[Archive] Are the new army books a bit too much?

wizuriel:

the new books (and by new I mean high elf onward) seem to be trying to balance against each other and not the old lists.

HE are annoying and I think break the game (just cause they really mock the movement phase) but they are not broken.

Daemons and VC I think are broken

Dark ELves have a few units and magic items that are terrible underpriced (spear elves, black guard, hydra, reverse ward save come to mind quickly) but haven’t played them so can’t comment on power level.

I wish GW took a note from PP and released rules and models at seperate times instead of waiting to release at the same time.

Baggronor:

I don’t think any of the recent books are broken. True, they are good at their style of play but they all have drawbacks that can be exploited.

Vampires always get the ‘omg broken’ shouts, but frankly they aren’t. I play with and against them and they are perfectly beatable. Like High Elves, they have many lovely toys but never enough points to fit them all in. Vampires are very killable now, much more so than before, plus they are even more expensive. People have started to twig that killing the Vamps=win.

Daemons are hard, but Christ are they expensive. The only thing I think is excessive are Flamers. They are pretty cheeky:hat

Dark Elves do have some underpriced stuff, as do the other elves, but frankly with T3 and rubbish armour all round, they need them. Cheap spearmen = Elf army with some numbers, which is nice; Im sick of DE armies that consist of 20 Dark Riders, 2 guys on monsters and some Bolt Throwers. It gives them options. The Hydra was grossly overpriced before, its now a viable choice. The 1000pt-killing Assassin is T3 with 2 wounds and no armour. I killed one with a champion last week. One bad set of To Hit rolls and he’s toast. Personally I think Wood Elves are way more overpowered than the other 2 Elves.

And no one who has Blunderbusses should be complaining about Black Guard :slight_smile:

wallacer:

There does seem to have been a bit of power creep recently, but so long as all the new lists creep more or less similarly there should still be some degree of balance.

It probably doesn’t help that the books are written by different people.

Willmark:

As a former (somewhat current) High Elf player I can say this, High Elves were horrendously, hideously bad in 6th. GW felt they needed to fix things and they did somewhat.

snowblizz:

I don't think any of the recent books are broken. True, they are good at their style of play but they all have drawbacks that can be exploited.

Baggronor
While what you say is true, inherently any army *is* beatable, the problem comes when you consider the amount of "force" one must apply. How hard does one have to work to beat these armies, as it is now it seems the effort for other armies is many times that required by someone playing VC or DoC.
Any army that elevates the player a whole step up just because they picked that race just isn't good.
Broken does not usually mean unbeatable, rather I think, "gives undue advantage".
While I'm loath to argue "a million flies must be right..." but there has to be something to it when tournaments are half DoC and VC, it can't just be hysteria.

Baggronor:

The basic reason for Undead and daemons being common at tournies is the reliability: they don’t panic and run, their movements are never disrupted by psychology. This does give them an advantage, but it also makes them very predictable. The inability to voluntarily flee is something that irks me greatly. The better your opponent is, the more of a pain in the arse your predictability becomes.

I think Vamps are easy to use simply because their tactics are inherently straightforward, however they require a strong grasp of the army’s qualities to do well at high level. The mega-power dice ghoul army that most newbies favour is a good example of this; while it does well at intermediate levels, a good player will take it apart because its such a two dimensional army. I have practiced against it with Dwarfs and after 2-3 games the results were a LOT of flattened Ghouls.

I’m taking Vamps to the GT this year, (I have played Vampires for years so I’m not a new-book-bandwagon-hopper) and I have never had so much trouble making a list that I’m happy with. Everything is sooooo expensive, you can’t get what you want in 2k. The loss of The Cursed Book is much lamented… in a lot of ways Vampires were more ‘broken’ before.

I can’t really speak for Daemons as I don’t use them, but the ones I have played so far have been fine, even the Tzeentch list with Kairos Fateweaver (My Thunderers nailed him :)). I would agree that Flamers are pretty harsh though. I wouldn’t mind if they didn’t beat you up at Str5 after you’ve weathered the hail of fire to finally reach them.

minty:

and to back up baggronor’s point, the SoC demons list and vampire/tomb kings have alwyas been the most popular army in tournemenets.

the thing is, the new books aren’t overepowered, the old books are underpowered. If you look, each force has become stronger, but each in it’s own way - relieving super simmilar army syndrome.

EG:

HE - fast, elite, reliable but small and compact. Can be forgiving, but each unit is vital

VC - Uber reliable fodder, the units can keep at on size, but there are two reasonably pricedcombat monsers in the army (varguf and wights) with vamp lords serving better as casters and blood knights far too expesie and too vunerable to war machines (one blood knight is two bolt throwers)

DoC - combined arms force, a jack of all trades master of none army. Sure there good at comba, and they can cause some reasonable dammage at range, bu if they specalise they have a serious gaping weakness and if they don’t then, well, it’s a fair battle

DE - fat, high attack power but very fragile, as there all t3 with a 5+ save on the best units. There magic can be a bit overpowering, but it’s nothing much.

Kera foehunter:

well if that true that why don’t they let you play the storm of chaos rules!! if they are weaker rules!

well the dwarfs did not get stonger with there new book !!

they can’t even support a slayer army!!!

Willmark:

To be honest I see why GW is doing this 6th was very vanilla compared to 5th. As a result it seems that it didn’t have the appeal of the earlier editions. I’d surmise that GW felt they had to crank it up a notch as it were in order to keep people interested.

Of course this will be the premise of the 8th edition rules. “we had to tone it down, blah, blah” and so it will go.

demonicprince20:

my friend actually has a pretty good theory. He said gw upped the notch on the new fantansy armies to keep interest while 40k came out with it’s 5th edition. good theory since 5th edition for 40k is bringing back a lot more people to 40k.

Grimstonefire:

As a long time Dwarf player I feel really annoyed at their update. It didn’t introduce many more strategic options, and although they’ve always been known for tough heroes, there’s virtually nothing that became OTT by their update. A few heroes and warmachines aside, there’s no single choice thats particularly ‘hard’. Lots of reliable units, but winning by CR and slow attrition doesn’t always make for a fun game.

Compare this to HE, DoC and VC…

Sure they may all be more characterful now, but they have so many ‘hard’ things its unbelievable. Having so many more strategic options like this really makes them unfairly balanced against those without.

Overall I would agree with whoever it was here who said that although the armies are getting stronger overall, the points cost of those elements is generally going up. So whilst they may be stronger their armies may be smaller, and depending on your army you can attempt to reduce their strength in other ways.

IMO a lot of the winning factors are before the game actually starts in list selection. Now that each army is getting stronger in very specific ways it makes it increasingly hard to find a good all round army.

Uzkul Werit:

About the DE switching from the Bolt Throwers and Horse style of play. Most of the players in my area are keeping with that combo, maybe switching out a war machine for a Hydra.

zorn sabretooth:

something that is overpowered are brettonian knights they have a 1+ save for god’s sake there just fops on horses there models don’t have barding but for some reason they are allowed to have it!!!

Lord Zarkov:

Brets only have a 2+ save like most heavy cavalry - HA, Shield, Horse, Barding (which is under the cloth if you look)

What is sick however is the 5+ ward and especially the lance formation. Not to mention their RAF.

However they start to go down hill if they fail to get the charge, or if something manages to break the charge

demonicprince20:

yep brets are a one trick pony. If you can get the charge on them first they are done for

Godbob and his jolly rogers:

As a long time Dwarf player I feel really annoyed at their update. It didn't introduce many more strategic options, and although they've always been known for tough heroes, there's virtually nothing that became OTT by their update. A few heroes and warmachines aside, there's no single choice thats particularly 'hard'. Lots of reliable units, but winning by CR and slow attrition doesn't always make for a fun game.

Grimstonefire
what compered to the other armys what has orcs got well nothing we may be fun to play with but as a competertive army we suck:mad
something that is overpowered are brettonian knights

zorn sabretooth
brett aren't that good just flank 'em and they lose every thing:)

Baggronor:

Personally I love the Dwarf list, I think its fine. Hammerers with BSB, Organ guns, Anvil of Doom: all extremely powerful selections, I fail to see how they aren’t competitive. The movement rune from the anvil is far worse than VanHels, at least you can dispel that. My Hammerers regularly walk straight into people’s flanks and laugh with their great weapons, not to mention the Miners being moved into enemy artillery on turn 2. Ld9, high WS and Toughness all round, good armour, good shooting, what more do you want.

Bretonnians really aren’t that scary, the tiny width of their charge arc is their big weakness as the front ranks is always only 3 models. Plus the majority of their knights only hit at S5 on the charge, only the Grail Knights are scary. If you can stop him multi-charging your units, you’ll be fine.

As for Vampires having loads of ‘hard’ things, yes they do, but you just try fitting them in a list :). You will find you always have a weakness, at least thats what Im finding. You are forced to make choices because stuff is highly priced and the competition in the Rare section is very high.

Of course list selection decides a lot of the game, just as deployment will usually decide a lot of it. This has never been different.

Godbob and his jolly rogers:

Personally I love the Dwarf list, I think its fine. Hammerers with BSB, Organ guns, Anvil of Doom: all extremely powerful selections, I fail to see how they aren't competitive. The movement rune from the anvil is far worse than VanHels, at least you can dispel that. My Hammerers regularly walk straight into people's flanks and laugh with their great weapons, not to mention the Miners being moved into enemy artillery on turn 2. Ld9, high WS and Toughness all round, good armour, good shooting, what more do you want.

Baggronor
drawfs has always been a hard army to fight :(

wallacer:

I wouldn’t say Dwarfs are overpowered, but they are an incredibly boring army to play (imo).

Kera foehunter:

well dwarfs are like a rocky movie . Some time you win sometime you take a beating!!

but on your worst day your not a sissy elf!!