8th Ed. THE OLD WORLD - Poll: Will TOW be a faithful successor to WFB 8th edition?

Fair enough, to each their own.

For me though, I'll never run to a more popular but inferior game, when I can instead focus on and play a better game (even if the opportunity to do so is far less frequent). I have no interest in investing time/money in a game where my favourite armies have been axed. On the plus side, it means one less paying customer for GW!

 

That is a very negative mindset. I know its gw afterall, but hey we are getting some pdf rules and no one knows yet how that is gonna work out.

There are still alot of question marks and who knows how this game is gonna develop.

 

It is a realistic mindset of a negative situation. I'm not going to catch a whiff of sh*t and pretend its roses.

We've seen this little game play out in AoS. It started out with "all your armies/models will be playable"... until they weren't. Pdf rules were made available then too. Soon the legacy armies/units were left to languish before being eliminated from the game all together. It wasn't that long ago and the lesson is not yet lost on me.

That's why GW proclaims that all armies will be playable... that's why they provide rules. They dangle that carrot in front of the old guard of WHFB players in hopes of luring them back in. But until they prove otherwise, it's wise to treat that as nothing more than a false hope. Who wants to play a game where their armies will be nothing more than an afterthought? Watching month after month as their beloved army falls further and further behind the supported ones.

Some gamers play multiple games, but I'm personally only interested in focusing on a single miniature wargame (I have too many other hobbies). So for me, it is 8th edition or TOW. This or that, but not both. And TOW has just proven itself to be inferior to 8th. As such, I personally have no reason to switch over. Why spend resources on a lesser game when a better game is available?

A while back we had a thread discussing what we needed to see in the TOW and what were deal breakers. TOW has now failed to meet one of the most important (non-negotiable) things I demanded out of the game...

 

Fair enough mate, i abandoned 8th a while ago, focussing on wap. If the old world isn't my cup if tea, i just go back to wap. I also do have o&g so i will certainly give it a shot.

 

We all have different criteria that we require a game to meet. Just because TOW has failed to my requirements, does not mean that it has not done so for others. By all means, give it a try and see if you like it. At least you have a backup should it not meet your gaming needs.

 

You totally can play our army though, they mention in the article that they have a free pdf for legacy support. I mean, that is not as good as a codex, but it does not break that point i would say. I guess Chaos Dwarves are not in there, but they didn't even have an army book in 8th right, only those datasheets in Tamurkhan if i am correct, so requiring an army book for that for TOW to be acceptable for you.. seems like a bit of a stretch to me. As I said before, i like them focussing on 9 armies instead of 16. Rather have 9 good balanced books instead of 16 half baked ones, and you still get to play your army with the free pdf if you are not in the first wave as a compromise.

I also do still feel some resentment towards GW in your post. GW has been pretty great lately, i would say the last two years has been the best they ever have been in the 15 years i followed them. Balance dataslate support for 40K, finally making the rules free in 40k are some pretty great changes that have been long coming.

Also, it is a luxury i would say to still have decent opponents for 8th. The game has not been supported for like 10 years now or something? Idk anymore

 

It's far too early to give up all hope. Did you bother to read any of my previous post apart from the Tomb Kings part? I doubt GW would be stupid enough to make the AoS mistake twice in a row and exclude half the armies from the reborn Warhammer Fantasy permanently after promising to resurrect the game and setting - from both a business and a customer perspective, that would be sheer dim-wittedness. The fact that they've already confirmed that Kislev and Cathay will appear in the game at some point shows they're definitely going to expand the faction range as time goes on, so I certainly think that these PDFs are just a placeholder for future supplements that will give full support to the other armies later on, so that players of those armies can get started in the game at the same time as the others, very much the Ravening Hordes of this edition. Not to mention that, unlike AoS which was a new game with a new setting, this is the game and setting these armies were always meant to feature in, so instead of factions being dropped over time, they will likely be reintroduced.

I imagine they are starting small I suppose to make it easier for new players to get to grips with the setting and choice of factions, to focus on those factions that bore the biggest brunt of the AoS culls, and hopefully so they can maximise the amount of effort spent in balancing these initial factions out before expanding, which makes it a pretty good idea. I'd rather see them take the time to really focus on getting the game right and make it more balanced than previous Fantasy editions, than watch as they rush to get full rules for all the armies out as soon as possible, only for the final balance to be a mess, as happens with every edition of AoS and new 40K.

I think you're making a mistake in clinging too much to your beloved 8th Edition and not having enough of an open mind on this. I'm certainly not going to give up just because it looks like it will take a bit of time to get all the armies up to speed. I'm still going to keep a steady eye on the game. Of course there is still opportunity for it to fail, but I'm still keeping hope that it will be better than anything that came before it.

I certainly think it would do you some good to drop the dogmatic 'There can be only one' mindset and realise that you can still keep your old stuff while giving something new a try, there's nothing and nobody forcing you to just dump all your 8th stuff and leap straight into TOW, even if you do have other hobbies. I do too, yet if I get into TOW I will still keep all my 7th and 8th stuff and game with it every so often if I am in need of a change, so I have nothing to lose. Furthermore, we as a community have a potentially significant amount to gain - continual official support again, an increasing playerbase, potentially better and more thematic rules for some of the less-respected factions, potentially better balancing. It's at least worth giving it a chance.

You missed out the fact that the Chaos Dwarfs didn't get proper 8th army support... the Tamurkhan micro-list doesn't count as full-on support in the league of the other 8th armies, it was just a Forge World fan project that Chaos Dwarf players cling to as the only half-official ruleset for using their army around, and even so, it still isn't a full-on army list. In TOW on the other hand, Chaos Dwarfs look to be getting the same treatment as all the other factions that will emerge later on into the game's development - a full army list on a starting PDF, then presumably a full ruleset when GW can concoct a full range of new models for them.

Hmm, only two of those armies are ones that you actually play - Lizardmen and Dawi-Zharr - and the two others you have - Tomb Kings and Warriors of Chaos - will be supported fully upon launch, and you've said yourself that you're going to stick to four armies and not expand any further, so, actually, not a particularly bad trade to start with, with the potential to get better later on as more armies get full supplements as the game expands.

I think you need a bit of Jedi patience, my friend.

You're right in that it can be easily ignored, and can be house-ruled out. Just annoying that GW still don't seem to understand Tomb Kings enough.

 

As I mentioned above, I don't buy into that free legacy support pdf shtick that GW is trying to pawn off. They did the same thing with AoS a few years back... lesson learned.

At best, your legacy army will slowly become obsolete and at worst it will be outright killed off.

Chaos Dwarfs had a beautiful entry in what is widely regarded as one of the best book releases for 8th edition (Tamurkhan). The entry consisted of background fluff, detailed unit information, a race-specific magic lore, magic items and stunning artwork. All this was accompanied by a model release, that in my opinion, was better than what anyone else got in 8th edition.
The new model release was comprised of:

• character riding a monster
• 3 unique infantry characters
• monstrous beast character
• infantry unit (two weapon variants)
• monstrous beast unit
• monstrous infantry unit
• 3 war machines
• a unique unit (choo choo train)

That is a stellar lineup of new models, all of which were the very best in terms of sculpt quality. Mind you, these were just the units that got new models... the army roster had several other entries, with existing models (i.e. hellcannon), some that could be ported over (Hobgoblins, Giant) and a big beastie that required a bit of creativity (K'daai Destroyer).

It was a solid release. In some ways a bit smaller than a regular army book release, but in some ways far superior. In the end, it was a smallish but fully fledged army that could easily throw down with the other armies of the edition.

It is the sole reason why I jumped on board with the Chaos Dwarfs (I never collected any of the old 4th edition range).

Only, you have no guarantee that you'll have 9 good balanced books. That is entirely an assumption on your part.

I used to carry resentment for the axing of WHFB, but not really anymore... though I do like to joke about it, so the confusion is understandable. I've found out that I don't mind playing an unsupported game. There are huge benefits to playing an unsupported game. In fact, I prefer it to the hectic release schedule of AoS for instance. Everything there is transitory and the game isn't given enough time to breath. It's simply on to the next thing for more profit. Just a continual grind to keep up with the ever changing meta.

As for GW being great lately, that would make for a fun debate (which will derail this thread). In short though...

• absolutely absurd price gouging
• invalidation armies
• invalidation units
• spreading rules out all over the place
• attacking creators
• shady business practices: hiding exclusive models in box sets ("upselling" and purposefully leaving the consumer base in the dark on its separate release status), creating false scarcity (limited release models that are instantly picked up by scalpers)
• etc.

I'd give that a bit of time. We'll see how it works in conjunction with the codex releases.

A fair and true point. It doesn't bother me like it does others, but I can see it being a complete deal breaker for some.

Truth be told, I'm satisfied interacting with my game on a smaller scale. My friends that played the game have mostly outgrew and left the hobby (and won't be returning for TOW). I have little desire to go play with a bunch of randoms at a store. To some though, that is critically important and I can understand that. In no way am I claiming that others should not play TOW.

 

I am glad they are clear about separating the "seraphon" models from the classic lizardmen. I would hate to be forced into these new galactic anime like clowns.

 

I guess we have pretty different perspectives. After whfb literally died in my area outside of AoS, which i won't ever touch with a 10 foot pole, i got into competitive 40k. They do free rules now for that, and free and good rules updates, so for me personally that is not a "wait and see" kind of thing as they are already doing it in 40k.

We totally do not know those 9 books will be good. Downsizing to 9 instead of just trying to do everything all at once at launch sounds like a prudent thing to do to me, but we will of course have to wait and see what those 9 books are like. Also not overwhelming new players with too many factions like @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said seems like a possible and reasonable reason for them to go for 9 the first time around.

I still do not think expecting CD in the first wave is reasonable though. They never had an army book proper, no matter how cool the Tamurkhan book was and the models were.

 

The game did not meet my personal "must have" criteria. The thing about a "must have" is that it is non-negotiable. There are some things that I was flexible/negotiable on and others that were auto-disqualifiers. To be fair, TOW did successfully navigate around most of my "must haves" and "deal breakers", but it was always an all or none proposition.

I'm happy and satisfied with what I have. It was always going to be hard to abandon 8th for another game. It's a game that I absolutely love, so it required a near miracle and TOW is no miracle.

I did... but unsurprisingly, we find ourselves in disagreement!

Never underestimate GW's capacity for stupidity!

Sure it's possible that they expand the game as you suggest, but we have no evidence in support of it. Maybe they will... or maybe they won't. We can't know that at this point in time. Maybe even GW doesn't know at this time. Either way, I'm still left searching for a reasonable rationale as to why I would trade up a game where all my armies are fully supported for a game where they might be supported at some point in the distant future. Would you rather be handed $1,000 cash or given a crudely written $1,000 IOU from an untrustworthy source?

As for Kislev and Cathay, that is just another stroke against the "dropped" armies being reintroduced. If their focus is on new stuff, then it isn't on re-releasing old stuff. What's worse, both Kislev and Cathay are armies that I have zero interest in. Absolute bottom tier armies... come on GW, give us Dogs of War instead! A very poor trade for relegating armies like CD, LM, OK, VC, DE and Skaven into legacy status.

Come on my friend, we both know how important balance is to GW. If they don't deliver it with 40k and AoS, they won't deliver it with a second rate game like TOW. It has never been a high priority for GW.

This is one aspect (among many) where we've always differed. You like to dip your toes into a lot of games, whereas I like to deep dive into a single game. Both approaches are valid, but I know the one for me. You can only go so deep when you divert your time/resources in multiple directions. I only need one miniature wargame. I only want one miniature wargame. It is this or that, but not both.

My other hobbies are also vying for my time and attention. Miniature wargaming isn't even the most powerful or seductive of them!

How dare you sir?

Half-official ruleset - it is a long ways off from being "half official". You can make a very small distinction between a regular army book and the Tamurkhan Chaos Dwarf entry but it is an insignificantly small distinction. I'd say it's more like 95%-99% official. I believe it was readily accepted just about everywhere, including tournaments. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, at some point in time may have taken issue with it, but never really heard of such an interaction personally. In that case, I just don't play with that guy or break out the fully official filthiest WoC list I can concoct. Plus, since I have my own warhammer gaming table in my wargaming room in my own house... it's a moot point.

Forge World fan project - It's hardly a fan project. The Tamurkhan book plays second fiddle to none during the 8th edition era. That book is dripping with quality in every way. A great narrative, top notch book (build) quality and the artwork is better than what any "official" 8th edition army got.

Isn't a full army list - it is on the smaller side, but it is a fully playable and fun army as is. Of course I'd greedily like a few more units to round it out, but it does have a bit of everything. Plus it sits nicely in the middle of the pack in terms of power level. Not overpowered like the High Elves or underpowered like the Tomb Kings.

Last point - name an "official" army that got such a generous selection of new models under 8th edition. The Forge World Chaos Dwarf update is superior in terms of number of new models and sculpt quality. It is an absolutely fantastic range of models. Expensive as sin (and Forge World resin), but oh so lovely. My favourite army for a reason. There isn't a single weak sculpt in the entire range. Each model is exquisite.

Of my top eight favourite armies, three are fully supported. That's only 37.5% [compared to 100% in 8th edition]

Of the four armies I play, only two are fully supported. That's marginally better, but still only a paltry 50% [compared to 100% in 8th edition].


In what world is that not a bad trade? Who wants to trade 100% for 50%. That's literally the difference between the smartest kid in a class and the ones who eat (lead) paint chips.

GW might fully support all the armies in the future, but at the same time, they might not. They have given us no indication that they will.

This is starting to remind me of when Disney condemned the Star Wars EU to "legends" status, but we had the promise of all new Disney Star Wars to look forward to. I know how that went. Now I'm faced with trading up my OT Warhammer Proper for the Sequel Trilogy Old World (STOW) . GW has to prove that TOW is significantly better than 8th edition. Empty promises, "ifs" and "maybes" are not enough. In the (unlikely) event that such a thing happened down the line, I could always adopt TOW then and there.

You know that I'll take Darth Bane over Obi Wan any day!

 

That we do! In fairness, I'm probably in the minority.

Most wargamers are in constant need of new stuff and updates (i.e. a supported game). I'm happy with what I have. I like the fact that I can build towards armies and units that won't be made obsolete in the next update cycle. I'm still staring at my 50 converted and painted great weapon Chaos Marauders that were great in 7th edition but garbage in 8th.

I've even building up my collection of physical copies of all the 8th edition army books (plus 7th ed for Skaven, Beastmen and Bretonnia). I have 14 out of 16! That is something I would never even attempt to do under a system where they are continually being outdated, especially if the three year AoS cycle is anything to go by.

Chess isn't constantly updated, and its better than any game that GW has ever made!

I admittedly don't play 40k (and haven't done so for well over a decade) but what little I hear of the game is pretty poor.

They aren't quite downsizing to 9, since we already know that Kislev and Cathay are in the works. I think the 9 only refers to the old WHFB armies.

I wouldn't have bet on it. It was always a long shot, but it was the kind of thing that would have gotten me really excited for TOW. However, I would have never have guessed that the LM, VC, OK, DE an d Skaven would also be relegated to second tier army status.

Maybe I'm just unlucky that most of my absolute favourites were the ones to get the axe, while most of the armies I have little interest in will feature front and center in the new game. Literally my 4 least favourite armies are part of the 9 that will be featured in TOW. What can a guy do?

 

I certainly agree GW by themselves are great at ballsing up opportunities, but the main reason for my increased trust in them this time is because the TOW team is also the one that worked with the Creative Assembly to develop the Warhammer: Total War franchise, and given that they really did Fantasy justice with that trilogy of games, I'm expecting them to do the same with TOW, as the game intended to be the one-stop shop for Warhammer: Total War fans to play their favourite game on the tabletop. If they veer away from this strategy by ditching some of the factions of course then they will be shooting themselves in the foot, more fool them, but it really makes zero sense to do such a thing this time, from a business perspective (less armies being usable in the game means less playerbases are being appealed to and thus less customers) and from the perspective of Fantasy lore (unlike AoS which was a new setting, the Warhammer world is the original setting these factions are meant to be in, so dropping them makes no feasible sense).

Yes we don't know if they're going to keep those armies, but it's not a dead cert that they will scrap them either, as there's still every chance that sheer common sense will prevail.

I wouldn't say that at all - look at Warhammer III Total War, though it focused initially on both of those factions, it also brought in Chaos Dwarfs and Ogre Kingdoms later on in DLCs, armies that are now fully-supported as with the rest of them, and as, by the sounds of it, GW intend to release army lists via location-based supplements, I'd be very surprised if they didn't include Ogres and Chaos Dwarfs in a 'Far East' supplement alongside Cathay.

While I agree with you here...

I don't here

I personally am not a fan of Dogs of War at all, and couldn't care less about them being ditched and ignored. A cheesy concept that was limited to just a few individual unique Regiments of Renown units, which was replaced by the far superior mercenary mechanics in Triumph and Treachery that allowed you to take any Mercenary units you wanted from any army book. It also made Tilea easily one of the most boring settings in all of Warhammer, just a weaker version of the Empire with more infighting and none of the unique units (as all their fantastical units are named regiments from other factions) and no named characters that are really likeable or inspiring.

Again, it's not a priority for GW on their own, but I haven't heard any complaints about balance in Warhammer: Total War, and because the TOW team are midway between the two, there is still always hope.

Forge World books as a whole are generally avoided in the Warhammer scene (or at least the scene of proper Warhammer, i.e. Fantasy and 40K up to 6th Edition) because they field units that are quite rightly seen as too big, OP and gamey for standard competitive play, mainly because the Forge World chaps always seemed to focus more on making things as powerful as they perceived them to be in lore than in balancing them with GW's armies and rules. The Legion of Azgorh list specifically was an exception made by tournaments and players purely out of desperation to find some Chaos Dwarf army rules that had even the vaguest mark of officiality on them.

I'd certainly debate the artwork quality as being better than those of the proper army books. It's fine, I'm definitely not saying it's bad, but it's lacking in full-size battle scenes and other art that sees the Chaos Dwarfs (and Tamurkhan's horde) kicking arse in battle, the sort of artwork that is particularly inspiring for players. Not to mention that the book doesn't even put the Chaos Dwarfs front and centre, it focuses mainly on Tamurkhan doing an Azhag/Gorthor-style rampage across the Old World and then promptly being killed by a nameless man of the Empire, because the Empire always has to win in the end. It reeks of just being an afterthought simply because the Tamurkhan campaign itself didn't take up as many pages as Forge World wanted. While it's better than nothing at all, it's still not as good as having a fully-dedicated Chaos Dwarf army book, because it's still a symbol of how GW weren't willing to give the army as much attention as the others.

And I don't see Fantasy players allowing the Tamurkhan WoC and Empire units as eagerly as the Chaos Dwarf ones - it's a pure and simple act of cherry-picking simply because there is no fully-official alternative, and to be perfectly honest I would treat that as the point where it'd be better to go for a fan-made supplement fully dedicated to your army instead, especially now that the game is lo longer supported and officiality no longer matters if there are opportunities for greater balance, a greater quantity of unit options and greater uniformity available.

I notice you're still targeting my High Elves when Dark Elves, which you favour, and Warriors, which you play, are significantly worse in the broken-ness scale (and that you show no shame in fielding OP lists when you fancy anyway). The only really powerful aspects of High Elves are the Frostheart, which can be shot down, and the Banner of the World Dragon, which is useless against mundane shooting and is bypassed by The Curse of Anraheir. I use neither of these features of the army anyway because I despise gamey builds from any faction, including those I collect.

Dark Elves is the main one (where they got the Warriors resculpted into Dreadspears/Darkshards/Bleakswords, Dark Riders/Doomfire Warlocks, Witch Elves/Sisters of Slaughter, Hydra/Kharibdyss, Cauldron of Blood/Bloodwrack Shrine, Scourgerunner/Cold One Chariot, Fleetmaster, Black Guard/Har Ganeth Executioners and Shadowblade over two consecutive White Dwarfs, plus the Dreadlord/Sorceress on Black Dragon just over a year before) and Warriors of Chaos coming in second, with less models but also two White Dwarfs dedicated to them. My goodness did GW favour those two too much when other armies got comparatively less, both in terms of new models and army book power. Vampires also got two White Dwarfs dedicated to them unnecessarily, making three White Dwarf slots that could instead have been devoted to Beastmen, Bretonnia and Skaven.

Not to mention that though the Dawi-Zharr got a lot of models during 8th Edition specifically, because they got nothing else since 4th Edition, it still left them an undersized army overall, with a range that was in an inferior material to plastic and costing a king's ransom to buy in enough numbers to make an army.

I'd rather see Chaos Dwarfs given the same treatment as any other army, and if TOW has any chance of giving them that, then I wish it all the best in making that chance a reality.

 

So I'm going to amend my earlier commentary. I will probably actually give a TOW a fair bit of attention when it comes out, if only because it is expanding into some areas and factions of Warhammer that I think should have been given attention long before. I, for one, am actually looking forward to when/if they get to Cathay and Kislev, mainly because I always felt that that Kislev should have been a full army in it's own right, given how in the fluff they formed the front line against Chaos invasions. As for Cathay, I have always wanted an army for them due to all the fluff bits throughout the years, starting with the excerpt of Yin-Tuan's account in the 5th edition Lizardmen book. I can even see TOW being a great introduction to bring new people into playing 8th edition. If nothing else, it will likely be good for inspirational fluff and lore even if the game itself is terrible.

That being said, my main focus will continue to be 8th edition though.

 

Just how many members of this CA team will be working on TOW? And what role will they be performing? These are very important considerations.

Of course we don't know, and therein lies the problem. There is no point in jumping on board with the new game until it is confirmed that the armies we care about (whichever ones those may be) will be given proper support. What is the logic in adopting a game based purely on a hope? What if I make the switch and they never bring the Chaos Dwarfs or Lizardmen fully on board? What if they instead excise them from the game like they did in AoS? GW has already set that very bad precedent and it wasn't even that long ago. Maybe they've learned their lesson as you have suggested, but until we know for certain, it's a bad gamble. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"

Fair enough, they're not for everyone. There are many people who absolutely love them (including a few members on Lustria Online). I think they are an "army" of endless creative possibilities. The modeling and sculpting potential is nearly limitless. Pirate Dwarfs, Undead Lizardmen or Skaven, Halflings, etc. Think of all the fun and beautiful models we see in Warhammer Underworlds; GW could give us something like that but on a much larger scale. An army with a mix of everything.

Full disclosure, I have not played it myself. However, based on what I've watched on YouTube from top players, there are balance issues just the same. Both external balance issues between armies as well as internal ones between units.

Also, there is a very big difference between the Total War Warhammer video game and The Old World miniature game. They are completely different formats with unique challenges and gaming mechanics. They are also produced by two separate companies. Just because a few people who worked on Total War (who may have had zero influence on balance) will be working on TOW, doesn't mean that TOW will be balanced.

Do you have evidence that the Legion of Azgorh was accepted by tournaments and players out of, as you present it, desperation? That seems like an unsupported narrative choice you've concocted to support your argument. Maybe it was because it was a well-designed and well balanced army that added to the game. Maybe it was because everyone liked it. Maybe it was a mix of things. That is all just speculation though, but what we do know is that it was extremely widely accepted. Hence my argument that it was 95-99% official.

Also, if your argument is that most of the Forge World content is generally avoided by the "Warhammer scene", then what does that say about TOW, which will be exclusively produced by them? If FW is so bad at writing balanced rules, why defend TOW so vehemently?

I actually own the book and believe me it is top notch in terms of quality. The artwork throughout the book is stellar... better than in any of the other army books I own. More than that, it is cohesive, looking like it belongs together. It's not the ramshackled and largely recycled artwork that we see in the mainstay GW army books.

Additionally, the cover quality, paper quality, binding and general fit & finish are all superior.

As an aside, they're also worth a pretty penny, here are few (sold) Ebay listings...

I would agree with you here. I WOULD prefer to have a fully dedicated stand alone Chaos Dwarfs army book. But TOW isn't offering that. In fact, so far, TOW has outright said they have no plans or inclination to create such a thing.

As such, the more accurate comparison would be between the 8th edition Warhammer Proper - Tamurkhan Legion of Azgorh entry and TOW's legacy armies free rules pdf. In this case, 8th edition easily prevails.

Of course not, because those are extra additions to already existing armies. Giving even more options to the solid (Empire) and top tier (WoC) armies. That's the same reason why I didn't like the combined Chaos, Elves and (to a lesser extent) Undead End Times armies. It makes them too strong (even if the additions were balanced, the extra variety/flexibility is advantageous). It's why I wouldn't consider Chaos Dwarf bolstered WoC army to be 95% official.

In the case of additions to full armies, it is always best to discuss it with your opponent. Most people would be fine seeing a War Mammoth on the table top as long as they were consulted prior to the game.

Strongly disagree! A fan-made supplement is simply a house rule, and is completely unofficial. It will never be widely accepted by the gaming community. Even arguably the most successful fan-made army book series (Warhammer Armies Project) was only adopted by the smallest fraction of the player base.

There are simply too many things wrong with it:

• low adoption rate
• too many variants (whose fan fiction rules are we to use?)
• splintering of the player base (though largely negated by the low adoption rate)
• no guarantee that it will be more balanced than the original
• no guarantee that it will be more fun than the original... even if more balanced (The Ninth Age)
• generally of a lower quality in terms of presentation as compared to its officially published counterparts

I know you're really into custom rules and that you create your own, so I'm not trying to completely shit over it. If you find a group that wants to adopt it (or you simply like to make them for the fun of it... which I've done myself on a very limited scale with no intention of ever fielding it), then that is awesome. It can be a rewarding aspect of the hobby for you and you should continue with it. My criticism is entirely in regards to the suggestion that it be adopted on a wider scale by the wargaming community as a whole. I just don't see it ever happening. The vast majority of people will always choose to stick with the real stuff.

I could have just as easily picked the DE or the WoC (I had already mentioned the WoC filth level in the same post). Along with the HE, they form the unholy trinity of the most powerful armies.

Please don't try to present the HE as being less broken than the other two. The power level of the High Elves stems from a lot more sources than just the Frostheart and the Banner of the World Dragon. Solid leadership, movement, magic and close combat. Great unit selection. Shooting. Army wide ASF and fighting in extra ranks. Essentially 3++ unkillable Hortennse Phoenix Guard. White Lions. Swordmasters. One of the very best chaff units (Great Eagles). Book of Hoeth.

But you don't have to rely just on my opinion...

The Dark Elves release was admittedly pretty solid, although still outdone in terms of new centerpiece models. I do like the Witch Elves though. I'd give the CD the advantage, but only narrowly. In regards to the WoC, they got a lot of good stuff in 8th, but nowhere near to the level of the Chaos Dwarfs. They did receive awesome models like the Skullcrushers and chariots, but also sub par ones in the form the Forsaken and two mediocre monster variants. Every Legion of Azgorh model was stellar. Of course, there's no point in arguing aesthetics.

 

I suppose it depends on your definition balanced. I've always considered it to be balanced for a GW game. Even then, I usually add a qualifier such as "mostly balanced" or "fairly good balance". Of the three miniature wargames I've played (4th edition 40k, 7th edition WHFB and 8th edition WHFB), 8th edition WHFB felt to me to have the best balance. Sure there are stronger and weaker armies but nothing even remotely close to an outlier such as the 7th edition Daemons of Chaos.

It's not a game of chess and never will be. A game of this complexity and with a heavy focus on faction diversity is virtually impossible to fully balance. Plus, GW does not approach game design with balance being their most important outcome. It's a beer & pretzels game to them. If you're looking for a more balanced experience, then The Ninth Age is probably the way to go. For the small cost of giving up on fun and army uniqueness, they offer better balance.

Also, consider that the graph above only demonstrates the degree of consensus in regards to which armies are the best, and not the relative strength gap between those armies. Take the Ogre Kingdoms for example, they only received 5 votes, but they are more than capable of beating any of the top armies. The gap between them isn't that great. I believe most armies still stand a good chance against the big dogs. I think you only really start running into issues when you match up a pure top tier army (HE, DE, WoC) against a pure bottom tier army (TK, Brets, BM). Most of the armies sit in the middle tier and are well balanced against one another, plus they can still make for great matches against armies in the tiers above or below them.

Of course, as the old saying goes, styles make fights. Some armies simply perform better against others, even if their overall power level isn't greater (and sometimes even lesser).

 

8th was an absolute power house for some armies. i've played from 5th to 8th and although i can't remember everything, 8th edition was the most imbalanced i think.

I hope gw takes some notes from wap, so much more balanced and still very lore driven