Are army books getting weaker?

[Lord Dan]

Based on a similar poll with mixed feedback I'm opening this one up to discuss whether or not you feel that the army books made in 8th edition, overall, have been weaker than previous editions.

For example: based on all of the stuff taken out, all of the stuff put in, all of the things tweaked, all of the synergies added/removed, is the 8th edition Empire army book more powerful, less powerful, or just as powerful as the 7th edition book? I understand that it's difficult to measure "weakness", however remember I'm just looking for how you feel.

Answer this question for all the army books in 8th and tell me, overall: what is the trend?

[pointyteeth]

I don't know if weaker is the proper word to describe them. They don't seem to have as many overpowered things about them, but there are still strong units as well as strong synergies. Best way to tell will be when Warriors comes out for 8th.

[woodster17]

As with your last poll, it's not as black and white as more powerful or less powerful. There were more overpowered units in 7th, which led to some lists being abusive, but the power level is not something that really matters when all books are balanced. If all books have powerful units it doesn't matter, it all books have weak units it doesn't matter because the game is well balanced internally (unless the rule set is botched). In 8th GW are trying to avoid the overpowered/underpowered argument by making all books well balanced and all units viable. The doesn't make them stronger or weaker than in other editions, just better to game with.

If i'm going to answer your question directly, they're not getting weaker or stronger, GW are just trying to remove rules or stats from units that make the game less fun to play while implementing rules to make those units who were not taken in 7th more useful.

Note that GW don't always get this right as some people attest to the OK being stronger than other 'newer' armies; but to suggest they are weakening books is a fallacy.

[sulla]

Internal balance is far more important than external balance. For me, the best books are the ones that I can make diverse army building choices to get different playstyles but similar results. Even if that means I have to really work vs a more powerful book, it's still preferable to a book where I am limited to 2 or 3 builds because they give better results than other choices.

So 7th edition dark elves were a far better book IMO than 7th edition VC despite them being about the same power level roughly because DE had a lot more viable builds. VC were all about the regenerating deathstar.

In 8th, I would rate the 8th ed VC as the best book because it has more good similar power level builds than the (possibly) more powerful OK book or the even worse internally balanced TK book. O&G seems slightly worse balanced than VC, mainly due to animosity making less builds work, but still a pretty good book. Empire I'm not all that familiar with so I can't judge them yet.

All-in-all, I find the 8th edition books a lot like the late 7th edition books inasmuch as they were pretty well balanced for that game edition. Late 7th edition books tried a lot of different solutions to make infantry work that generally made the early 7th edition and 6th edition books outclassed but against each other, a greater selection of armies were viable than the old monsters and heavy cav of 6th/early 7th.

[Sexiest_hero]

Fully disagree with sulla. About the DE most of all. love the manticore pic though.

[DaemonReign]

I voted 'About the same' but i would like to second what woodster says about it not being black and white - again, if we look at Ogres there's few people arguing they didn't just plain get better..

Both Sulla and Woodster says astute things here really. The only thing I'd add is that the Core Rules of 8th Ed (by themselves) invite to a more balanced game. They sort of push toward a mean average, where-by extreme edges are trimmed so to speak.

So not only is the Army Books improving along the lines described, they are also inserted into a better ruleset.

[Maoriboy007]

Fully disagree with sulla. About the DE most of all. love the manticore pic though.

Any reason in particular? He seemed pretty spot on to me.

[Ultimate Life Form]

Hmmm...

I can't see much in terms of army book deterioration...

One decisive advantage that 7th books had was the plethora of hundreds of Magic Items not few of which were entirely broken (I have never seen a DE army but the Ring of Hotek I'll remember to my deathbed). Since most items are being cut and the remeining seem mostly toned dwon to a reasonable level, one could say they're weaker than their predecessors...

Also some things actually underwent a considerable points increase...

But apart from that...

[Urgat]

Based on what I play (OK and the goblins section of OnG), my lists all got definitively a tad stronger, so there goes my vote. Aaaah, cheaper trolls and half-point goblin upgrades ^^

Internal balance is far more important than external balance.

To me they're equally important, even more, they're mutually inclusive. Internal balance is essential because I wanna be able to play a different list every battle if I want to w/ shooting myself in the foot, but at the same time, I want all these lists to work just as well against any opponent. I'm not asking for any list to be a master of ass-kicking, I want any list to have a fair chance against any other list. For now, apart from a couple things (mournfangs I look at thee! but if self-restraint is used, even them can be enjoayble to face; or on the other side of the spectrum, seriously, you snotlings...), I have to say I'm fairly pleased with the 8th ed books. For instance, whatever the internet people say, when a TK puts his army down on the table and then look across the table, he shouldn't think "I have no chance in hell". I can understand why you feel it's fun to have to work a lot on a list so it can face certain stronger armybooks, but I just can't share that feeling: it basically means that you must tailor your list to win, and I dislike this notion. It also invalidates what you say about internal balance: if all the lists are about equal, how do you expect to be able to make THE list that will beat the stronger book? It would mean that, ultimately, regardless of internal balance, what you seek is still the meanest combo the book has to offer. That's a contradiction, if you ask me.

O&G seems slightly worse balanced than VC, mainly due to animosity making less builds work

Sorry, seems I'm picking on you but I can't agree with that, animosity is much more easy to handle than in 7th (well it's like the previous editions), and there's hardly a build that would be "unworkable" just because of it. I know some people seem to be fixated on animosity and appear to be unable to write a list w/o going to extremes to remove it as much as possible, but this is really paranoia, especially now, with 8th ed, where fighting by initiative makes even a squabbling much less of a problem. Sure it can still be a pain on occasions, but it's not the crippling rule it was during 7th ed, with units wheeling out of the wazoo because you rolled a 6, or losing a potentially game-winning charge because they've decided to pick their noses right in front of their target.

[Duke Danse Macabre]

Army books now work better with the new rules and there is not a large a gulf between armies in abilities.

All that said and done though they are weaker, allot of choice is being lost from books, individualism is out the window and without the items the books used to have and the now weaker points increased characters you struggle to bring anything to the field close to the power you could before, you have choice now in you're armies but its between bad and worse.
Personally I think because they have given so much to armies in the past they can't give any more so they are having to take it away before giving it back in later editions and expansion books that everyone can get like blood in the bad lands o storm of magic.
Do I think that the 7th edition system was better?... No
Do I think 7th edition army books were better?... Yes

Combos have now been lost because GW wants to create a huge monster mash edition with lots of rank and file and little in the way of heros to lead them.
Welcome To 8th edition, monster hammer top trumps.

[m1acca1551]

There much stronger... and by that i mean the books are stronger not a select unit/item or combo. I can take any unit and pull of a victory, whilst yes certain combos are better i dont have to rely on 1 tactic.

[Ultimate Life Form]

Do I think that the 7th edition system was better?... No
Do I think 7th edition army books were better?... Yes

I too think that a lot of character and individualism has been lost from the army books. However the 7th Ed books were already a degraded version of 6th Ed books in this regard. Still most people agree that 8th is more enjoyable overall. Maybe GW have at last managed to place ruleswriting above fluffwriting, and it pays off (ltierally). The background is nice and important, but it should be reserved for the appropriate sections (or who wants Intrigue at Court back?).

[Oogie boogie boss]

I voted slightly stronger, as though some aspects of the armies, i.e certain units/spells/items etc have been toned down, overall the 8th ed armies have much better synergy. This makes them stronger as a whole, more versatile and obviously more in sync with the 8th ed rules.

[Skopey]

Im just hoping some armies get a book this edition But Yeah i think its about the same tbh i only played a little of 6th (like 2 games) and a game of 7th so can only really go by the army books themselves, not in the game overall as my knowledge of 7th is practically nonexistant. And even then only by the books i and my friends own. But with 8th, apart from a lack of some of the older books magic items and a toning down of a few SC i think overall its about the same.

[Vipoid]

I think that they've tried to remove most of the 'extremes' from the books. I.e. They've gotten rid of the most powerful builds, and nerfed some of the more powerful units, but have also tried to make it so that there are very few unusable units. In terms of power level, I think that some of the 8th edition books could be considered weaker, in that they've lost access to a very powerful build, but more balanced in that they're now have more viable builds.

Honestly though, I think the biggest mistake was cutting down so drastically on codex-unique items. 8 per book is frankly pathetic and lazy. Whilst I like the idea of having items in the core rulebook that any army can take, those items should really only be there to cover the basics (making sure each army has access to a decent range of magic weapons, armour etc.). However, those items are very bland, and completely lacking in any flavour. It's the army-unique items that should really add flavour to Lords and Heroes, but with just 8, there really aren't enough to do this.

Personally, if they were intending to cut down the items, I think they should have approached it in a different way - I'd have given each army ~15 items (preferably more, but this seems like the absolute minimum). Of those, there would be 2 from each item category (Magic Weapons, Magic Armour, Arcane Items, Talismans, Enchanted Items, Magic Standards), and then 3 ones that could be put into any category. With this system, lords and heroes would always have access to at least two unique items in any category.

[TheDungen]

Meh i liked the older thread that poll was a perfect example of normal distribution with a low n value.

[IcedCrow]

I honestly don't care much about the unique magic items. I do know that in 6th and 7th that only a handful of items were ever used so at least in my experience each army having only eight doesn't change what was happening before since I never met anyone that used a wide variety of items, it was always the same items over and over.

[Rikkjourd]

Even if you play against an older army book which has access to both the common items and a huge list in their own army book, you will still only see a a handful of them repeated every game...

[TsukeFox]

Only the O&G on paper has been weak and compared to the books that followed-is just garbage, on paper.

TK was okay/balanced but when the Vamp book (very balanced book & better rules than TK) came out TK just looks the neglected middle child.

What happen to O&G monstorous Calvary??
Why does not the Aracknorock have the BS Ogre rule "smooth ride" so that waste of plastic web launcher can at least be functional.

Compare empire to O&G-someone got the better deal: meteoric iron armour, Skaven slayer helm (just for another +1 armour save), Runefang, the wizard cloak, that banner (silversteel?) that lets a unit reroll ones for their charge+more (perfect for a calvary unit & can be taken by the units magic banner unlike the 2 O&G banners that have to go on a squishy BSB)

I think from the Ogre book forward all books are going to be awesome. Dunno what happened with O&G....

[Ultimate Life Form]

I think from the Ogre book forward all books are going to be awesome. Dunno what happened with O&G....

It's what we call the guinea pig effect: One army must step forward and start with a clean slate. Then you can go ahead and see what was wrong with the changes and what works and what works not under the new rules. GW likes this guinea pig to be O&G.

But most people feel they got stronger anyway, don't they? Well the opposite was hardly possible...