Are army books getting weaker?

[Juicy21]

My game groep started at the end of the 5th, and most of the players i play against arent playing hardcore chosen lists, (most players atleast) and with these friendly games i got to say 6th was oke 7th was worse.

i felt very boring playing high elves back in the days. with that always strike first rule. and every tournement involving high elves had like the same list al over again. 2x 10 archers 2 bolttrowers 2 chariots 1 dragonlord, 1 dispel caddie and 1 bsb in a unit of dragonprinces+ 1 unit whiteloins ore swordmasters, that was the settup i faced vs almost every high elf player i faced..

i feel that 8th is the best edition so far, the games goes pretty fast and besides mindrazor on elves i havent faced that many nasty thing i couldnt handle so far. My games took like 3+ hours on 6th+7th edition and with 8 i am done with 1.5/2 hours most of the time.
I really like it because i am facing real armees these days.. not 1 hero minimum core and a bunch of elites smashing everything. it feels more like an army vs an army.

[Dnd_dad]

I've been playing since the very end of 5th and I absolutely feel that 8th is the best edition as far a playability, army compositions, and the lack of feeling completely overwhelmed by magic and army killing characters. The new scale of battles that it brings with hordes and giant war machines makes sense with how the game was being played by people in 6th+ that wanted better rules for large units of 40+. Not to mention the rules for buildings is easy, fun and brings a whole accessible level of gameplay that people don't spent 30 min trying to figure out how to enter and defend a building without a red shirt stopping by and say, "roll for it." I didn't care that much for 7th as it didn't change that much for me and I'm very happy with the way the game is going.

[Why]

The only real problem I have with 8th is true LOS, it has to be the single worst rule I have ever seen.

The army books are losing some overpowered combo's but are becoming more balanced, weaker but more balanced.

[CaliforniaGamer]

Ogres, OnG and VC are substantially stronger than their previous edition book. Beastmen and Tomb Kings noticeably weaker. Empire is only slightly weaker.

Overall I dont see much of a huge shift in overall book strengths and once again it is almost 100% linked to the individual author/lead developer on the project. Some write underpowered books like R. Cruddace, some tend to the OTT side of things like M. Ward.

[Sexiest_hero]

VC stronger that their last book? I don't think so, and that's a good thing

[Wesser]

Every edition has its key problems.

5th was just Herrohammer

6th was cavalry (defeats to Bretonnia was...rare)

7th Was just High elves and Daemons murdering everything

8th have the problem that it's the most poorly balanced edition. Every book so far has poor internal balance (especially Empire), with obviously useless or overpowered units. Likewise the edition doesnt adapt well, and it may well be that we've seen the last of Wood Elves and Bretonnia as they dont adapt into whats basically a very inflexible rules set.

[IcedCrow]

Most poorly balanced edition? I'd have to strongly disagree.

Though wood elves need a new book badly as they are very old, Bretonnians still work fairly well. Wood elves have poor balance due to their age.

I've yet to see an army in 8th edition walk all over everyone constantly like I did in broken 7th edition.

[zak]

I have to agree with Iced Crow. The balance to date is one of the best assets that 8th has. It has made the game worth playing again as 7th really did make some match ups a foregone conclusion. I do however agree that the Empire book has some issues, but that doesn't detract from the overall balance of the game.

Off topic - The reason I dislike Skaven is that the book is very badly written, has some awful QAC's, the most abusive monster and slaves that are more reliable and less likely to run than sword masters. The Doom rocket also is on personal dislike list, but maybe I just have been unlucky when facing it.

[Rosstifer]

Ogres, OnG and VC are substantially stronger than their previous edition book. Beastmen and Tomb Kings noticeably weaker. Empire is only slightly weaker.

Overall I dont see much of a huge shift in overall book strengths and once again it is almost 100% linked to the individual author/lead developer on the project. Some write underpowered books like R. Cruddace, some tend to the OTT side of things like M. Ward.

Tomb Kings and Beastmen are both stronger than their old books, Beastmen especially, Beasts of Chaos was a very weak book indeed, I feel the new book is a decent middle tier army. VC I think got weaker in terms of overall power level, but much more balanced because the last book relied on 40 WS10 Drakenhoff Graveguard and spamming Ghouls, which wasn't any fun for anyone.

[Oogie boogie boss]

I think that all the 8th books have become more balanced, which for me makes them stronger. The extreme edges have been toned down on some, but the lists as a whole have become much more diverse and each of the new books have multiple effective options for each role. I think strength across the list makes for a stronger army overall than one which has only one or two 'supercharged' choices. Balance beats power in my mind.

[Urgat]

Most poorly balanced edition? I'd have to strongly disagree.

Why'd you argue? Pretty much everybody disagrees, you only need to read this topic. Internal's balance is pretty good these days, you don't see THE ultimate build like you did last edition (GG with Drakenhoff banner + ghouls gragh!!!) or one unit is better than all the others like in 6th ed (ok that's my armybook... where is the cavalry?). Each army that has been released for 8th ed has plenty viable builds. Sure there's always a couple bad choices in there, but army building is much less of a no-brainer than it was in the previous editions.

[IcedCrow]

Its the internet, that's what we're here for

[Urgat]

Well I ended up arguing too anyway

[yabbadabba]

Well I ended up arguing too anyway

Oh no you didn't!

[Phazael]

Tomb Kings is the only book they really dropped the ball on. Like before, they were the vanilla beta test of VC (and they let Cruddace write the book, /sadface) and suffered accordingly. The Ork book suffers from having only a couple strong builds, but those builds are very solid (Savage Ork Biggun Deathstars ftw) and have done solid results in rescent GTs I have been to. People complain about Ogres being overpowered, but they are quite beatable and have more diversity than ever. Vamps might be a touch soft, but are certainly a match for the other 8th books. Empire is a bummer if you were the kind of person who brought the holy roller list before, but if you are into infantry synergy its the best book in 8th at the moment.

That said, the new books are mostly a step back from the current power elite (DE, Skav, LM) because they more or less have to be. I expect the trend to continue, until they let Ward out of his cage again and/or need to boost sales.

[IcedCrow]

"until they let Ward out of his cage again..." I lol'd hard at that. Very spot on heh

[Muad'Dib]

Just a clarification, read the bold part: I agree that 5th edition was herohammer for most (not my gaming group, but we were the exception). I am talking about 6th edition mainly, plus the 7th edition before the power creep began. So no, gentlemen, I do not mean the days when heroes could singlehandedly turn the battle, nor the monstermash that was late 7th. I mean the days when the game was played more on the field and less on the list building table. Like Iced Crow, I think 6th was the peak of the game, it had some minor issues when it came to movement/charges/redirection as well as a killer magic phase that were both addressed in 7th edition core rules. What the army books of 7th did to the game is a totally different matter, though..

I'd agree strongly with how 6th edition seemed to be the 'golden age' for WFB.
For me, what stood out especially was how things were kept 'sane'. Stuff like:
-Characters were powerful, relatively to being able to swing combat resolution in their favour, but the designers stuck pretty firmly to the notion of heroes having a baseline 3 attacks, and lords having 4, at 4 or 5 S tops. Any following buffs were exclusive to each other - Strigois had hatred and extra attack, but couldn't take GWs or protection, while Lizardmen characters had stronger stats, but had limited movement barring one per army magic item. etc. There were plenty of expections to that (Chaos characters with Helm of Many Eyes etc.) but they were exceptions, not the baseline as they are now, with all Vampire heroes being able to take ASF etc.
-Combat was balanced around breaking through 5-6 points of combat resolution, and there were barely any 2 attack units, so it was harder to build deathstars. (especially without the ridiculous steadfast)
-Magic was more predictable and weaker, but still meaningful. A scroll caddy or two were a decent protection even against a full set of wizards.
-Ogre and dragon sized creatures were more manageable, as well. No widespread regeneration, and weaker base statistics.

It's hard to put into words, but, overall, things were just more down to earth, rather than the power inflation that is occuring now with each army/unit getting better stats and special rules. This all got destroyed when 7th edition Daemons*, Dark Elves and VC got released, and I'd say lots of drastic (and not thought out fully) 8th edition changes were a desperate attempt to balance the rest of armies versus those three books.

*(which, as sad as it is, are less interesting, internally balanced and thought-out compared to the SoC Daemonic Legion)

[Ultimate Life Form]

For me, what stood out especially was how things were kept 'sane'. Stuff like:

Yes, I agree that was a very nice touch. The flipside of this approach seems to be an overabundance of upgrades that are either completely overpriced or useless or both. We all tend to forget the bad things and hold the good memories dear, but if you need a reminder just look at Wood Elves and see how bad they really are. And pretty much all books were like that; for every book there was a very short list of 'usable' options and the rest just wasn't viable. 8th may be a little over the top but at least it restored fun to the game. And it was Mat Ward who did it, so give him credit for once. Now the ultimate irony would be if he were to eventually bring about the end of the world he created by writing another one of his 'masterpieces'... any word on who is writing the new Daemons book yet? He may be a Chaos sleeper agent after all. This is the stuff legends are made from; it's almost religious...

[Why]

Well WOC are due this fall maybe Matt will increase sales like he did with daemons

[Doommasters]

8th edition is great!

Power level is relative to other army books and so far the 8th edition books have been very good overall. All the books have had much better internal balance than previous editions which makes for great diversity and fun gameplay, yes there are some units that are not as good as others bout overall it is a step up.

I voted power level has stayed about the same but in fact it has probably dropped a little but in a good way, how? Well they have removed a number of the most broken magic items and tonned down the most powerful and hated units while bringing less popular options up to a satisfactory level....less cheese but armies function better accross the board.