Why I'm NOT looking forward to a new Army Book

[Stealthman]

wow how is it i didnt know this existed? oh god another thing to cut into my precious painting time!!! but still i really wanna read that now!

 

[artisturn]

Aristurn, now you know how dwarf and khorne players feel during the magic phase.

Yeah That is why I hold back on the unit killing spells when I play against my nephew who plays Dwarfs , plus I really prefer the Hex and Buff spells over the unit killing spells.

 

[Sanai]

Yeah, personally I love the lore of beasts, all them augment spells.

 

[johanzen]

Are you a tournament player by any chance? I ask because it's mostly these players who classify books and armies in this manner. For those of us who don't play in tournaments, this really doesn't mean a great deal.

This, again, sounds like tournament speak to me.

Play casually, and unless you have some very dubious friends, this problem should be solved .

Im brand new to Warhammer and would never ever dream of playing anything but casual games. But I do, however think that with the prices of models and books being what they are, the least we should expect is at least somewhat balanced armies..?
What im trying to say is that we shouldn't be forced to different types of houserules when playing a what? several thousand dollar boardgame?

I play VC and have had some serious problems countering different things from my friends armies, the Empire Steamtank comes to mind, yet I am still too green to discuss whether or not our army is balanced or not, so please don't take this as a rant of any sorts, I simply wanted to air my views regarding balance

 

[johanzen]

EDIT: Wow! Old post - Oh well..

 

[Grish]

It's not that old.

With the current setup, balance becomes almost impossible. You have old books with new rules; without changing point costs, some units/items work better with new rules and some work less so. Also, there's occasionally 'shifts' to try to keep the game interesting. Example, years ago, warhammer used to be nick named "Hero Hammer" as characters were much more powerful and could lay waste to the enemies armies. In 6th edition, skirmishers were king. In 7th edition static Combat res was really important. In 8th, huge blocks of infantry are important, with big weapons. There's also a shift towards monsters (steam tanks, hydras, hellpit abombinations, arachnocks, warsphinx). Cavalry got a big downgrade, skirmishers aren't nearly as effective.

In between these shifts or ways of thinking, you get outdated books. Armies that were once amazing (wood elves, daemons) become less so as the shift in rules and emphasis on certain units changes. Some books are new, some are old, and some just have flaws in them that (I assume) were not forseen. So tweaks and fixes are put in place to try and level the playing field. Common tournament fixes are banning/restricting items/units/powers, or giving composition scores, or giving different armies different amounts of total points to work with.

In my opinion, the only way to really balance the game, or the best way, would be to remove all point cost listings from the books and put them online. Have printouts to be given away at the local stores (laser printer toner can print a lot of pages before needing a new one). That way, any mistakes can be fixed, more reliance can be put on the community for play testing to increase speed of shipping (I personally wouldn't mind if they shipped something with 'bugs' in it; it can be rectified) and changes to the environment (new edition released) can be fixed, or at least helped.

Balance is important to this game, and with so many variables and the timings of releases for books it is hard, if not impossible, to find true balance. At best it can be approximated.

 

[SotF]

We do need something to counter common tactics such as gunlines better, but direct shooting wouldn't be the way to do it in keeping the same feel.

Perhaps a variant siege engine that instead of doing damage, you fire off three shots that scatter and each one counts as a free "Raise Dead" with the zombie centering the unit being there and you can combine overlaps. Add an expensive upgrade that reduces it to a single shot but uses "Summon Undead Horde" instead.

Base the design off of the medieval tactic of launching plague ridden bodies into fortifications except using some of the warpstone and causing havoc that way.

 

[spineyrequiem]

SotF: That would be pretty awesome and in-character for us, I wish they would do something like that but have a feeling that any ranged attacks we do get in the forseeable future will be of the conventional/ghostly howl type. And Grish, remember that having army books presented like that would 1. Reduce their profits from the books (obviously) and 2. Remove power creep. Probably, this is deliberately attempting to make people buy the new army, and the newest models in said army. After all, why would you buy one which everyone says still loses all the time?

 

[SotF]

SotF: That would be pretty awesome and in-character for us, I wish they would do something like that but have a feeling that any ranged attacks we do get in the forseeable future will be of the conventional/ghostly howl type. And Grish, remember that having army books presented like that would 1. Reduce their profits from the books (obviously) and 2. Remove power creep. Probably, this is deliberately attempting to make people buy the new army, and the newest models in said army. After all, why would you buy one which everyone says still loses all the time?

I'm kind of siding with the interpretation of the power creep that beasts of war theorized. It's primary intention is to shake up the tournaments.

Sure you might do better with that army of the month, but at the same time you have a lot of people who know there stuff having specific options to plan against.

I also think part of the reason why the revamp is happening is to make more options viable on the tournament level. Skellies are worthless save for a unit having a banner as a just in case for some scenarios. Zombies are only good for anything if you raise them

The other options probably should have been placed elsewhere, but they aren't that good of options now anyway.

And our Lord and most of our heroes are supposed to be casting all the time to keep our forces going, but now there's the almost stupidly high risk of miscasts and our entire army dies on us. You also have the limited power dice.

I'm thinking there are going to be a LOT of changes in the book, mainly because GG+BlK+Gh is about all people use with a Varg or two if they have space.

Another thing I can see is some of the raising spells being shifted to just abilities to deal with the casting problem.

 

[Uziel]

I just want to say that I do indeed look very much forward to a new VC book (as well as some new models).
The main reason, is that GW are offcourse aware that the Horde type game works very different from the 7.ed ruless, and I do think they will fix at least some of the issues as far as our Core goes, if they don't, they simply don't deserve to be called game designers in the first place.

I also have a hope that this will help remove the current mono-build situation of competitive armies, but even if they miss this, they can hardly make it worse after all...

Where I am a bit sceptical, is as far as what they will do as far as making it another Sylvanian army, or bring back the old Bloodlines. I'm not going to go into this, as I've already done so in great detail before, but I certainly hope they bring back the Bloodlines in a big way.

I think the new book will be an improvement, almost regardless of what the designers decide to do, but that comes from my rather low opinion of the current one, buth rule-wise, fluff-wise and how the army work in competitive play. Will I be be HAPPY with the 8.ed book, that remains too be seen though...

 

[SotF]

Where I am a bit sceptical, is as far as what they will do as far as making it another Sylvanian army, or bring back the old Bloodlines. I'm not going to go into this, as I've already done so in great detail before, but I certainly hope they bring back the Bloodlines in a big way.

The Sylvanian army is already doable thanks to Pacts, though it doesn't have quite the same feel to it.

With bloodlines, I'm rather leery of them because I've enjoyed the ability to work out the vampires as I want each of them. The big thing I don't want is the return to single bloodline armies as my army currently depends upon the mix with my armored warrior vamps and a caster lord.

 

[Uziel]

The Sylvanian army is already doable thanks to Pacts, though it doesn't have quite the same feel to it.

I was referring to the fact that the 7.ed book is already a Sylvanian army list (see top of p.33, combined with the fact that all mention of the "Bloodlines" have been expunged). No Pact needed for this.
I was not referring to the older Sylvanian army which included various Sylvanian Levy etc from the 6.ed.

 

[N.I.B]

In an effort to stay positive - I think Warhammer is in kind of a bad place, as far as sales go. GW need a big selling army, therefore the new VC will be OP. You heard it from me first!

 

[Grish]

Perhaps a Skavenesque tactic of making Zombies effective in huge numbers? 100 models of Zombies per army could boost sales quite a bit!

 

[Von Calyptra]

In an effort to stay positive - I think Warhammer is in kind of a bad place, as far as sales go. GW need a big selling army, therefore the new VC will be OP. You heard it from me first!

I don't think you're being altogether serious, but I hope not. Unbalancing the game (further), whether in our favor or not, is not good for the game overall. And it's an approach to game design that makes me worried about what the rules for the other eleven armies still waiting for their 8th ed books will look like.

I guess my most positive thought is that no matter what the rules look like, the book itself will probably be pretty and fun to read. The new army books are beautiful, and I'm looking forward to have one of my own.

 

[Yorga]

I'm answering the original poster's original post. I agree. A re-write will bone us (pardon the pun). We'll lose a ton of useful magic items and bloodline abilities to boot. The game as it currently sits, is unbalanced. The 7th editions armies have a distinct advantage over the new 8th edition armies. I think the best we can hope for is that we are the last book before 9th editon is released. The new direction GW has been going in model production is BIG MONSTERS/BEAST. For us that probably means a new Black Coach. We already got a new Zombie Dragon. Expect some other new big thing to be added. But with GW, Bigger is not always better.

 

[Eternal Nocturnal]

I would personally like to see a return to specific bloodlines. I miss blood dragons... It would be nice if they upped skeletons so they're a viable pick as my core units, I just like them so much better for looks than ghouls. I can't wait to see if zombies make their way back into our lists as well!

 

[Sception]

Many folks, myself included, think that we got beaten with the Nerfbat with the release of 8th Ed. And many hope that the eventual release of a new book will help us. I think it won't. In fact, if the past is prologue (and it usually is), I think we'll get nerfed yet again

...

What do you folks think?

I agree with all of your points, and am likewise expecting another nerf, especially judging by the changes made to Tomb Kings.

That said, I'm looking forward to a new book anyway. The 7th ed book was never one for much variety, and the transition to 8th edition has only heightened the problem. The current vamp counts book in 8d is 'solved'. There is one monolithic monobuild that is the 'right way' to do it, and anything else you could do is some degree of blatantly wrong corresponding to the amount by which you diverge from that monobuild. Sure, there's a bit of variety in acceptable rare and hero slots, but its not enough, and the result is a very, very boring army to play, imo, to the point that I just don't play anymore.

I'm expecting the 8th ed book to be weaker then the 7th ed's monobuild, but I'm also expecting it to have some new options, and I'm hopeful that it will have some playable build variety in it. I'm not a tournament player, I only play casual games, and as such I'll take weak over boring any day.

For me, the worst that can happen in the new book is that it will be weaker and still have no functional variety, in which case I'll find it boring and won't play it. But since I'm already not playing the current book on account of being boring, that's no worse then where I already am. So really, as far as my own play experience is concerned, the 8th ed book can only be equal to or better then the current book.


If I were a tournament player, I'd be a lot more nervous, though, because I'd actually have something to lose.

 

[sword of caine]

I play wiht VC's since 5th edition (aka Herohammer) and love it. The army list was fully customizable and you either go for the power play approach, or create a fluf army list that was both playable and strong. Then came 6th edition (aka Magichammer), oddly enough, the only one that I played at tournament level (with the amazing and sadly missed army of Sylvania, from SoC) and I still liked the game. Then, came the 7th edition (aka Whatthehell?hammer), and after a long period of convincig from a friend, I finally took a look at the army book. The first thing I noticed was the instead of having a vampire on a mean looking nightmare leading the army, there was a vampire on foot, sloshing along a myriad of infantry. "Here's a bad omen" I thought... but then, I turned to page 3 and read the dread words "Gav Thorpe", and I knew that I would be disappointed... and I was, big time.

From the "newly dead" rule, to the absence of Wraiths as characters, and the over costed Banshee, I stop playing after a few games.

Then came 8th edition (aka Monsterhammer or Putbigthingsonthetablehammer), which only now I am taking a good look at it. I liked the rules (mostly) and thougth that the new way to cast spells might be a good depart from the previous attempts. I am not at all confortable with the crazy idea of fielding monster after monster on the tabletop to play the game (I always looked at Warhammer as a regiment game) but since I will mostly play friendly games with a friend that share my views, it probalbly won't be a big problem.

I think that the faq for 8th edition is stupid in same ways (the "does not count as core" made sense when the army list was based on slots, not now that is based on percentages) and a new book is definitely necessary to smooth things up.

Also, I miss the Bloodlines. I am getting tired of playing with vanilla vampires...

 

[spineyrequiem]

Don't worry, 8th is very definitely DeathStarHammer (is that a word?). Whilst they keep trying to get us to buy the monsters, the best unit available is, hands down (I believe) the biggest possible unit of whichever army you play's elite infantry (for us, this is Graveguard, for others its other things). Monsters have an unpleasant tendency to get shot in the face on turn 1.

 

[N.I.B]

Don't worry, 8th is very definitely DeathStarHammer (is that a word?). Whilst they keep trying to get us to buy the monsters, the best unit available is, hands down (I believe) the biggest possible unit of whichever army you play's elite infantry (for us, this is Graveguard

There's been a shift at the higher echelons of competitive play the last year, regarding the VC deathstar. The Black Knight deathstar goes through the Graveguard deathstar in like one round of combat, plus, the Black Knight deathstar is better against other armies.

 

[spineyrequiem]

Really? So then the monobuild is in fact variable at competitive levels... interesting. However, you would agree that elite infantry in large numbers are generally the most powerful unit around? (in armies in general, obviously there are exceptions)

 

[Sception]

I'm curious about this as well. The impression I had was that the black knight deathstar was crippled by its poor bodycount/point, by its poor returns on vanhels, by its reduced attack rate due to larger bases/fewer over the shoulder attacks, and by its reduced attack strength after the first round of combat due to relying on lances rather then great weapons. Its advantages in speed and maneuverability seem to be undone by the fact that you'll still be relying on ghouls as the only viable core to guard its flanks, by the fact that including vampires in the unit stops its ethereal movement, and by the fact that vamp counts generally prefer to take the charge rather then charge themselves, to allow replenishment of troops before the second round of combat.

If I'm wrong, that's fantastic, but I remain skeptical.

 

[ZombieJoe]

Aside from warmachines, have you ever read a VC book or battle that had any shooting in it? I think fluff wise VC don't need shooting. We march up stoicly and crush our enemies with weight of numbers. I think a big change would be to just give us back our zombies. They need a 5+ regen (cause zombies are suppose to be hard tokill) or they need to be like 1 or 2 points a piece. I'd like to keep the raising additional numbers ability but would settle for cheaper units and more blood lines.

 

[Zhatan]

Aside from warmachines, have you ever read a VC book or battle that had any shooting in it? I think fluff wise VC don't need shooting. We march up stoicly and crush our enemies with weight of numbers. I think a big change would be to just give us back our zombies. They need a 5+ regen (cause zombies are suppose to be hard tokill) or they need to be like 1 or 2 points a piece. I'd like to keep the raising additional numbers ability but would settle for cheaper units and more blood lines.

Cheaper zombies would not solve the problem. The issue with zombies dying as soon as the enemy look at them and that causing additional crumble would still make them a complete waste of points.