[Archive] General thoughts on the trend of 7th edition

Swissdictator:

If we peg the ‘trend’ of the 7th edition style I’d personally place it starting with HE… as (in my humble opinion) Orcs and Empire were updates of 6E.

While we could argue about VC/DoC… they are certainly a stronger breed of armies… but looking at HE, DE, WoC, and what LM sound like they’ll be… how are people seeing the 7th armies?

I’m thinking that when looked at, separate from the other books, they’re rather equivalent to each other in strength. DE seems to be wonderfully balanced in my eyes, WoC seems fairly nice, and I’m thinking Lizards will be cool too. This isn’t to say you can’t build horrifically evil lists with them, you certainly can, but the list as a whole isn’t bad.

If we extend out this style of books out to the end of 7E updates, what do you think the gaming scene will be like, do you think that once they’re updated (and army ADD is a little bit behind people) that you’ll see a fairly nice mix of armies?

Just wondering how people see the trend going so far.

Personally, I’m happy.

Xander:

The power creep has always been a problem. Right now tournaments are being dominated by VCs and Daemons and Dark Elves.

Sad, but true. And of course, WoC, which I picked, is very balanced and average! lol, go figure.

Thommy H:

I think it’s more like GW just woke up to the fact that the whole point of Army Books isn’t to update an army for the new edition (which 6th Edition’s generation did just fine), but to actually produce something new and interesting for players. It’s, like, why exactly was a 7th Edition book for, say, Vampire Counts even necessary? The 6th Edition book worked fine, right?

Well yes, but look how different those two books are. The army feels new. Newer even than the 6th Edition book did, despite that representing the transition between very different versions of Warhammer. The new books represent not simply updates to an existing army, but a whole new spin on the formula each time. They’re actually worth getting and make things interesting instead of just being the same guys with new stats and points cost to fit in with a new edition.

So I don’t think it’s power creep per se - just old dogs learning new tricks. These ain’t your dad’s VC/DE/HE/DoC/WoC. People are still adapting to books which actually shake up the metagame.

Swissdictator:

Thommy H: I like what you’re saying to a degree. Being a former (as my primary army) VC player the chance for VC actually made me lose a lot of interest in them, and a few veteran VC players around here lost interest as well. However several people picked them up and continue playing them.

I think, more and more (post VC/DoC) it is a change on many levels aside from editing points, etc. It is a change of style too. If I ever tried WoC again, my ideal theme (Nurgle Marauder Horde) would actually work very well. It is a different army.

Not being able to mix types of Chaos (Mortals, Demons, Beasts) is a fundamental change, though it sadly undermines the beasties.

Yeah, there is a power creep, I do agree with that. Though, it seems a little less pronounced. I am wondering if part of that is due to the “Army ADD” people running the new army and (some, not all) trying to abuse the list.  Which is why I’m more interested in the 7E compared to each other, and how we expect things to be going if the new books are done in the style of DE/WoC/and perhaps LM.

Servius:

------

This message was automatically appended because it was too short.

Willmark:

GW does this all the time the odd editions go wildly to the side of power creep then the even numbered editions get scaled back waaaay to much. Its as if they cannot or will not find a happy medium.

Swissdictator:

GW does this all the time the odd editions go wildly to the side of power creep then the even numbered editions get scaled back waaaay to much. Its as if they cannot or will not find a happy medium.

Willmark
Just like trek movies! :hat off

I started playing in 6th edition, (I started reading the rules and books in 2003, playing in 2005). I really loved 6E. 7E, I can't complain to much about... I'm more annoyed with certain attitudes people have, if that makes sense. Then again, the Midwest is very anti-cheese in mentality... so maybe I'm in some sort of weird zone.

I think the nasty armies (VC, and DoC) can be fielded in the "Tough, but not a jerk" mentality and when run in such a style won't be leading your opponent to need a glass of whiskey, a gun, and two bullets. ;)  Honestly, some fluffy DoC and VC armies are not nasty, they're just a little stronger then you expect from a 'fluffy' army.

I do agree, VC are a weeeeeeeeee bit point and click. ;) The way I ran my VC before dumping them to play Chaos Dwarfs I could tell if I was going to win, or have to fight hard to win, once I saw my opponent and rolled my spells. Notice I didn't say lose, very rarely (if ever) did I say "I'm losing" at the start... more so due to good player/nasty build combos would I say that. If I got Vanhe's on my Lord, I was almost always confident I would win. I was usually right too. However, having played a couple casual games as VC again... with a *VERY* different list (trying to do what I like about VC, not necessarily what wins) it's more fun, but still strong.  

For DoC it makes a difference (in my eyes) if it is a mono-god list, or "mix and match" list. I think if they had kept the system with similar restrictions based on which god your general/characters followed... it'd be a lot less nasty.

Setting aside VC, and DoC it seems pretty cool so far.

Though one thing I miss, while the 7th edition (thankfully) have A LOT of fluff (which I love reading) I love some of the humor and style of 6E books. Like the 6E orc book with the Gobbo or Orc introducing the army. The skaven book (fluff wise) is amazing, especially with the two page story about the tower and all.

snowblizz:

HE and onwards yes, that’s 7th ed.

My take is that from HE onwards they haven’t been afraid of really shaking things up to make the army work, or large parts of it at least. I.e. most unit choices are viable.

There’s one thing that GW continually fails on, and that is when trying to boost previously non-used choices they go overboard and vice-versa. I’m hoping it isn’t intentional. O&G shows this very pointedly.

7th ed going forward I’m thinking they’ll be boosting old armies but not likely (hopefully) into the VC/DE/DoC level. The mid point seems to be around HE/WoC. But we’ll have to wait and see.

One thing with 7th is a return to older backgrounds and (re)creating more options and allowing more flexibility in the army lists but it just doesn’t always work IMHO, especially Chaos (D/WoC) suffer from it, where you can’t effectively apply the natural visual themes.

Baggronor:

As usual, I’m gonna fight the VCs corner :slight_smile:

True there are some point and click builds, but most are pretty nooby from what I’ve seen, the usual ghoul spam etc. Yes, they are a hard list, but I don’t think they deserve the level of hysteria that they generate. Although I must admit, fighting them with the ravening hordes CD list is a serious challenge :slight_smile:

Crumble is hardly a weakness anymore as most everything either stock gets a save against it or can.
This is not true, crumbling is still just as much a weakness as before for most units. Who actually gets a save against it? Varghulf…Black Coach…vamps with wards…and someone with the Drakenhoff. Not almost everything. 2 of those are rares, (one of which can be swatted by 1 S7 hit, the other basically depends on its regen save) and if a character is taking saves against crumbling, he is in trouble anyway (whereas an equivalent living character has a fair chance of passing a break test). So i disagree with that one, I think the real reasons for their new found power are the new troop types and greater efficiency in the magic phase (single dice raising and recasting).
The army really doesnt have a negative…
High points costs, not so much for rank and file but definitely so for the characters and elites who are vital. Death of general = loss. No fleeing and limited march moves means limited tactics. All negatives, which become more apparrent as the players skill levels increase. I’m not saying they aren’t a powerful army, as they obviously are, I’m just saying its not as unbalanced as it may seem to someone who doesn’t play them.

Daemons are way more point and click; a m8 of mine took them to the heats last year and finished 8th. He is an appalling player. At least with VCs, if you do it wrong you’re gonna lose big.

WoC was disappointing for me, but I think that was mainly due to the awful internal balance of the list. Some choices are just way better than others (40pt Chaos Knights? woohoo! Forsaken? Erm…why?) and many of the old issues had not been resolved at all (Chaos Lord and Shaggoth still overpriced, Daemon Prince still rubbish). And I hate the mix and match approach to the marks. I think the list could still be hard in the right hands though.

Empire are generally weak/hard to win with, but in all honesty I don’t know how they would have made them harder.

Orcs, well, I think the Waaaagh rules are still soft, possibly due to being a new thing for fantasy. Just not too sure about em.

Dark Elves are, in my opinion, the most dangerous of all the new armies. In the right hands, they are absolutely rude.

AGPO:

I think it's more like GW just woke up to the fact that the whole point of Army Books isn't to update an army for the new edition (which 6th Edition's generation did just fine), but to actually produce something new and interesting for players. It's, like, why exactly was a 7th Edition book for, say, Vampire Counts even necessary? The 6th Edition book worked fine, right?

So I don't think it's power creep per se - just old dogs learning new tricks. These ain't your dad's VC/DE/HE/DoC/WoC. People are still adapting to books which actually shake up the metagame.

Thommy H
Very good post, I'd have to agree with pretty much everything you've written. When Tau, Necrons, Tyranids and co were released for 40k everyone said they were unbeatable. People found their old tactics simply didn't cut it. Low and behold, gamers came up with new tactics to beat them. Likewise the "Tzeentch Chariot Army of Doom" was a blight on 6th edition, as aparently vampires are on 7th (I've not played them). Every edition has had several 'unbeatable' armies, and people soon discover they are beatable. You just have to be a bit original or wait for a good tactica

When games turn into dice rolling contests its very sad, but thats just as much to do with your opponent as it is the army they're using. If you like fluffy, tight and strategic contests pick play people of a similar mind.

On the other hand if you're a power gamer go by a Vampire army and stop complaining

Godbob and his jolly rogers:

I agree that DoC are overpowered but think a mono-god army can be beat and as far as I know VC don’t have a army which is not overpowered in a small way

As for some armys (O&G inperticerler) need luck and good dice roles to win I can make a great army with my greenskins but most of the time the ramdoness ruins my chances to win

So like Thommy said we just need to find out how to beat them and fast I lost on turn 3 against a VC player :frowning:

snowblizz:

Very good post, I'd have to agree with pretty much everything you've written. When Tau, Necrons, Tyranids and co were released for 40k everyone said they were unbeatable. People found their old tactics simply didn't cut it. Low and behold, gamers came up with new tactics to beat them. Likewise the "Tzeentch Chariot Army of Doom" was a blight on 6th edition, as aparently vampires are on 7th (I've not played them). Every edition has had several 'unbeatable' armies, and people soon discover they are beatable. You just have to be a bit original or wait for a good tactica

When games turn into dice rolling contests its very sad, but thats just as much to do with your opponent as it is the army they're using. If you like fluffy, tight and strategic contests pick play people of a similar mind.

On the other hand if you're a power gamer go by a Vampire army and stop complaining

AGPO
So about how long is this adjustment period going to be?
Traditionally 'til the next armybook, but VC and DoC have been followed by 3 and 2 books respectively and still the "problem" seems to persist.
Either people are a lot stupider nowadays or these armies in particular are very very hard lists to choose from. DE *could* presumably still be "new armybook" but I don't think so. Seriously, wake up and smell it, there's a clear upping of the ante in the latest books. That VC and Deamons (SoC) have previously been very hard armies isn't an excuse. That there is 1 or2 army builds in the older armies that can effectively fight them isn't an excuse. That *you the reader* can beat them isn't an excuse.
It will be interesting having Lizards, Skaven and Beasts out. I bet by the time we hit Dwarfs and WE again people are still going to bitch about the worst DoC and VC power builds.

Godbob and his jolly rogers:

can I say that with the release of WoC and soon to be LM GW seem to be getting away from power creeps

Willmark:

With all of the people talking about VCs and DoC across the web it can’t allnjust be noise; the old saying “where there’s smoke there’s fire”. Are some people moaning? Sure. The fact does remain that in 7th edition almost every army coming out now is on a upward climb.

two_heads_talking:

We are trending back to herohammer with a smattering of too much daggone magic for my like.

Thommy H:

With all of the people talking about VCs and DoC across the web it can't allnjust be noise; the old saying "where there's smoke there's fire". Are some people moaning? Sure. The fact does remain that in 7th edition almost every army coming out now is on a upward climb.

Willmark
It's almost always the same group of people though (if you take Warseer as an example), and I often wonder how much is based on actual play instead of just reputation and looking at stats.

Swissdictator:

I would agree that VC and DoC are nastier then the others. They do have that extra notch. I think part of the smoke, that Willmark talks about is because GW released 2 unbreakable, ItP, fear causing armies back to back. So the same ‘mentality’ seemed spammed. Now don’t get me wrong, I do agree there has to be some fire there.

We could go in circles who is nastier DoC or VC, I think that will be based on personal perception, playstyle, and the people they deal with who play those armies. Though we do agree they are tier 1 armies. It is a little easier for me to defeat VC then DoC, but I’m a Veteran VC player, so I know the army in and out. I’m not saying people who need asperine or a whiskey after fighting VC are bad, heck they may be better then me by far… that experience just helps.

Also, since the true 7e style is still pretty much 2008 for its true ‘start’ it is still very early. To many 6E armies that people love and play (if CD never existed I’d be very tempted by my Empire right now, regardless of their status). So it might still be skewed. Call me nuts if you want, preferably pecans despite how bad they taste. :stuck_out_tongue:

I think DoC and VC have pushed the other armies to go a harder more ‘tough list’ route and it’s shaken the scene up a bit. Which puts older books even more out of the loop. Am I making sense?

However, I don’t think DE are quite the same level as VC or DoC… and I’m not saying that for bias (I hope not at least) as I do play all three occasionaly. Don’t worry, CD are still my favorite! DE can be made very nasty, sure, but there are far less list styles that can be that nasty. With VC and DoC there are more options to be very nasty.

It does seem that more and more armies are having more options and flexibility. This is interesting to me, as it undermines one of the strengths some older armies (like Empire) had. As newer armies have flexibility and good stuff. What do you folks think about that?

Ubertechie:

I think there is some truth in the power creep in that a well built DOC list in the hands of an average player can do well (VC takes a bit more thought). However a lot of other armies can do well - a lot is about tweaking lists to face new adversaries - I have a lot of success with an almost entirely savage orc list - yes it suffers from the frenzy baiting issue but with lots of units and plenty of spider riders its like a buzz saw, you start it up and then it flails around with a mind of its own - a lot of the time it chews up the opponent and spits them - sometimes it backfires and destroys itself. It is a total blast to use and every new army that comes out i try it on with usually a lot more wins than losses.

I also think that the best players build the best lists because they understand how to and that DOC makes this easier as there are few ‘bad’ units in the book. I think to frame the power-creep into perspective I have seen more than once a greater demon get nailed by fanatics and they are as old as the hills (3rd edition at least)

dedwrekka:

You know, I haven’t played WoC or VC yet, but what’s stopping you from character sniping the hell out of those powerful characters (Especially the VC)?

Yeah, about an edition back heroes weren’t terribly powerful, and dropping rocks or warp-lighting on them was mostly an annoyance that damaged their leadership. However, with characters taking a more active role, why not?

I especially find the cries against combat characters to be hillarious. Having played as Orcs with power-characters in rank & file units. It’s amazingly easy to negate a combat character. Flanks, flee, and follow.

Swissdictator:

I apologize if I seem a little “apologetic” for DE or WoC… I play against those two a lot (all three players played them well before the new books), so I guess I’m a little more used to it.

Hopefully my perspective didn’t annoy anyone! :slight_smile:

I love fighty lists personally. Bring it on! A lot easier to deal with then other things.