastion of maturity.

Oooooooooooh, you sure got me. Is it immature to point out blind loyalty? Yeah, didn't think so.

logan054
12-12-2014, 17:05
Do we? We're just about to leave the most balanced edition of Fantasy in about 10 years and the new 40k books are massively toned down compared to the recent excesses in that system.

That's very subjective? more balanced than hero hammer? sure, more balanced than when 6th first came out and we only had ravening hordes? No, I don't think so. It's still a very unbalanced game that has never been designed for competitive play. Armies like TK and Beastmen leave a lot to be desired in terms of power and effectiveness. You still have your units types that massively more effective than others, which are usually the new shinny thing (say MC). You're still required to use a wizard or two in an army to be competitive (bar certain exceptions), if it was a truly balanced game this simply wouldn't be the case. The rules are still used to help drive sales rather than having a balanced system that uses amazing models to drive sales.

Maybe I should change what I said before, we all know they don't care about balance, some of us just like to kid ourselves they do because the game fits into how we believe it should be played.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
12-12-2014, 17:08
I don't think undead are an exception at all, IMHO tomb kings have long had stronger units than VC with their war statues and magic buffs, they were just hobbled with the utterly crippling version of the undead rules which forbade them to march. Now that is gone they are highly competitive. In terms of mixing units it is VC that massively benefit from being able to take key TK units like royal characters, caskets, hierotitans and sphinxes, there isn't a great deal that VC offer TK in terms of units IMO.

Consider the formally derided signature spell of the lore of nehekhara which now potentially allows a skeleton warrior block to move 16" in a single turn assuming they are within range of (or perhaps hosting) the army general.

VC have nothing to offer? How about S higher than 5? How about a better primary lore (vampires), and equally primary secondary (shadow). Regen bubbles. Easy ASF (corpse cart). Screams for a death-based list (upgraded catapults, double casket, banshee walls, deathmask). Cheaper chaff in core (direwolves) and better chaff in special (fellbats, spirit hosts). Vargheists for warmachine hunting. Not to mention Vampire Lords.


As for combined lists, I don't think they need them in 9th. They already have the ET books. If people want to do combined lists they can just put a note saying they're still compatible, and perhaps even update the lists as new units come out (or not...give people a reason to take solo-faction armies). I quite frankly love the ET, as it took both my undead armies from 2 solid builds to 12 solid builds. Loving it!

Oogie boogie boss
12-12-2014, 17:10
I'm really hoping that they don't combo the armies tbh. It may work for some (WoC/Beastmen/Daemons) but in general it would rob diversity from the universe and force people into narrower gaming mindsets.

What I wouldn't mind is if they combined multiple books into one, but kept the army's distinct and separate. For example, instead of meshing VC and TK, just put both lists in one 'Undead' book. Same with HE/DE/WE into an 'Elf' book.

They can make more money as it justifies increasing the cost of these to 40-50, people from each army will still have to get them, and it gives you the ability to collect both armies/all three and only need one book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scammel
12-12-2014, 17:12
Oooooooooooh, you sure got me. Is it immature to point out blind loyalty? Yeah, didn't think so.

If you're unsure what exactly was immature about your post, you're not mature enough to be here, in my humble opinion - especially considering it referred to other members (try not to titter) who had simply voted in a poll.


That's very subjective? more balanced than hero hammer? sure, more balanced than when 6th first came out and we only had ravening hordes? No, I don't think so.


the most balanced edition of Fantasy in about 10 years

logan054
12-12-2014, 17:33
I believe 7th ed was released in 2006, as such it would still about within the last 10 years. I really don't think saying "it's better than the last edition" really counts as a valid reason for why GW care about balance.

SexualPanda
12-12-2014, 17:57
Games workshop doesn't make money on game balance. The travesty of 40k since 5th has shown this. It's us gamers fault, we talk a big game on forums but when it comes down to it we buy into big shiny things like 40K models even though the game is awfully inbalanced. For example look at the end times books. The lore is awesome but the rules are lazy are incompetently written (for the most part) yet we are buying still. I don't blame them as a company for abandoning game balance for whatever makes them the most money. Because that's our fault, and expect 9th to turn into 40k. We're going to see..

- combined arms just like 40k with zero consideration of balance

- and codexs with sub codex release (because now if I want to play dark elves I will have to buy codex elves and sub codex dark elves, same system they use in 40k to double profits).

Im just salty about this because lazy game design ruins games for me. If we're paying 1000$ plus for armies, they should at least make the effort to provide us with a well thought out rules set.

Scammel
12-12-2014, 18:02
I believe 7th ed was released in 2006, as such it would still about within the last 10 years. I really don't think saying "it's better than the last edition" really counts as a valid reason for why GW care about balance.

Except that each edition encapsulates much more than the BRB, as each and every armybook can have quite a dramatic effect on overall balance. 6th and 7th both have reasonably good core rules, but both gave us books completely out of whack with the rest of the pack, including 7th's obvious line-up of offenders and a couple of books such as Brets and Ogres (for the opposite end of the scale) in 6th. If we're saying that 8th, near the end of its cycle and with a host of varied books therein is second only to early 6th with standardised armylists, that's rather good indeed!


and codexs with sub codex release (because now if I want to play dark elves I will have to buy codex elves and sub codex dark elves, same system they use in 40k to double profits).

The books that are frequently criticised for having options trimmed down and generally being weaker than the 6th ed trend?

Doommasters
12-12-2014, 18:55
I don't really have a problem with;

Orcs & Ogres
Chaos
Eldar
Undead
Humanity
Dwarfs
Lizardmen
Skaven

Books like dwarfs, skaven and lizardmen would need a power increase for sure. However as long as they don't completely gut the combined books it would likely mean we get more regular updates and more options to keep things interesting. Within the combined books there would be no reason why you couldn't keep individual factions alive if gw wished to do so. There is also no reason if the books are done for 9th edition that weakness could not be built into the army. I mean Eldar are all elves after all, orcs and ogres can have animosity and leadership issues.......etc etc.

I don't think we should take everything we see in the ET as the final resting place for combined armies.

Lord Inquisitor
12-12-2014, 19:39
If all you do is pick the best of the best of the best then I can see the point you are making, in saying that you would have been limited anyway. However for everyone else there is now a huge range of new options and models to play around with in endless new combinations....it also means if I want a few bolt throwers in my WE gunline army I can etc etc. I don't agree 100% with how they have gone about it so far, but I am sure 9th will tidy things up once the ends times is completed.

One of the great things about 40k is that you can build your own faction with its own fluff and army. This was not easy in WHFB as you were limited to one book, now you can build your own Chaos, Undead or Eldar force and customise it to what you want it to look and feel like....without breaking the rules of the game.

The thing here is that if you wanted to field a combined chaos army for a fluff/non-competitive/campaign you could do that. Agree with your opponent and off you go! If that's the kind of game you wanted, why were you bothering with a "legal" army list or even points values? It wasn't "breaking the rules of the game", the book encourages you to do this in many places.

What we have is GW giving you permission to do exactly what you could do before - but throws all existing balance out the window. Which would be okay if it were optional, like Storm of Magic or Triumph and Treachery (both of which I love).

Put simply, you can use a balanced system to make crazy ally combinations or epic narratives. You can't use an unbalanced game to play it like a game with any pretence of fairness. Folding "epic narrative" stuff into the main rules is a bad idea in my opinion. I like supplements like Storm of Magic and Triumph and Treachery - these are great fun and you know you're getting into that kind of a game when you agree on the rules.

It feels like GW is trying to make "crazy narrative funtime" the default method of playing. Why bother with points values, particularly such fine gradations? Making an army list could be a whole lot simpler if, say, a goblin unit costs 1 point and comes with fanatics and say a chaos lord costs 3 points and we play 25 points. Boom, take away this illusion of game balance that doesn't exist. But I don't think such a game would be of great interest to me, I want, excluding narrative games, a fair and balanced game and 8th is tolerable as is there even without comp. But the End Times stuff just isn't comparable to the pre-end times lists.

Askari
12-12-2014, 20:21
<above post>

That's not an issue with combined army books though is it, it's an issue with balancing - which is a completely different topic, and one I personally agree with, though I think really only the Eternity King list stands head-and-shoulders above the older Army Books.

Hardcore tournaments always ever saw the very best units of each book anyway, the fact it's the best all the Elves can muster rather than just the best the Dark Elves can makes absolutely - but the extra options makes a world of difference for thematic and pick-up games.

I'm not saying that GW couldn't do a better job of balancing it, they most certainly could. But don't confuse that as being an inherent problem of combined armies, it's a problem of poor rules-balancing and play-testing, that's all.

Shadeseraph
12-12-2014, 20:51
Let's leave the fluff asides from a second.

Frankly, one of the biggest hurdles I see is that High Elves and Dark Elves look horrible together. They are a complete mismatch in aesthetics. I know that's not strange in other armies (see: chaos), and it kinda works for them, but it feels weird looking at round-y HE side by side with spiky dark elves.

What I mean to say is that one of the most important parts for an army or faction to look like one is theme coherency. I'm not sure if GW will be able to do this in the pressumed future releases without scrapping a large range of models.

ShruikhanTK
12-12-2014, 21:03
I don't understand the argument about "losing army character".


I am considering the future of the books when I say that, sure people say ya well you can still take pure list, as GW develops that book in a following edition the identity of say Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts will be lost as stand alone armies. Eventually we will have Undead mush and Elf mush. Developed as stand alone armies gives them a distinct touch that can't be duplicated in a combined army book.

In fact the pure list are made possible only by the existence of stand alone army books which has laid down the fluff, the army rules and the units. I don't want Fantasy to become generic like 40k and the marine floods, that is essentially what they did to elves and Undead. It works in an Endtimes setting and I am totally digging it for that, however as a new standard for fantasy "hell" no.

Keep the army books and make supplements for alternate ways to play. Everybody wins, people can ally if they want via supplements, people can bring pure list via army books, and GW cashes in on books and models.

ShruikhanTK
12-12-2014, 21:21
It depends on the situation. I'd like to see Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, and Beastmen combined into one list (Chaos). I'd also like to see Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings combined into one list (Undead). That's it, though. I have no desire to see Empire and Bretonnia combined, or High Elves, Dark Elves, and Wood Elves combined, or any other potential combinations.

As a TK player I disagree, I don't want the Undead merged because it will eventually mean the armies become more similar. Right now the Egyptian and Gothic themes of each book are quite rich.

I ordered Hexwraiths/Spirit Host and Arkhan to use in Undead Legions because it slides right into my TKs. I will be using these to make a Vampire Counts Army and VC EndTimes army eventually however for 9th, no I don't want this to be official, as in special circumstances sure, thats why we got these lovely supplements, as a pick up game no.

Katastrophe
12-12-2014, 21:37
keep the army books and make supplements for alternate ways to play. Everybody wins, people can ally if they want via supplements, people can bring pure list via army books, and GW cashes in on books and models.

Isn't that in effect what The End Times is. You're more than capable of agreeing to play pure lists only.

Shadeseraph
12-12-2014, 21:45
Random thought:

My general impression with WH40K is that they are actually reducing army books in size, and instead splitting factions in smaller blocks which can easily intermix. Something like what happened to Grey Knights, Astra Militarum, Sisters of Battle, Inquisition and the elite imperial guard whose name I can't remember right now. I'm guessing they'll take the same direction on WHFB.

So, you could have something like 5-6 main "factions", each with their own books, and then several supplements with smaller sub-factions, which are more fluid and can ally with ~3 or so books. That way people can still maintain their old armies, but also get the opportunity to delve into other smaller additions, potentially leading into new armies, and gives many players a chance to expand their collections.

Urgat
12-12-2014, 22:07
Oooooooooooh, you sure got me. Is it immature to point out blind loyalty? Yeah, didn't think so.

You didn't think what? People not sharing your opinion are "fellating GW" (huh?) or whatever. That's both highly immature and insulting. Are you proud of you? Seriously?

theunwantedbeing
12-12-2014, 22:15
I'm not saying that GW couldn't do a better job of balancing it, they most certainly could. But don't confuse that as being an inherent problem of combined armies, it's a problem of poor rules-balancing and play-testing, that's all.

Er, it is an inherent problem though.

Lets say we have 10 units per armybook and you can take each of them once.
Armies are made up of 5 units.
10% of the units are overpowered.
10% of the units are underpowered.
80% of the units are balanced perfectly.

Choose from 1 army?
More likely than not, the player will pick the 1 overpowered option and 4 out of the 8 remaining perfectly balanced choices.
They'll never pick the bad one.

Lets add combined armies.
Now the player can choose from 2 armies.
More likely than not, the player will pick each of the overpowered options from the two armies, picking their remaining 3 from either of the 16 remaining balanced options.
Again, they completely ignore the bad ones.

Which is more balanced?

Shadeseraph
12-12-2014, 22:22
Er, it is an inherent problem though.

Lets say we have 10 units per armybook and you can take each of them once.
Armies are made up of 5 units.
10% of the units are overpowered.
10% of the units are underpowered.
80% of the units are balanced perfectly.

Choose from 1 army?
More likely than not, the player will pick the 1 overpowered option and 4 out of the 8 remaining perfectly balanced choices.
They'll never pick the bad one.

Lets add combined armies.
Now the player can choose from 2 armies.
More likely than not, the player will pick each of the overpowered options from the two armies, picking their remaining 3 from either of the 16 remaining balanced options.
Again, they completely ignore the bad ones.

Which is more balanced?

In addition to that, the bigger the pool of OP units available, the more are likely to suffer previously "balanced" options, and end in the "underpowered" pool, as options broaden and their intended targets become either scarcer or harder to deal with. A few previously underused or balanced units might become more interesting as certain, previously unavailable options, arise, but I can't think of any right now.

Dwarf Longbeard
12-12-2014, 22:25
As a TK player I disagree, I don't want the Undead merged because it will eventually mean the armies become more similar. Right now the Egyptian and Gothic themes of each book are quite rich..

I agree here, getting back into Fantasy just before the End Times came out and reading through a lot of the background the Tomb Kings back ground rally grabbed me along with the Egyptian look. I think that's the main problem with merging the armies is that they will lose a bit of their uniqueness with the background, characters and look.

Just Tony
12-12-2014, 23:35
You didn't think what? People not sharing your opinion are "fellating GW" (huh?) or whatever. That's both highly immature and insulting. Are you proud of you? Seriously?

If there is a sweeping change that happens to the fiction or the rules that is founded in character development/natural story progression or balancing respectively, then I would not begrudge anyone their choice to like it, even if I didn't favor the change. At all. If something is changed for no other reason than to shake things up/shock value or to essentially amp up units to sell or because the book for some reason got written by someone who plays that army (not naming any Pete Haines'), I would question people who defend it like it was the first option I referred to. Case in point: Eltharion has always been one of my favorite characters. I wasn't enthused with his initial treatment at the start of 6th, but they progressed him in a logical way that still felt like Eltharion. I came to like the change because it was a natural evolution of the character. Can the same be said about what's happening now?

Was I out of line to describe it as fellating? Yeah, in retrospect. I should have simply said "yes manning" or "blind allegiance" instead. Does it change my opinion that I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously think that this is a natural evolution of the stories/characters thus far? No, not at all. In total, I think WFB is heading to a bad place, and it's only our attachment to the hobby/mythos/whatever that is making anyone view it as good.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2014, 23:50
Except that each edition encapsulates much more than the BRB, as each and every armybook can have quite a dramatic effect on overall balance. 6th and 7th both have reasonably good core rules, but both gave us books completely out of whack with the rest of the pack, including 7th's obvious line-up of offenders and a couple of books such as Brets and Ogres (for the opposite end of the scale) in 6th. If we're saying that 8th, near the end of its cycle and with a host of varied books therein is second only to early 6th with standardised armylists, that's rather good indeed!


That is all true, and makes it even more tragic that while the end times series has been narratively brilliant, it has also blown a collosal hole in the well-crafted game balance of 8th edition.


Er, it is an inherent problem though.

Lets say we have 10 units per armybook and you can take each of them once.
Armies are made up of 5 units.
10% of the units are overpowered.
10% of the units are underpowered.
80% of the units are balanced perfectly.

Choose from 1 army?
More likely than not, the player will pick the 1 overpowered option and 4 out of the 8 remaining perfectly balanced choices.
They'll never pick the bad one.

Lets add combined armies.
Now the player can choose from 2 armies.
More likely than not, the player will pick each of the overpowered options from the two armies, picking their remaining 3 from either of the 16 remaining balanced options.
Again, they completely ignore the bad ones.

Which is more balanced?

Or more likely what will happen is that GW will dig out their ill-fated 'use whatever you like' policy that was the basis of 7th ed 40k and everyone will start using the 1-2 overpowered units from 3 or 4 different army books and both the poor and average units will both be left at home, so basically exactly what currently happens in 40k.

Askari
13-12-2014, 00:09
Which is more balanced?

Neither, because now more people have access to those overpowered units.
When/if all armies end up as combined armies, then surely that must mean everyone has access to just as many overpowered options as the next guy? To use your example; if someone takes the 1 overpowered option in an army book, but now takes 2 in a combined list - what's to stop everyone else doing the same?

Sure, my opponent can now take a Doomfire Warlock unit and a Frostheart Phoenix, I counter by using my Chimera alongside my new Skull Cannon, for example.

It's only unbalanced when you're playing a 1-faction army vs. combined list army, in theory.

Edit; as Spiney pointed out above what's happened to 40k; Everyone uses the overpowered units together - so, in a sense, the game has an strange sort of balance. It still means 40k sucks at the minute.

Shadeseraph
13-12-2014, 01:02
Neither, because now more people have access to those overpowered units.
When/if all armies end up as combined armies, then surely that must mean everyone has access to just as many overpowered options as the next guy? To use your example; if someone takes the 1 overpowered option in an army book, but now takes 2 in a combined list - what's to stop everyone else doing the same?

Sure, my opponent can now take a Doomfire Warlock unit and a Frostheart Phoenix, I counter by using my Chimera alongside my new Skull Cannon, for example.

It's only unbalanced when you're playing a 1-faction army vs. combined list army, in theory.

Edit; as Spiney pointed out above what's happened to 40k; Everyone uses the overpowered units together - so, in a sense, the game has an strange sort of balance. It still means 40k sucks at the minute.

I'm not quite sure that's what most people speak of when mentioning balance. Well, rather, not only. Most people want to be able to use most of the units they have at home, rather than just a small subset.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
13-12-2014, 01:12
That is all true, and makes it even more tragic that while the end times series has been narratively brilliant, it has also blown a collosal hole in the well-crafted game balance of 8th edition.



Or more likely what will happen is that GW will dig out their ill-fated 'use whatever you like' policy that was the basis of 7th ed 40k and everyone will start using the 1-2 overpowered units from 3 or 4 different army books and both the poor and average units will both be left at home, so basically exactly what currently happens in 40k.

I don't get this position. Combined factions only exist as a separate category of lists at the moment. It is absolutely possible to institute a "no ET lists" rule, just as it is for storm of magic or triumph and treachery. Doesn't even require an extensive ETC-style list of comped options. ET lists require opponent permission, period.

I think the design team is quite aware that WHFB is a very different game to WH40K. I don't see why they would bring in a core-rules ally system when ET already does that. If they shoe-horn 9th edition books into the same combined lists it takes no extra effort and they can sell us extra books while they're at it.

kylek2235
13-12-2014, 01:34
Er, it is an inherent problem though.

Lets say we have 10 units per armybook and you can take each of them once.
Armies are made up of 5 units.
10% of the units are overpowered.
10% of the units are underpowered.
80% of the units are balanced perfectly.

Choose from 1 army?
More likely than not, the player will pick the 1 overpowered option and 4 out of the 8 remaining perfectly balanced choices.
They'll never pick the bad one.

Lets add combined armies.
Now the player can choose from 2 armies.
More likely than not, the player will pick each of the overpowered options from the two armies, picking their remaining 3 from either of the 16 remaining balanced options.
Again, they completely ignore the bad ones.

Which is more balanced?

Sounds like 4th/5th edition. Only small sections of those books were ever used. Chaos was split up to begin with because, due to the overabundance of choices, GW didn't sell most of their range. There's no reason to think that'll be different this time around. Maybe it's too logical a deduction, but that's the reason I believe that GW is going to liquidate large swaths of their ranges.

Like I've said before, there was a very logical, money based, reason we went to the Army Book system. Going backwards does not magically make more money.

Haravikk
13-12-2014, 20:12
Best answer I can give is; I don't really know.

There are some armies I could see rolling together, like Daemons and Warriors of Chaos for one (which never should have split in the first place), the three Elves armies, maybe Bretonians and Empire, but I think it could be pretty clumsy to do it that way. Though it could introduce some possibilities such as other books going in the other direction, like Dwarfs getting Chaos Dwarfs to bring that army back.

My main thought though is that there's not much point in doing this when you consider digital releases. But it could make sense as a means of reducing the number of physical books that need to be maintained; i.e - you'd still buy the digital books individually, maybe with bundles on offer, but the physical books would be done in threes as a single big book, maybe with just the limited edition keeping them separate?

boli
13-12-2014, 20:15
Personally I would say "give the option but with restrictions".

E.g.

Undeath and chaos "work" without special characters. As do the never mentioned estyrion and phoenix king (without SC) its only the magic, eternity king and special characters from that book which break 8th

Spiney Norman
13-12-2014, 22:26
I don't get this position. Combined factions only exist as a separate category of lists at the moment. It is absolutely possible to institute a "no ET lists" rule, just as it is for storm of magic or triumph and treachery. Doesn't even require an extensive ETC-style list of comped options. ET lists require opponent permission, period.

I think the design team is quite aware that WHFB is a very different game to WH40K. I don't see why they would bring in a core-rules ally system when ET already does that. If they shoe-horn 9th edition books into the same combined lists it takes no extra effort and they can sell us extra books while they're at it.

"Opponents permission" is really a very blunt instrument, the fact is you can't play any game without your opponents permission, so if I want an End times game and you don't either one of us caves or we'll just end up playing someone else (or possibly more likely, not at all). Heck if I want to be a tool I can decide I don't want to play against the Warriors of chaos or dark elf army books or whatever. There is, to my knowledge, no social acceptable method of forcing your opponent to play a game they don't want to play.

This is precisely why using things like the End times to screw the game balance hard is a terrible idea, it fragments the community and results in fewer games being played because players can't agree on what is fair and balanced when the writers of the rules have given up on the idea (as they currently have with 40k).

Scammel
13-12-2014, 22:57
"Opponents permission" is really a very blunt instrument, the fact is you can't play any game without your opponents permission, so if I want an End times game and you don't either one of us caves or we'll just end up playing someone else (or possibly more likely, not at all). Heck if I want to be a tool I can decide I don't want to play against the Warriors of chaos or dark elf army books or whatever. There is, to my knowledge, no social acceptable method of forcing your opponent to play a game they don't want to play.

Except, typically, someone who's playing a TET list will probably have collected at least one of those armies as a standalone faction in the first instance and the line between the two is very well delineated. Personally, I plan to take both a standard and TET Beast list with me to most environments, whilst with 40k there's endless scope for pitiful back-and-forth; contrast the quick Beast list swap-out with a debate over just how many Wave Serpents is fair, and what I'm going to do with the points deficit when I don't have any additional Eldar models because my list was perfectly 'standard legal' in the first instance and I didn't think I would need another?

Col. Tartleton
13-12-2014, 23:44
Basically this is why people should only play campaigns and not play tournaments if they want to have a good time.

Every time Games Workshop releases something they're coming to the conversation saying "We play tested this until we were certain it was really fun."

Then the band wagon power players find how to break the new army and the rest of the tournament players are like "This game isn't balanced. :wtf: Games Workshop, you clearly don't even play test this."

Spiney Norman
14-12-2014, 08:44
Every time Games Workshop releases something they're coming to the conversation saying "We play tested this until we were certain it was really fun."


While that is implied, it certainly isn't true, GW have made some horrific rules derps in the last six months alone (40k 7th, all of the end times stuff), the fact that they seem to equate fun=unbalanced and messy completely mystifies me, as of fun is only generated when the odds are drastic in your favour (or against you).

The end times narrative approach has been brilliant, but it has been thoroughly let down by the lazily written and completely unbalanced rules element.

Geep
14-12-2014, 09:52
If combined army books remain in 9th, I wonder if GW will use the opportunity to expand on the available factions? Looking at a Warhammer wolrd map recently, it's kind of odd how little of the world is actually represented by current books and models (Cathay, Ind, etc. are not small places).

Scammel
14-12-2014, 11:16
If combined army books remain in 9th, I wonder if GW will use the opportunity to expand on the available factions? Looking at a Warhammer wolrd map recently, it's kind of odd how little of the world is actually represented by current books and models (Cathay, Ind, etc. are not small places).

Doesn't that rather defeat the point of the exercise? I mean, I'd wager more than a little that we will not be seeing outright merged armybooks, but if that were the case, what would make Cathay and Ind any more deserving of standalone books than Ulthuan or Nehekhara?

ShruikhanTK
14-12-2014, 21:36
Do people really want to see the elves.combined?....i thought they werr really good as they were.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2014, 23:46
Neither, because now more people have access to those overpowered units.
This is true, up to a point. From this perspective the game has always been balanced from a player vs player perspective, since each player theoretically could play any army. Of course this is ignoring constraints like time or money, from a purely competitive perspective but you can argue that even in the very worst days of 7th where daemons were totally broken everyone could play daemons so what's the problem?

The thing is, this is not what we are referring to when we say we want a balanced game. We want all armies and all units to be equally viable in a perfectly balanced system. Some might be more niche roles but we don't want obvious winners and losers.


It's only unbalanced when you're playing a 1-faction army vs. combined list army, in theory.
Yeah I'm not sure even that is true. I think the Undead army doesn't even compare to the sort of filth the combined elf army can throw out.

Also, while what theunwantedbeing posted above is true, it's worse than that. The units don't operate on their own. There are synergies that are created by mixing the units together that are extremely powerful - more powerful than the sum of their parts. Herdstones with horror core. Blackened plate minos with trolls. BOTWD and Wood Elf spells protecting DE characters.

And if that wasn't enough the End Times lists grant additional bonuses like no crumble on general death for undead, improved marks and reign table for chaos, all the elf advantages for everyone.

I played in an End Times one-day tournament yesterday and some of the combined list builds were crazy.

Doommasters
15-12-2014, 00:10
Do people really want to see the elves.combined?....i thought they werr really good as they were.

Waiting for the WE to get an update....not worth, it now I can make my own eldar army and have plenty of models to play around with. Not sold on all the of the End Times decisons but being able to make a combined Eldar army is really cool if you ask me.

Doommasters
15-12-2014, 00:17
This is true, up to a point. From this perspective the game has always been balanced from a player vs player perspective, since each player theoretically could play any army. Of course this is ignoring constraints like time or money, from a purely competitive perspective but you can argue that even in the very worst days of 7th where daemons were totally broken everyone could play daemons so what's the problem?

The thing is, this is not what we are referring to when we say we want a balanced game. We want all armies and all units to be equally viable in a perfectly balanced system. Some might be more niche roles but we don't want obvious winners and losers.


Yeah I'm not sure even that is true. I think the Undead army doesn't even compare to the sort of filth the combined elf army can throw out.

Also, while what theunwantedbeing posted above is true, it's worse than that. The units don't operate on their own. There are synergies that are created by mixing the units together that are extremely powerful - more powerful than the sum of their parts. Herdstones with horror core. Blackened plate minos with trolls. BOTWD and Wood Elf spells protecting DE characters.

And if that wasn't enough the End Times lists grant additional bonuses like no crumble on general death for undead, improved marks and reign table for chaos, all the elf advantages for everyone.

I played in an End Times one-day tournament yesterday and some of the combined list builds were crazy.


If End Times is the final iteration of these combined books I would not be impressed. However I do not believe that to be the case and therefore am looking beyond some of the really stupid combinations that would most likely be amended in 9th edition versions. I would have to say I am very much over having to wait years and years to get updates to army books simply because there are so many to update.....sure GW could add more resources to get them done faster but this is never going to happen. Therefore less books with more options and more frequent updates sounds pretty nice to me :) There are some very logical army books that could/have been combined to make WHFB an easier game system..for example Empire and Brettonia being merged would make sense to me. Likewise OnG and Ogres would be another logical merger.......Lizardmen and Skaven not so much.

Lord Inquisitor
15-12-2014, 00:35
I appreciate you could make balanced books that are designed from the ground up to be combined. It's pretty easy to imagine a combined Chaos book that might be good. But it's much harder to actually balance a book the more options and units are added. And there's not much faith that GW would approach this with the intention of making it balanced. I'd have a bit more faith if GW expressly put the End Times rules as a "fun campaign supplement" type deal rather than really seeming to push it as The Rules.

Oh and Ogres aren't big on Greenskins. Looking forward, I'm betting that Empire, Ogres and Dwarfs get the merge treatment.

Malagor
15-12-2014, 00:38
I think Ogres will be able to join everyone. They are essentially mercs for the most part and if anyone coughs up enough gold or food then they will happily join up.
Nah, it's will be Brets, Empire and Dwarves. Makes the most sense.

Doommasters
15-12-2014, 03:57
I appreciate you could make balanced books that are designed from the ground up to be combined. It's pretty easy to imagine a combined Chaos book that might be good. But it's much harder to actually balance a book the more options and units are added. And there's not much faith that GW would approach this with the intention of making it balanced. I'd have a bit more faith if GW expressly put the End Times rules as a "fun campaign supplement" type deal rather than really seeming to push it as The Rules.

Oh and Ogres aren't big on Greenskins. Looking forward, I'm betting that Empire, Ogres and Dwarfs get the merge treatment.

Agree with you on the balance it would create a number of issues and GW track record while better in 8th is far from perfect. Empire, Ogres and Darfs coming into one book would be very interesting, and make for enteratining reading :)

At the end of the day everyone will have a slightly different split on how they would like to see armies come togeather 'if' it was going to happen. Therefore I am not going to say anyone is right or wrong but it is very interesting reading none the less.

sulla
15-12-2014, 07:07
I'm a huge supporter of anything that allows more flexibility in armybuilding. Players play the game for many reasons and more flexibility allows players to better build armies tohit the gameplay experiences they are after, be it theme or raw power.

logan054
15-12-2014, 17:01
Except that each edition encapsulates much more than the BRB, as each and every armybook can have quite a dramatic effect on overall balance. 6th and 7th both have reasonably good core rules, but both gave us books completely out of whack with the rest of the pack, including 7th's obvious line-up of offenders and a couple of books such as Brets and Ogres (for the opposite end of the scale) in 6th. If we're saying that 8th, near the end of its cycle and with a host of varied books therein is second only to early 6th with standardised armylists, that's rather good indeed!

I think your basing you opinion of balance to much on the armybooks and ignoring the issues with the core rules. I don't disagree that compared to 7th, the armybooks are a improvement, its just the shame that the balance issues created by certain unit types and magic spoil it. Sadly, magic has always been far to dominating in warhammer, just now, we have those spells that can end a game in a turn with a lucky roll. While I was never a fan of 6th ed magic, the problem wasn't with the lores, it was how power dice got generated.

Warhammer never had been a balanced game, what makes it unbalanced shifts from edition to edition.

Brother Fenix
15-12-2014, 20:45
I think there is an imporant distinction to be made here, that I haven't seen in the previous posts.

EoT's didn't "combine" army books, it just allowed you to use individual army books in a single force.

On that note, I don't think combined army books would mean that we would see the same amount of units per faction. I think we would see a significant reduction in the variety of models.

Maybe this is where GW is going anyway, but for example Warhammer Elves would not have 40 units, it would only have 15-20, with a few ones specific to each faction (1-2 DE, 1-2 HE, 1-2 WE), but not all encompassing as the individual books are now.

N00B
15-12-2014, 21:02
Actually this would help slightly with balance. At least if High Elves, Wood Elves and Dark Elves were written at the same time (and by the same team) then you would expect a similar power level. Kind of... just the same way warlocks are the same power level as Medusas or Frostheart Phoenixes are the same power level as sisters of avalorn. So maybe not.

Wesser
15-12-2014, 22:24
Warhammer never had been a balanced game, what makes it unbalanced shifts from edition to edition.

Dude..even chess isn't balanced.

I actually think Warhammer is pretty balanced, but it is game that you can choose to abuse if you want to. Especially the point about magic. I can't even remember the last game I had (counting tourneys) where magic was the decisive factor.


The crux about ET however is the question about whether it actually adds anything to the game long term. I still find it totally similar in scope to Storm of Magic, Storm of Chaos and such... only so far it's more ambitious and spread out more to keep interest going.

Ultimately (practically) infinite choice is going to be pretty boring, pretty quickly because it quickly becomes about listbuilding. More units in this way just induce powerplay and makes it more difficult to take units that ain't cutting edge.

I enjoy End Times as a fad, which I'll try out but long term there's loads more scope and fun in my trusty old solo Wood Elves..... even before aestetic considerations

Doommasters
16-12-2014, 01:14
Dude..even chess isn't balanced.

I actually think Warhammer is pretty balanced, but it is game that you can choose to abuse if you want to. Especially the point about magic. I can't even remember the last game I had (counting tourneys) where magic was the decisive factor.


The crux about ET however is the question about whether it actually adds anything to the game long term. I still find it totally similar in scope to Storm of Magic, Storm of Chaos and such... only so far it's more ambitious and spread out more to keep interest going.

Ultimately (practically) infinite choice is going to be pretty boring, pretty quickly because it quickly becomes about listbuilding. More units in this way just induce powerplay and makes it more difficult to take units that ain't cutting edge.

I enjoy End Times as a fad, which I'll try out but long term there's loads more scope and fun in my trusty old solo Wood Elves..... even before aestetic considerations


It will not likely get to a 40k level where you compare lists and basically know if you win or lose. Mainly because magic is still very random, warmachines often blow up and you have to get into close combat more often than not (the deloyment and movement phases also have a huge impact).. 40K everyone has a big gun with decent range and a clear target to shoot at making the movement and deployment a little less critical. I find WHFB require more thinking during the game as it often does not go to plan, 40k is more rational and straight forward I find. The big question with End Times armies is if you decide to take all the best stuff and put them into one list, if you do this and your opponent takes a fluffy list sure you will have an advantage....but this was no different from before except for the fact you have access to more of those power combos now.

Marshal_Loss
16-12-2014, 01:34
I'd rather army books be kept separate, however unlikely that seems right now

forseer of fates
16-12-2014, 01:41
Ive seen the eternity king and witchelves used in 2k, he fly's 20 in front of you, then teleports the witchelves in front of you, then in turn two you die.

Lord Inquisitor
16-12-2014, 03:20
It will not likely get to a 40k level where you compare lists and basically know if you win or lose.

Eh, pretty close if you take an uncomped chaos list against an uncomped elf list - the banner of the world dragon is pretty much game over there.

Doommasters
16-12-2014, 03:41
Eh, pretty close if you take an uncomped chaos list against an uncomped elf list - the banner of the world dragon is pretty much game over there.

Sure, in that instance maybe with that one crazy banner...........but it is one item, hardly representative of WHFB at a total level (congrats you found the exception but how often would this type of situation likely come in outside this example?). Also Chaos in a combined list would have access to many options that would be able to stand up to an Elven deathstar list. There are not that many truly broken things in 8th edition and you can't really compare ET lists to Non ET lists in a competative setting anyway.

I still stand by the fact that WHFB is far more fickle and dynamic than 40k where there are weapons that can shoot from most places on the board and shooting is the most powerful phase. Compared to WHFB where I would say deployment and movement are the most critical phases on the game.

SuperHappyTime
16-12-2014, 04:05
Sure, in that instance maybe with that one crazy banner...........but it is one item, hardly representative of WHFB at a total level (congrats you found the exception but how often would this type of situation likely come in outside this example?). Also Chaos in a combined list would have access to many options that would be able to stand up to an Elven deathstar list. There are not that many truly broken things in 8th edition and you can't really compare ET lists to Non ET lists in a competative setting anyway.

IMHO Legion of Elves and Legion of Chaos are significantly more powerful/broken than Legion of Undead or whatever Legion of Empire/Dwarf/Brets will possibly be.

Doommasters
16-12-2014, 04:10
IMHO Legion of Elves and Legion of Chaos are significantly more powerful/broken than Legion of Undead or whatever Legion of Empire/Dwarf/Brets will possibly be.

This is to be expected given the way GW are making the End Times books. However it would be highly unlikely given what they have done with the 8th edition army books that any 9th edition combined forces books would have the same level of imbalance as End Times (It is just a book a fluff where you can combine armies atm).

It is also impossible to say what any other end times books will be like powerwise until you see the special rules not to mention Brets have not even goten a new book yet.....too early to say....I mean if you can combine Empire magic with Dawrf anti magic Elves and Undead will be hurting.

Shimmergloom
16-12-2014, 04:33
This is true, up to a point. From this perspective the game has always been balanced from a player vs player perspective, since each player theoretically could play any army. Of course this is ignoring constraints like time or money, from a purely competitive perspective but you can argue that even in the very worst days of 7th where daemons were totally broken everyone could play daemons so what's the problem?

The thing is, this is not what we are referring to when we say we want a balanced game. We want all armies and all units to be equally viable in a perfectly balanced system. Some might be more niche roles but we don't want obvious winners and losers.


Yeah I'm not sure even that is true. I think the Undead army doesn't even compare to the sort of filth the combined elf army can throw out.

Also, while what theunwantedbeing posted above is true, it's worse than that. The units don't operate on their own. There are synergies that are created by mixing the units together that are extremely powerful - more powerful than the sum of their parts. Herdstones with horror core. Blackened plate minos with trolls. BOTWD and Wood Elf spells protecting DE characters.

And if that wasn't enough the End Times lists grant additional bonuses like no crumble on general death for undead, improved marks and reign table for chaos, all the elf advantages for everyone.

I played in an End Times one-day tournament yesterday and some of the combined list builds were crazy.

It's true. I was there and basically elves just auto-hit and nearly auto-wound now in 3 ranks. It is insane.

I wonder how people who are defending combined elves are going to feel if GW just decides, "Hey now Orcs and Dwarfs are allies, cause END TIMES!"

Just Tony
16-12-2014, 05:31
It's true. I was there and basically elves just auto-hit and nearly auto-wound now in 3 ranks. It is insane.

I wonder how people who are defending combined elves are going to feel if GW just decides, "Hey now Orcs and Dwarfs are allies, cause END TIMES!"

They will defend the decision, like they do every decision GW makes. I have a friend who sings the praises of everything GW puts out. I put him on the spot by asking if he could even say something negative about GW or either game system. It took effort for him to think of things, and I don't think he could even get to five. I'd like to think that some of that attitude comes with the whole "vested interest" concept of how much we've put into this hobby, but it could just be that the concept is still what drives one's loyalty, and not the reality. I remember when Marvel bought Malibu and destroyed the Ultraverse. I stuck it out until the very last issue was printed, naively hoping that things would get fixed. Yeah no.

Shimmergloom
16-12-2014, 16:19
Even the fluffy way of O&G and Ogres would make most weaknesses go away from the two armies, without even needing to write new rules.

Orcs would now get animosity free gnoblar bunkers, ironblasters, ogre characters to lead trolls and the hellheart, plus animosity free sabertusk spam.

Ogres would get cheap scroll caddies, cheap fast cav, doom divers, cheap chariots and trolls.

HelloKitty
16-12-2014, 17:29
Or - people like what they like and there is no way to quantify if what someone likes in terms of a hobby is "right" or "wrong". End times creates crazy combos - no doubt. I don't see that as any different than the uncomped crazy combos that existed before end times, and existed in the previous edition or the edition prior to the prior. Thats how GW games roll.

If people like something - they will defend it. When it comes to a hobby and opinion there is no right or wrong. People want different things out of their games than other people. Thats why its great that the world has so many options today. How can anyone prove that liking GW is somehow wrong? Or prove that hating GW is wrong? You can't. I don't like warmachine or PP. You can't prove my not liking their game system as wrong because its my personal taste, nor would I try to prove someone that likes PP games as being wrong because that's their personal taste.

As to this poll - the bitter divide between allowing allies and not allowing allies has been around since allies has been around - which is not a new thing in GW games mind you. I started with 5th edition fantasy and we had allies then (25%) and our local tournaments were filled with lists using allies. IT seemed like everyone had high elf mages running around back then no matter what army you had because high magic was so potent. That and the book of ashur letting you take high magic on your own wizards.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
16-12-2014, 17:51
Ive seen the eternity king and witchelves used in 2k, he fly's 20 in front of you, then teleports the witchelves in front of you, then in turn two you die.
Witch elves aren't that hard to deal with. Hit them with 1+ saves, with template weapons, or with redirectors.

Lord Inquisitor
16-12-2014, 21:53
Or - people like what they like and there is no way to quantify if what someone likes in terms of a hobby is "right" or "wrong". End times creates crazy combos - no doubt. I don't see that as any different than the uncomped crazy combos that existed before end times, and existed in the previous edition or the edition prior to the prior. Thats how GW games roll.

Maybe, but 8th has been fairly reasonable. While you can crazy combo now as before, the sheer scale of the cheese has ramped up rather dramatically. It magnifies the level of power combos quite a bit.

It isn't just about balance between books but also the core game gets less fun IMO when it is more about stacking items and combos from different books and less about maneuver. If you cut out most of the magic items and forbid characters from joining units from other books it would help.

HelloKitty
16-12-2014, 23:58
Maybe, but 8th has been fairly reasonable. While you can crazy combo now as before, the sheer scale of the cheese has ramped up rather dramatically. It magnifies the level of power combos quite a bit.

It isn't just about balance between books but also the core game gets less fun IMO when it is more about stacking items and combos from different books and less about maneuver. If you cut out most of the magic items and forbid characters from joining units from other books it would help.

Remember, for several years eighth was regarded as the ruiner of fantasy. What I've picked up over the years is that when editions change, people get mad.

Doommasters
17-12-2014, 00:33
Maybe, but 8th has been fairly reasonable. While you can crazy combo now as before, the sheer scale of the cheese has ramped up rather dramatically. It magnifies the level of power combos quite a bit.

It isn't just about balance between books but also the core game gets less fun IMO when it is more about stacking items and combos from different books and less about maneuver. If you cut out most of the magic items and forbid characters from joining units from other books it would help.

It all depends on what type of player you are and what type of lists you choose to build. End Times was never inteded to be balanced, how could it be when all you do is allow individual books written independently to be made into one? I always find with this sort of thing that it is best to build a whole variety of lists and keen them in your folder and before you start playing you agree what type of game you want.....this way you always have something that works for the situation. If all you want to do is power game then End Times will most likely suck for your opponent as I agree some of the combos are absurd.

This does not change my view that combined larger books are a good idea, however they will need to be written in conjuction with any 9th edition changes to allow for a more balanced environment.....when it boils down to it there are only a few things that really break the game at the moment so it would not be that hard to fix. The key challenge will be to ensure armies still have strength and weaknesses to allow for challenging gameplay.......we don't want to get to the point where we are playing chess now do we :)

logan054
17-12-2014, 00:56
Dude..even chess isn't balanced.

I actually think Warhammer is pretty balanced, but it is game that you can choose to abuse if you want to. Especially the point about magic. I can't even remember the last game I had (counting tourneys) where magic was the decisive factor.


The crux about ET however is the question about whether it actually adds anything to the game long term. I still find it totally similar in scope to Storm of Magic, Storm of Chaos and such... only so far it's more ambitious and spread out more to keep interest going.

Ultimately (practically) infinite choice is going to be pretty boring, pretty quickly because it quickly becomes about listbuilding. More units in this way just induce powerplay and makes it more difficult to take units that ain't cutting edge.

I enjoy End Times as a fad, which I'll try out but long term there's loads more scope and fun in my trusty old solo Wood Elves..... even before aestetic considerations

With the amount of extra randomness in warhammer now, it hard for it to be balanced. I suspect if you played several games without magic you would notice how much it can tip the balance of the game, this tipping point is usually because of a single model. I wouldn't put it in the same boat of Storm of chaos, the changes to chaos stayed around afterwards, who knows, we might see other changes stick around this time around. It does however seem that GW has been trying to reintroduce the concept of combined chaos for a while, first though FW, now through End times. I suspect that come 9th edition this is something we will see continued, I also wouldn't be shocked to see a combined undead list. With all of these armies you have duds, with chaos, you simply have 2 additional close combat orientated, one being very meh, one being very dull and the other being daemons. I don't think the End times way of combining them is great, I'd much prefer something like what we had with HoC.

jorgepo
17-12-2014, 13:34
Even the fluffy way of O&G and Ogres would make most weaknesses go away from the two armies, without even needing to write new rules.

Orcs would now get animosity free gnoblar bunkers, ironblasters, ogre characters to lead trolls and the hellheart, plus animosity free sabertusk spam.

Ogres would get cheap scroll caddies, cheap fast cav, doom divers, cheap chariots and trolls.

The whole point of different armies is that they each have their strengths and weaknesses, or some like The Empire are average at everything. That's balance.

Everyone being awesome at everything is boring - you might as well just have a single army of gray blobs called Army X and have fun, "balanced" games with your friends.

HelloKitty
17-12-2014, 13:55
There is an opposing view point - that if everyone is good at everything then everyone is good at everything and there is also balance.

I find that while armies individually do have strengths and weaknesses, that because we can cherry pick what we want in our army, that the majority of armies I ever see are usually the best of the best of the book so weaknesses are few and far between as it stands already - which may be why combining books doesn't phase me (that and I played the game when undead was one book and chaos was one book already so I have already been there and done that)

Montegue
17-12-2014, 14:45
Some armies have access to certain models or units that compensate for serious limitations. Every army that can choose dwarf artillery probably will choose dwarf artillery if there are open allies or combined lists going forward. I know for my part I will be adding movement and magic to my dwarf army, if for any other reason than to shut people up about whining about the army. I'll have a level 4 (probably metal), some empire war priests converted as Preists of Grminir, and probably some scibor bear riders to represent Demigriff cav. And probably a steam tank.

I can see a Strollaz army with Empire support as being a fairly aggressive, fun army to play. I can also see it being pretty effective on the table.

What I'd hate to see is a combined Elf army (already broken as all hell) with 5 Dwarf War machines. Or an Ogre army with a full suite of dwarf war machines (Seriously - gut star plus 2 Ironblasters, two runed organ guns with engineer support, and a grudge thrower. Because...reasons).

40k is broken because GW is tone deaf to the wider needs of the community that supports their game. They imagine that the game is mostly played in basements and in campaigns, or they want to force that to happen. but the thing that drives the game is large event play and local event play. People are attracted to communities, and the more bustling, healthy, and vibrant the community the more people it attracts. The game doesn't have to be War Machine, but it needs to not be Monty Haul.

Thurisaz
17-12-2014, 15:16
9th ed should maintain chaos and undead as combined armies like in the good old days, but combo elves is just silly. Too proud to stay united, I always say.

HelloKitty
17-12-2014, 15:27
People are attracted to communities, and the more bustling, healthy, and vibrant the community the more people it attracts.

ABSOLUTELY true.

However - large event play does not always have to be tournaments or competitive styled events. Our large events are campaigns now, because that is what the game supports and where the most fun with the system can be had. In 2015 we are holding our first large scale grand campaign event (a grand tournament) since 2004 because we have the numbers to do so. It is because of our community that this can happen though - we had to make it happen. GW did not do anything to help that happen.

Typo
17-12-2014, 17:13
I actually think Warhammer is pretty balanced, but it is game that you can choose to abuse if you want to. Especially the point about magic. I can't even remember the last game I had (counting tourneys) where magic was the decisive factor.

I remember the last time it was decisive for me, I pushed through a Dreaded 13th (cast value of 13 - errata'd power scroll), using my power dice and 2 warpstone tokens on a double 1 magic phase. 13th took his entire TG unit and the slann it was guarding - he had no way to dispel :)

malisteen
17-12-2014, 18:15
I'd prefer combined armies be kept out of smaller games, and handled via an ally table in larger games.

As for what I think they will do, I expect 'end times' rules to remain their own thing separate from 'regular', pre-end-times rules, with the end times legions lists persisting in their current forms (ie, Nagash, etc, remain valid rules with maybe slight errata to match updated faction books), while games with single faction armies persist in their traditional form, with perhaps a few factions moved to direct only to clear shelf space. Plus of course some mostly bad changes to the core rules with the new addition (ie, the d6 limit on casting and dispelling dice becoming a standard thing).

Montegue
17-12-2014, 18:56
ABSOLUTELY true.

However - large event play does not always have to be tournaments or competitive styled events. Our large events are campaigns now, because that is what the game supports and where the most fun with the system can be had. In 2015 we are holding our first large scale grand campaign event (a grand tournament) since 2004 because we have the numbers to do so. It is because of our community that this can happen though - we had to make it happen. GW did not do anything to help that happen.

I recently finished doing a massive, international 40k game - Port Maw: Annihilation. It was really a lot of fun. that being said, the community of people who play that game is generated from local small-scale competitive play and larger GT competitive play (in both Fantasy and 40k). Not entirely, mind you, but a big chunk of that community is connected by the glue of small local tournaments and larger regional grand tournaments.

Thats why balance is so important. Just before the end of 6th edition 40k, 40k had way outpaced Fantasy in terms of tournament attendance in our large local meta (4+ FLGS each with their own community of players and lots of cross over). Once the rules tanked for 40k, that scene has seriously diminished. More people joining fantasy now, but if End Times craziness becomes the norm, I don't imagine you'll see much tournament play at all.

Which means people won't play outside their small personal circles much. people won't encounter other people's armies as much. They won't connect as much to other players. And the less players connect, the less likely they are to bring in more players.

HelloKitty
17-12-2014, 19:12
This is why I think the community needs to evolve and promote events that are not "tournaments".

Lord Inquisitor
17-12-2014, 19:58
Remember, for several years eighth was regarded as the ruiner of fantasy. What I've picked up over the years is that when editions change, people get mad.
I don't know - sometimes it just takes a bit of getting used to, but usually for most people there's good and bad. I had some reservations about 8th but overall it felt like a breath of fresh air. When 8th came out most of the hobbyists were out playing games and getting excited. After a couple of games, once we agreed not to use the stupid terrain generating table, I fell in love with 8th very fast. Not so the End Times. The general response I'm getting from the End Times stuff is "this is just dumb". After my interest in 40K has been slowly killed I'm scared this will happen to my beloved WFB.

Sure, if End Times represents just a supplement and not the main focus of 9th, then 9th I regard with much optimism. Even if the Khaine magic rules are the way forward perhaps we'll see it make more sense in 9th.



It all depends on what type of player you are and what type of lists you choose to build. End Times was never inteded to be balanced, how could it be when all you do is allow individual books written independently to be made into one? I always find with this sort of thing that it is best to build a whole variety of lists and keen them in your folder and before you start playing you agree what type of game you want.....this way you always have something that works for the situation. If all you want to do is power game then End Times will most likely suck for your opponent as I agree some of the combos are absurd.

This does not change my view that combined larger books are a good idea, however they will need to be written in conjuction with any 9th edition changes to allow for a more balanced environment.....when it boils down to it there are only a few things that really break the game at the moment so it would not be that hard to fix. The key challenge will be to ensure armies still have strength and weaknesses to allow for challenging gameplay.......we don't want to get to the point where we are playing chess now do we :)
I am not sure why we need combined books. Why are they a good idea? I don't really see why it is necessary. A lot of effort has been put into making, for example, VC and Khemri distinct in background, models, appearance and rules. Throwing armies - particularly ones like the Elves - together is just ... ugly.

From a financial aspect perhaps combining some of the books is a good idea but other than chaos and perhaps some of the good armies (empire and dwarfs, perhaps ogres as allies?) I don't see what the great advantage is.

The uber-characters are another problem. Ridden monsters needed fixing but this has gotten out of hand.

Doommasters
17-12-2014, 20:44
I don't know - sometimes it just takes a bit of getting used to, but usually for most people there's good and bad. I had some reservations about 8th but overall it felt like a breath of fresh air. When 8th came out most of the hobbyists were out playing games and getting excited. After a couple of games, once we agreed not to use the stupid terrain generating table, I fell in love with 8th very fast. Not so the End Times. The general response I'm getting from the End Times stuff is "this is just dumb". After my interest in 40K has been slowly killed I'm scared this will happen to my beloved WFB.

Sure, if End Times represents just a supplement and not the main focus of 9th, then 9th I regard with much optimism. Even if the Khaine magic rules are the way forward perhaps we'll see it make more sense in 9th.



I am not sure why we need combined books. Why are they a good idea? I don't really see why it is necessary. A lot of effort has been put into making, for example, VC and Khemri distinct in background, models, appearance and rules. Throwing armies - particularly ones like the Elves - together is just ... ugly.

From a financial aspect perhaps combining some of the books is a good idea but other than chaos and perhaps some of the good armies (empire and dwarfs, perhaps ogres as allies?) I don't see what the great advantage is.

The uber-characters are another problem. Ridden monsters needed fixing but this has gotten out of hand.


In a perfect world you would have all these armies and books and they would be updated often. This has simply not been the case and GW clearly does not have the resources or intention of doing it. I mean 8th edition is almost over and not all the books have been updated...that should tell us something. I for one would happily have fewer books with more options in each book resulting in more regular updates for all armies. I can assure you that armies get boring after having the same book for year, after year after year.

Combining books is also a really good idea for GW given the fact that WNFB armies typically require more models than other games which means the investment to start a new army is very high. This means that when they release new models and army books they are limiting the sales they can acheive because many players simply can't use the models even if they like them. Combined army books opens up a whole bunch more players who have a vested interested in a wider selection of models. Chaos for exmaple; GW releases fantasic new Chaos Chariots and everyone is talking about them...they look great, have nice rules and are a competative choice....however if you don't have a WoC army the cost of buying them is not simply the chariot itself, you then have to buy whole bunch of other models which esculates the cost very fast. Now if we are playing with a combined army list you now have all the BoC and DoC players who for only the cost of the model itself can purchase it and use it in an army.

I would argue for those that want WHFB to remain an important part of GW's game system portfolio we should be encouraging this sort of transition as we can all see the current system is not working particualry well for GW. Not to mention the success of the End Times should also indicated there is demand for 'new' fluff and combined armies. This does not take away the need for balance however!!

Definately agree that 800-1000 characters in 2400 point lists is a little over the top as it bascially results in 'either you kill my super character and win or I kill yours and I win' situations.

Greyshadow
17-12-2014, 21:10
I am not sure why we need combined books. Why are they a good idea? I don't really see why it is necessary. A lot of effort has been put into making, for example, VC and Khemri distinct in background, models, appearance and rules.

The game has grown so big that there is little room to add new things without doing some pruning. Consolidating armies is much more preferable to me than ceasing armies. A full transition to plastic seems to be incoming. This would make some armies almost unplayable. Consolidating plastic units into combined armies allows people to continue to use their existing plastic units. There are some advantages for combining. Not saying I emphatically agree but I do think this will mix things up a bit and keep things interesting if done well.

Doommasters
18-12-2014, 00:10
Updated front page with the below;



Why combined armies is good for Warhammer Fantasy

First off you do not have to agree with me but please attempt to explain your reasoning rather than just flaming what I have to say.

What is my definition of a combined army book?

Multiple army books combined into a single book designed to work within a specific version of Warhammer Fantasy, balanced as best as possible around other books in the same system. End Times as it currently stands does not fit this criteria, yes it allows you to combine armies but that is where the similarities stop.

i.e. BoC, WoC and DoC combined into a single Chaos Hordes book developed with 9th edition rules and armies in mind

What this would likely mean at a top line level;
1) Less army books
2) Bigger army books
3) Rationalisation of ‘current’ units and models
4) New and possibly more complex army rules

Possibly there would be more to add to the list but I think that covers the big things. Obviously my personal view is that combined armies are a good idea however I will ‘try’ and be as objective as possible……you can be the judge.

Less army books

Downside: Armies as we know them could start to lose some of their rich history and identify. While it is likely that the books would become much larger in size it is unlikely that GW would be willing to maintain every nock and cranny. While it is highly unlikely the history would be lost all together there would be an increased need for summarising and ultimately detail would be lost that existed before.

Upside: GW would have less books to update ‘likely’ resulting in more frequent releases. Players would likely not have to wait for than 24 months to get an update to their army book.

Bigger Army Books:

Downside: Balance would likely be more difficult due to an increase in unit and item combinations. As a result we may end up with a less balanced game system as we know GW does not have the best track record of balance. The books would likely cost more due to the increase in size and resources required to produce….army books could quite easily double in cost. In competitive games you may see less variation in army lists as the internet would quickly identify the best choices within the book. The saving grace would be that books should offer multiple paths for army building.

Upside: Players would have more units available to build an army, giving you more freedom and choice to build lists and increasing the replayability of the army. GW would also have a wider pool of potential customers each time they release a new book or model as the community would be less fragmented. This would most likely result in more profitable armies and models resulting in increased interest and investment into fantasy. We know GW struggles with the profit side of the Fantasy equation and ultimately this is bad for future development into the game system.

Rationalisation of units and models

Downside: There would likely be huge overlap in units when combining books and while some overlap is a good thing models would likely be removed from the range in the short term. GW would keep what they see as the iconic units from each army and the rest would be up for possible deletion. You would expect the overall unit count to be much higher than any single book but substantially less that all the units from the previous books combined. Players that owned those models may find that they are no longer legal in the new system, this can be a hard pill to swallow sometimes. I would imagine a large amount of the rationalisation would come from the core and special sections with possibly increased options around decals for different factions to compensate.

Upside: GW is likely struggling with maintaining a wide portfolio of unprofitable models while looking towards how they can release new ranges. Rationalisation more often than not leads into an expansion phase, and in this instance GW would likely look to launch new models adding more variety to a wider range of players more frequently. Ultimately this will appeal more to those that enjoy collecting, playing and painting new things.

New and possibly more complex rules

Downside: Currently each army has a unique rule set that helps give the army identity. In some cases combining armies will create conflict a decision will need to be made whether or not adapt army wide rules, remove some or increase the rules for different units. Whatever the situation is the books will end up being more complex in terms of the rules set given how streamlined the 8th edition army books are. To some this is a good thing to other it is not. The other side of the coin is balance as mentioned previously. The more rules you have the harder balance becomes.

Upside: I am more sure what upside there is on this one outside the fact we would more options and it will take longer to unlock the books and how to play them most effectively.

In summary

Being one person it is hard to imagine that I have presented all the pros and cons of such a transition however I hope I have done enough to at least spark some debate amongst the community on this topic. The key points for me are that GW is clearly struggling with WHFB and with so many army books and models currently it is no surprise that they are struggling to find a balance. The second thing is that by having so many books GW has effectively divided the player base into very small pockets of players making model lines less profitable than they otherwise could be. Yes model rationalisation would likely happen, yes some of the history may be summarised or even left out and yes army books would be hard to balance, become more complex and expensive. The upside to that is a profitable game system for GW resulting in increased investment into the hobby, books being updated more often and players having a more options to play around with and more flexibility to play with a wider range of new and old models.

For me combined army books is a logical next step in the evolution of WHFB, for you it might be something totally different?

kurisawa
18-12-2014, 07:24
To OP, I did not vote because you missed the main option I would *love* to see in 9th.

That is, combined armybooks that still keep each army separate and distinct. IE a "super" Warhammer Armies rulebook which had all the armies in it - something like the old Ravening Hordes. I would gladly pay 3 to 4 times the cost of a current armybook to own that (and I think it would make economic sense to publish it; what is the average number of armybooks most gamers own? Some own them all, some just 1 or 2).

Yeah, well, if one or two armies had to be combined in the process, maybe that would work too (something like all the Chaos armies, all the undead armies, but definitely not all the elves haha!).

K.

Spiney Norman
18-12-2014, 07:47
There is an opposing view point - that if everyone is good at everything then everyone is good at everything and there is also balance.

I find that while armies individually do have strengths and weaknesses, that because we can cherry pick what we want in our army, that the majority of armies I ever see are usually the best of the best of the book so weaknesses are few and far between as it stands already - which may be why combining books doesn't phase me (that and I played the game when undead was one book and chaos was one book already so I have already been there and done that)

That's a slightly cynical view, not everyone builds their armies to ramp up power to the max. It am continually confounded by GWs game systems because I cannot just pick the models I want to use and build a competitive army out of them. If there is no viable tactical method of deploying any given unit that is simply terrible game design.

GW being GW cannot ever seem to create a balanced, subtle set of choices, if you want to play their games competitively you are usually forced to play a certain way. Allies/unbound has effectively killed 40k for me because in wanting to play a force drawn from a single codex I am so comprehensively hobbling myself by limiting my options I can really only hope to get an evenly balanced game if I ask my opponent to limit himself in the same way.

The comic tragedy of GWs current situation is that they appear to be trying to push narrative gaming by allowing a vast array of options, but their rules are so horribly unbalanced that only a very narrow slice of those options are viable when actually playing the game, and the new options designed for narrative players to 'forge the narrative' just end up being used by WAAC gamers to min-max the crap out of the game.

For the narrative approach to work, the game needs to be much better balanced than it currently is, 40k is in a horrible place with regard to balance, possibly worse than it has ever been since 3rd edition (and once again Eldar are the primary offenders), the end times series, despite pretending to be a narrative endeavour, has done exactly the same thing, taken a steaming dump all over game balance with ever more overpowered special characters and hideously overbearing magic. What is the point in playing a 'narrative game' when you know as soon as your opponent deploys Malekith the eternity king, that you may as well pack up and leave now?

Greyshadow
18-12-2014, 08:18
the end times series, despite pretending to be a narrative endeavour, has done exactly the same thing

I was in agreement until this last bit. I know there have been some recent tournaments that have used The End Times expansions to the detriment of competitive play. It is an expansion however; we can choose to use it or not. Undoubtably, the main emphasis of the books is the story and background and the smaller companion books are chiefly designed around giving you the tools to act out these special battles. The emphasis is certainly not on enhancing pick up games.

Amazingly, the format for the campaigns I have been playing in over the last few years have followed a very similar format to the end time books. The only difference is we have refrained from making new rules (but have designed a couple of scenarios) and have tried to make all our battles as fair as possible. Almost all our games have been pitched battles for example. Our game results only loosely write the narrative. We get the best of both worlds, playing with a strong sense of place and purpose but maintaining a good sense of story and get tactical games. I wish the End Times rules were a bit more like this.

P.S. Don't forget The End Times was what gave you your sweet (amazingly painted) avatar too Spiney!

Doommasters
18-12-2014, 10:14
I don't think the end times was ever intended to be balanced, used in competitive play or a long term solution. It has created hype and interest in fantasy and by mixing up the fluff has setup GW with the ability to inject some new life into 9th edition. They can go in many directions now when they decide to launch 9th edition....End times is simply a stepping stone.

ErictheGreen
18-12-2014, 12:58
Having come over from 40k where the army building mechanic has basically thrown open the doors to all sorts of nonsense, i'm not actually all that concerned by combined factions and alliances in fantasy.

With the 40k systems as it is now, the cherry picking is more focused (formations, dataslates, multiple detachments) and requires less investment to get the truly heinous combinations (ignoring that eldar can still compete with all of this on its own as a book. stoopid wraithknights and wave serpents).

in the current fantasy combined armies, you are still confined by the percentage restrictions. There are some silly combos that can be made - the doombull in blackened plates in a unit of trolls, for example - but its not at the level of 40k, and nor will it be as long as that systems remains in place. I haven't read all the special rules from the khaine book yet, but i don't see a huge amount there that is utterly gamebreaking. this is of course, ignoring the silly changes to the magic phase, the chaos ascendant rule and other things that are strictly optional.

you are always going to get the ultra competitive players that find the most imbalanced stuff. that existed before combined armies and will exist afterwards. more variety is a good thing for themed forces

Liber
18-12-2014, 16:35
This is why I think the community needs to evolve and promote events that are not "tournaments".


I voted other and this is basically the reason. The mindset needs to change. Combined books or no, I think Fantasy is best as a game if our response to someone saying "hey look, I've got a unit of enslaved Ogres in my OnG army cause my theme/fluff blah blah" is "cool!" instead of "sorry thats not allowed proxy them as something else blah blah".

Its starting too look like an evolution is happening, I'm crossing my fingers but not holding my breath. I played WoW for a number of years, and even in that completely different environment the vast majority of people were min maxing and copy/pasting the most popular builds.

Shimmergloom
18-12-2014, 17:05
I voted other and this is basically the reason. The mindset needs to change. Combined books or no, I think Fantasy is best as a game if our response to someone saying "hey look, I've got a unit of enslaved Ogres in my OnG army cause my theme/fluff blah blah" is "cool!" instead of "sorry thats not allowed proxy them as something else blah blah".

You could always do that, nothing was ever stopping you and your friends from doing things like this. There was even already ally rules in the brb to allow that to happen if you wanted to use them.

The problem here is that now they are making the books official and you are not very likely to think "COOL!!" when you see the BOTWD bsb in a unit of dark elf spears with a dark elf caster and about 8 rbts with warlocks. Or just facing the endless rerolls in 3 ranks that end times now gives all elves.

It was already bad enough seeing all the rerolls that each elf army was getting, now it's gone up all the way from Ludicrous speed to Plaid.

Liber
18-12-2014, 17:10
The problem here is that now they are making the books official and you are not very likely to think "COOL!!" when you see the BOTWD bsb in a unit of dark elf spears with a dark elf caster and about 8 rbts with warlocks. Or just facing the endless rerolls in 3 ranks that end times now gives all elves.


Which is the problem. GW wants (40k players specifically with the new unbound shiz) us to rise above gamey-ness. Its up to the community to rise or fall to the occasion. From most batreps I watch and most posts I read...it really feels like many would be happier using cardboard cut-outs or doing what Malorian did and switching to Warmahordes or something.

Just Tony
18-12-2014, 19:56
Which is the problem. GW wants (40k players specifically with the new unbound shiz) us to rise above gamey-ness. Its up to the community to rise or fall to the occasion. From most batreps I watch and most posts I read...it really feels like many would be happier using cardboard cut-outs or doing what Malorian did and switching to Warmahordes or something.

You give the community far too much credit. Why does the term Meta even exist? Because not everyone agrees with what is fair/balanced/fluffy/whatever. Also the fact that netlisting drives most communities in the first place, which tells me that GW doesn't have lofty goals for us noble gamers to guide the game to some happy middle ground, it tells me they just don't give a **** about the balance of the game and would rather just push plastic. Once they glut the market on the flavor of the meta figs, they'll adjust the balance of power to push whatever undersold, and drive the power units into nerfland. That's their current business model, and it's not changing. And it's definitely not put in place to give us the chance to swoop in like white knights on pegasi to fix the problem, something we couldn't even do in the first place. Example: How would everyone price Phoenixes?

Doommasters
18-12-2014, 21:56
You could always do that, nothing was ever stopping you and your friends from doing things like this. There was even already ally rules in the brb to allow that to happen if you wanted to use them.

The problem here is that now they are making the books official and you are not very likely to think "COOL!!" when you see the BOTWD bsb in a unit of dark elf spears with a dark elf caster and about 8 rbts with warlocks. Or just facing the endless rerolls in 3 ranks that end times now gives all elves.

It was already bad enough seeing all the rerolls that each elf army was getting, now it's gone up all the way from Ludicrous speed to Plaid.

There are three things that really grind my gears about the Eldar Legion;

1) Combined special rules: it really was not needed and is a little over the top
2) Botwd: not much GW could do about this as it was already in the HE book, but it really is a stupid item that is not needed in this game (if it was 4+ i could understand)
3) DE magic breaking the 'new' magic rules
4) Being able to take Bolt Throwers in both special and rare

If they keep with this trend into 9th I am sure it will work out when books are re-written :)

Doommasters
18-12-2014, 22:03
You give the community far too much credit. Why does the term Meta even exist? Because not everyone agrees with what is fair/balanced/fluffy/whatever. Also the fact that netlisting drives most communities in the first place, which tells me that GW doesn't have lofty goals for us noble gamers to guide the game to some happy middle ground, it tells me they just don't give a **** about the balance of the game and would rather just push plastic. Once they glut the market on the flavor of the meta figs, they'll adjust the balance of power to push whatever undersold, and drive the power units into nerfland. That's their current business model, and it's not changing. And it's definitely not put in place to give us the chance to swoop in like white knights on pegasi to fix the problem, something we couldn't even do in the first place. Example: How would everyone price Phoenixes?

There is nothing wrong with armies having powerful units that might 'appear' to be under costed. They key is to ensure that armies have strengths and weaknesses that balance them out. If they are great at everything or have certain units/items that plug all these gaps then I feel the game becomes a little less fun. This would be the biggest watch out for combined books in the Future, players typically want to win (human nature) so you should assume that most people will gravitate to the more powerful units in a book......when you have a super powerful unit that can sit in every slot and remove the armies weakness at the same time the game becomes a little less fun.

leopard
20-12-2014, 14:59
We used to have a single book with all the armies in it, and more of them than there currently are, I liked having the rules in one place, back to that I could cope with - perhaps a page or two of fluff per faction, leave the rest for the novels and dedicated campaign books but make it so I have a rulebook and an armies book to carry.

No need to slim the actual armies down, 3rd edition had 4-6 units per page if memory serves.

Didn't mean you could run everything either, hopefully they will go similar to 40k, the default is a single armies and perhaps some mercenary allies, and gain a couple of rules for doing it - like VP for table quarters and the like. then the 'unbound' option to take various combinations

Spiney Norman
20-12-2014, 21:42
I was in agreement until this last bit. I know there have been some recent tournaments that have used The End Times expansions to the detriment of competitive play. It is an expansion however; we can choose to use it or not. Undoubtably, the main emphasis of the books is the story and background and the smaller companion books are chiefly designed around giving you the tools to act out these special battles. The emphasis is certainly not on enhancing pick up games.

Amazingly, the format for the campaigns I have been playing in over the last few years have followed a very similar format to the end time books. The only difference is we have refrained from making new rules (but have designed a couple of scenarios) and have tried to make all our battles as fair as possible. Almost all our games have been pitched battles for example. Our game results only loosely write the narrative. We get the best of both worlds, playing with a strong sense of place and purpose but maintaining a good sense of story and get tactical games. I wish the End Times rules were a bit more like this.

P.S. Don't forget The End Times was what gave you your sweet (amazingly painted) avatar too Spiney!

Oh don't get me wrong, I really love the models they are coming out with, and I love the story they are writing with it, I actually really want to play through the end times scenarios usimg the rules and the rest of it if they hadn't so ingloriously cocked up the rules part of the expansion. I think what worries me most is that there are still too books to go and I'm struggling to think how much more abuse the game system can take after how badly they mutilated the magic phase.

The other thing that really gets my goat about it is where they insisted on errataing some of the end times changes into the core rule book (like that wholly inappropriate Lord/hero limit change).

sulla
22-12-2014, 06:47
The other thing that really gets my goat about it is where they insisted on errataing some of the end times changes into the core rule book (like that wholly inappropriate Lord/hero limit change).I've been finding that I enjoy the bigger limit. Now I can take fun utility characters like dragonmages and beastmasters without feeling like it's harming my army too much by costing a Mage or BSB if I feel I need them in a certain build.

I'm not a huge fan of the 4d6 AND spamming in the same games (although either probably wouldn't be too bad on it's own) but knowing all spells and random amount of dice to cast each spell are great additions and make a lot of the lesser lores like wild much better than they were previously.

Spiney Norman
22-12-2014, 09:03
I've been finding that I enjoy the bigger limit. Now I can take fun utility characters like dragonmages and beastmasters without feeling like it's harming my army too much by costing a Mage or BSB if I feel I need them in a certain build.

I'm not a huge fan of the 4d6 AND spamming in the same games (although either probably wouldn't be too bad on it's own) but knowing all spells and random amount of dice to cast each spell are great additions and make a lot of the lesser lores like wild much better than they were previously.

But when you reflect that the same lord/hero limit change allows you to bring characters like Nagash and Malekith to 2000pt games it's hardly a good thing for the game overall.

tneva82
22-12-2014, 09:38
But when you reflect that the same lord/hero limit change allows you to bring characters like Nagash and Malekith to 2000pt games it's hardly a good thing for the game overall.

Well if the player wants to shoot himself to foot...Be my guest. Should game prevent players from shooting their own foot?

Malagor
22-12-2014, 10:35
But when you reflect that the same lord/hero limit change allows you to bring characters like Nagash and Malekith to 2000pt games it's hardly a good thing for the game overall.
Me and my group tested in a 1500 points campaign that we with the new limit should max out on the lords(with special characters allowed). The results was that your army doesn't work as well. You need the various tools that the armybook provides, not just one of them.
So like tneva82 said, you will shoot yourself in the foot.
If the new limit makes the entry cost for new players lower(which it does) then it's good, the new players will figure it out eventually that a good balanced list is the way to go, not uber-expensive characters.

Spiney Norman
22-12-2014, 11:22
Me and my group tested in a 1500 points campaign that we with the new limit should max out on the lords(with special characters allowed). The results was that your army doesn't work as well. You need the various tools that the armybook provides, not just one of them.
So like tneva82 said, you will shoot yourself in the foot.
If the new limit makes the entry cost for new players lower(which it does) then it's good, the new players will figure it out eventually that a good balanced list is the way to go, not uber-expensive characters.

I've played a couple of games with Nagash at 2k (mainly because I bought the model and wanted to try it out) and I can definitely say that is not the case, I summoned more points worth of additional troops than his points value in the first two turns of the game alone with three successful spells (300pt skeleton horde, 450pts of chariots and just over 400pts of Necropolis Knights). What's more the summoning rules allowed me to summon my new units directly behind my opponent's line of advance.

It's fairly easy to build a competitive army around Nagash because you make sure to leave out the stuff that is easiest to summon while spending your remaining points on the the things that are hardest to raise later on (like Warmachines and monsters).

logan054
22-12-2014, 12:03
From what I can see with Nasgah, he seems like one of those really expensive hit of miss characters. He's either going to die in the first few turns from warmachines or win the game with all the additional troops he raises. I can't imagine my Chaos army would have all that much playing against him without adding in some skullcannons.

Fear Ghoul
22-12-2014, 13:57
Me and my group tested in a 1500 points campaign that we with the new limit should max out on the lords(with special characters allowed). The results was that your army doesn't work as well. You need the various tools that the armybook provides, not just one of them.
So like tneva82 said, you will shoot yourself in the foot.

Since the game balance doesn't remain the same at all points levels and in all slots, your assertion that the higher Lords/Heroes limit doesn't affect balance is demonstrably incorrect. Nagash may be vulnerable to certain things but at 2000 pts the opposing player will have less of them, unless they tailored against Nagash which in itself skews game balance even further. If you want proof of this phenomenon then just take a look at the state of 40k, which has explicitly incorporated skew lists into its design philosophy for decades, and to its own detriment.


If the new limit makes the entry cost for new players lower(which it does) then it's good, the new players will figure it out eventually that a good balanced list is the way to go, not uber-expensive characters.

By that logic, you should just remove the points limitations entirely. After all according to those who think like you the slot limitations don't affect game balance, and being able to take only characters would certainly make the game much cheaper and easier to play.

forseer of fates
22-12-2014, 14:52
Depends if your using the end times magic, for 2d6 dice Nagash is just a waste of a lot of points he's not comparable to the eternity king at all.

Left Foot
22-12-2014, 17:58
Can I just pipe in with the observation that no consideration has been given to the impact combined books may have on models and the future production range thereafter.

This thread is perhaps premature with the ET not even concluding yet. I'm personally more interested in knowing how models/fluff diversified by splitting the books and any impact this has had on the overhaul of older metal models into new better plastic models. I think renewed fluff and rules go hand in hand with generating interest for new models and would think that as a model company Games Workshop or Warhammer Inc. (whatever it may be at the time) would find it beneficial to round up loose ends that dont support the newer models set to be released.

Just a thought.

Doommasters
22-12-2014, 19:58
Can I just pipe in with the observation that no consideration has been given to the impact combined books may have on models and the future production range thereafter.

This thread is perhaps premature with the ET not even concluding yet. I'm personally more interested in knowing how models/fluff diversified by splitting the books and any impact this has had on the overhaul of older metal models into new better plastic models. I think renewed fluff and rules go hand in hand with generating interest for new models and would think that as a model company Games Workshop or Warhammer Inc. (whatever it may be at the time) would find it beneficial to round up loose ends that dont support the newer models set to be released.

Just a thought.



Rationalisation of units and models

Downside: There would likely be huge overlap in units when combining books and while some overlap is a good thing models would likely be removed from the range in the short term. GW would keep what they see as the iconic units from each army and the rest would be up for possible deletion. You would expect the overall unit count to be much higher than any single book but substantially less that all the units from the previous books combined. Players that owned those models may find that they are no longer legal in the new system, this can be a hard pill to swallow sometimes. I would imagine a large amount of the rationalisation would come from the core and special sections with possibly increased options around decals for different factions to compensate.

Upside: GW is likely struggling with maintaining a wide portfolio of unprofitable models while looking towards how they can release new ranges. Rationalisation more often than not leads into an expansion phase, and in this instance GW would likely look to launch new models adding more variety to a wider range of players more frequently. Ultimately this will appeal more to those that enjoy collecting, playing and painting new things.

I posted the above on page 1 & 6, definately agree that combined books would have a significant impact on the current model range.

Left Foot
22-12-2014, 22:14
Ah, sorry for glossing over that doommasters.

Is there reference or wiki that details the historical evolution of armies, there models and armybooks?