Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But it would lower the power of the really good armies, and would stop people from playing only alaitoc or using only just that one specific warlord trait that is OP, or the same psychic powers over and over again.

It wouldn't, it would just change (change back, in fact) the meta to a focus on things that don't rely on the random traits.

It might shift the meta of which ones constitute 'really good armies,' but mostly it would just shift army building a little (and for the worse). Just like 7th.

 Ratius wrote:

The amount of control the player is given over their force make up is one of the negatives of this edition for me.

Can you explain this some more?
How is it a negative? Random rolls/abilities/traits fundamentally detract from actual generalship because you have zero control over them.
One might as well play snakes and ladders.

Sure. Having to react on the fly to some randomness has always been part of Warhammer for me. Didn't say anything about "actual generalship" so can't respond to that. If you get a useless one for whatever reason, sure re-roll...but that would have always been the case even when picking was not allowed as far as I was concerned. My opponent can of course do what they like, as I said it's "for me".

I get the arguments for picking both gameplay and fluff wise and that's cool.