Which army book is most in need of an update?

[Lord Dan]

Poll should be open this time. I'm going to rephrase the question this time as well. If you feel another book should be updated before these three please clarify your opinion in your post, however please also choose one of the armies from the choices above (chosen because they are the three oldest books).

[Gradek]

I am going to go outside the box here and say Dark Elves (I know, not a poll option), but for a different reason. The sacrificial dagger is probably the most broken prior edition magic item now in 8th (it completely wrecks the magic phase, which is now more powerful than ever) and the hydra is the second most undercosted monster in the game (behind that CD Destroyer joke). So while, dwarves, WE, and Brets all are in bad need of an update, they are actually still reasonably competitive and are definitely not "broken" through the new ruleset.

Of the 3 choices from the OP though, I would say that WE need the update the most, as they really do not fit into 8th as currently constructed.

[Ponge]

Wood elves by far, skirmish just doesn't cut it at all.

[papabearshane]

I have to say WE as they need a bit of love to make them more playable to newer gamers. Right now you have to use them in very specific ways to make them a viable army. With alot of the new rules ie "LD test for marchblocking and longer potential charge distances they are easyer to catch.

[Lorcryst]

I'm lazy, so I'll copy+paste my post from the bugged poll, and edit it a bit

I voted Wood Elves, I've been playing against Dwarves a lot those past months, seeing a lot of variety (from the Strollaz + Rangers + Anvil combo to the classic Thunderers + Quarrelers + Organ Gun + Canon + "basic" Dwarves, passing by the ultra elite GW Longbeards + Hammerers "en masse"), and I can say for sure that they are not boring and totally overpowered in the hands of a competent General (I routinely see my friend having more Dispell Dice than I have Power Dice, + 3(!) dispell runes + that darned spell-eating rune, and with a very solid infantry line in front of the Runelord/priest ... no way my Tzeentch Sorcerer Lord can get a spell in ... and it's worse with my NGs, the Curse of the Bad Moon, my best weapon against Dwarves, get eaten every time [yes, that 4+ roll translate to 100% chance with the luck of my friend]).

I don't have much experience against Brettonia (only a single player, semi-retired, in my home town), but I did manage a couple of games against them, and again, a competent General can make them murderous, and they work even with a "bad, noobie" General ... thanks to those awesome Cavalry special rules.

Now Wood Elves ... Oh Sweet Basement Cat, they went from "you won't touch me and I'll pepper you with arrows" (that I had a really hard time catching with my NGs and WoC) to "you'll charge me and I'll crumble" thanks to the new charge rules and the lack of real "blocky" units ... Poor sods, they really were hit HARD with 8th ed ... the army still works to an extent, but you need a VERY GOOD General, the ONLY good build and A LOT of luck to pull if off.

[Mr. Ultra]

Beastmen.

They are the most nerfed army of the game at all levels: horrible rules, bad book, extremely awful models. I wonder why GW don't forbid this army (à la Chaos Dwarf/Dogs of War) and put their players out of their misery.

[Boreas_NL]

I think you left out The Empire there...

As for the options presented I am a bit thorn between Wood Elves and Dwarfs. I have some experience with both armies and while Dwarfs still work well with 8th edition I think they could use the update. In the end I voted Wood Elves, mainly for the reasons explained by Lorcryst, just above my post...

[pointyteeth]

As I said in the other thread, Wood Elves. While all the above armies are playable, Wood Elves require you to be a top-notch general AND require you to take a specific build to be successful.

[Djekar]

I'm going to quote tmarichards from the first failed post - and also agree with him 100%. I really can't say it any better.

Dwarfs, on the other hand, may still be viable but are the single least fun army in the game to play against- the vast majority of Dwarf tournament games are the Dwarf player castling in a corner firing war machines at people, which is just bad for the game. Competitive or not, they need a rework to have more viable builds, and hopefully a couple which involve more skill to use than multiple cannonballs 10" from the back of the general's base...

[KLupton]

Wood elves by far, skirmish just doesn't cut it at all.

Whilst i completely agree with you on this. The question is, what could be added to Wood Elves to make them fit into 8th better. I think they play well in capable hands and are a deadly foe for my Orcs. Ranked infantry doesnt suit their playstyle or fluff, so will GW adjust the army and rework the mechanics?

[shelfunit.]

I voted wood elves, primarily as they have (overall) the most outdated playing style for 8th. I would love it if they could maintain a guerilla-esque tactic, but in formations more with 8/9th ed in mind. Bretts are "ok". They have a very builds that work in the "competative" side of warhammer, but overall have few unit choices. Dwarfs are fine - they have three main builds - all out attack with hordes of GW warriors, rangers/miners, shoot-em up, tonnes of artillery,ranged weapons and the third a mix of the two. If anything dwarfs just need a few additional unit types, the anvil redesigned and the availible runes re-jigged to make more than just a handfull useful. As with Gradek though, I think DEs need the update more - if the game is moving towards balance then the most unbalanced armies need re-doing first.

[Urgat]

Ranked infantry doesnt suit their playstyle or fluff,

I'll go against the common opinion and say I disagree. The fluff is all about what the woodies do in their woods. Do the WE armies fighting in our games run between trees or stuff? nah, they're in the open, like everybody else. It's not a situation of them picking up trespassers from the trees, it is open engagement. I've never thought the idea that they should be going all guerrilla on the enemy made much sense when they're in the open like everybody else. I know I'll be on my own here, but, quite frankly, I've never liked much that whole skirmish army deal. We're not in 40K, facing wood elves has always been a pain with them running around and stuff, they don't seem like they belong to the same game, in fact. Well, just voicing my opinion.

[Ebon]

I couldn't decide between Brets and Wood Elves. Brets are, IIRC, the oldest book still in use which makes me think they need an update just for the sake of fairness. But Wood Elves need an update just because their style of play doesn't work well in the current edition (although I'm with KLupton in that I'm damned if I know what could both make them more competitive and be in keeping with their fluff). In the end, I flipped a coin and went with Brets.

[KLupton]

I'll go against the common opinion and say I disagree. The fluff is all about what the woodies do in their woods. Do the WE armies fighting in our games run between trees or stuff? nah, they're in the open, like everybody else. It's not a situation of them picking up trespassers from the trees, it is open engagement. I've never thought the idea that they should be going all guerrilla on the enemy made much sense when they're in the open like everybody else. I know I'll be on my own here, but, quite frankly, I've never liked much that whole skirmish army deal. We're not in 40K, facing wood elves has always been a pain with them running around and stuff, they don't seem like they belong to the same game, in fact. Well, just voicing my opinion.

I agree that you have a very good point here.

Maybe with a new book we may see elves similar to high/dark spearmen which will make a rank and file unit. Glade Guard with the option to either have longbows or spear and shields. Then players have the option of which playstyle they wish to follow. On the flipside that may make them just a green version of High Elves.

I hope GW come up with a idea to make bring them in line to fit the game system without ruining the ideals and appeal of the army that draws people to them.

[Promethius]

I've voted Dwarves because they lack a great deal of variety, with no cavalry/monstrous creatures/magic phase or even movement phase to speak of. They also have very poor plastics and not many of them (although that is not the focus of this thread). I think they need a great deal of work to make them interesting.

[The bearded one]

Beastmen.

They are the most nerfed army of the game at all levels: horrible rules, bad book, extremely awful models. I wonder why GW don't forbid this army (à la Chaos Dwarf/Dogs of War) and put their players out of their misery.

Ever faced a gor-horde with beast-banner? I've just written up a list and playtested it a few times against a pretty darn nasty ogre list (2x4 mournfangs, most of the other points in an ironblaster and irongut unit) and could hold my own head to head. Plus their core models, the gors and ungors, are terrific. The minotaurs and pumbagors look... peculiar.. but the infantry looks fine.

I agree that you have a very good point here.

Maybe with a new book we may see elves similar to high/dark spearmen which will make a rank and file unit. Glade Guard with the option to either have longbows or spear and shields. Then players have the option of which playstyle they wish to follow. On the flipside that may make them just a green version of High Elves.

I hope GW come up with a idea to make bring them in line to fit the game system without ruining the ideals and appeal of the army that draws people to them.

They used to have ranked up spearmen, I believe they even had chariots back then too.

I've voted Dwarves because they lack a great deal of variety, with no cavalry/monstrous creatures/magic phase or even movement phase to speak of. They also have very poor plastics and not many of them (although that is not the focus of this thread). I think they need a great deal of work to make them interesting.

They have 8 units in plastic actually, but most is locked in dual purpose kits (warrior-longbeard-ranger kit, quarreler-thunderer-ranger kit, miner kit, organgun-cannon kit).

What can be gathered from the thread and previous thread thus far, is that wood elves are most commonly chosen to be updated for rulespurposes, and dwarfs for issues with variety and models. The dwarf army is very competitive, it's almost as if 8th was written specially for them like a christmas present, but they can certainly use some variety for playing, and with the advance in plastics I expect new plastic kits to be drop-dead gorgeous, with all the lucious runic detail it deserves, instead of merely the large uniform mailcoats.

[Wesser]

I'm gonna say Brets

Problem is that they are ..mostly.. a cavalry army yet everyone else seems to have way better cavalry.

Empire Knights
Chaos Knights
Dragon Knights
Mournfang Cavalry

Wood elves at least have the best skirmishers in the game, but compared to most other armies Brets knights are hideously overpriced and suffers from severe restrictions on unit sizes

[Harwammer]

I'm gonna say Brets

Problem is that they are ..mostly.. a cavalry army yet everyone else seems to have way better cavalry.

Empire Knights
Chaos Knights
Dragon Knights
Mournfang Cavalry

Wood elves at least have the best skirmishers in the game, but compared to most other armies Brets knights are hideously overpriced and suffers from severe restrictions on unit sizes

I don't think this logic works.

Just because an army is cavalry based doesn't mean it deserves the best cavalry units.

Beastmen are probably the most combat based army in Whfb but that doesn't mean bestigors should be better than chosen.

I agree with the posters that say Wood Elves need an edition change (rather than an armybook change). To address another point raised, I think most of their fights are meant to be done in woods; they do after all receive a free wood to represent how well they can pick their battlefields.

[Urgat]

I don't think this logic works.

Just because an army is cavalry based doesn't mean it deserves the best cavalry units.

Beastmen are probably the most combat based army in Whfb but that doesn't mean bestigors should be better than chosen.

Difference is, Bretonnian are supposed to be the best cavalry too, not just the most numerous, so I agree with Wesser.

To address another point raised, I think most of their fights are meant to be done in woods; they do after all receive a free wood to represent how well they can pick their battlefields.

It represents nothing more than the altar of Khaine, the idol of Mork and the dwarf brewery that just happen to be on the same battlefield (where are we? In Athel Loren? On Ulthuan? In Naggaroth? Near a Karak?All four together? Then we're likely in the Realms of Chaos ). They get a free forest because they got rules that helped them in forests in the previous edition, nothing more (and that's not really the case anymore. Elves die just as much as anybody else in forests, and I doubt the free forest will remain in their next book anyway). All my warmachines and archers would be pretty great shots if any battle against WE happened in their forest. Bottom line is, no, when WE are involved, battlefields don't automatically turn into forests :/

[Memnos]

Difference is, Bretonnian are supposed to be the best cavalry too, not just the most numerous, so I agree with Wesser.

But the Bretonnians were never the best cavalry. Chosen Knights of Khorne have always put out more damage, in every edition. They also had higher weapon skill in nearly every edition(Now the Grail Knights are just as skilled) and had more attacks. The Bretonnians had some special rules, like the ability to counter-charge, which let them fight back(Though never win against the Chosen Knights of Khorne scenario), or the Lance Formation, but they were never the 'best' cavalry. They just had better cavalry than most and could throw a whole whackload of it at you.