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.

I think both the new book and new models of WoC are the biggest disappointment of all WHFB time, what do you think?

When GW decided to do OK as a new army instead of something interesting like Cathaty or Ind, I think that was the worst possible release.

The new WoC book is certainly far from the worst army book released. Among current books the beastmen and tomb kings are much worse than WoC. I would say demons also are worse because a lot of players do not appreciate the random game mechanics forced on them. There are army books like WE, Brets and Dwarves that are presently worse but they really dont count because they were not so bad when they were released.

If you played undead in 4th and most of 5th the first vampire count book really sucked because you were then left with a partial army and a lot of unusable models.

If you had a combined army of beastmen, demons and WoC when those armies were split you went from a solid army to parts of three different armies.

The Chaos Dwarf army book is perhaps the lamest army book ever because it wasnt even a real army book project, it was just a compilation of reprinted articles from the white dwarf magazine.

JWhex wrote:
When GW decided to do OK as a new army instead of something interesting like Cathaty or Ind, I think that was the worst possible release.

The new WoC book is certainly far from the worst army book released. Among current books the beastmen and tomb kings are much worse than WoC. I would say demons also are worse because a lot of players do not appreciate the random game mechanics forced on them. There are army books like WE, Brets and Dwarves that are presently worse but they really dont count because they were not so bad when they were released.

If you played undead in 4th and most of 5th the first vampire count book really sucked because you were then left with a partial army and a lot of unusable models.

If you had a combined army of beastmen, demons and WoC when those armies were split you went from a solid army to parts of three different armies.

The Chaos Dwarf army book is perhaps the lamest army book ever because it wasnt even a real army book project, it was just a compilation of reprinted articles from the white dwarf magazine.

OK a mistake? Take a look around these forums OK is huge, they are a very competitive army and everyone loves the flavor and fun of big ole fatties, breaks the 20mm/25mm small infantry, who doesn't like OK?

Also Chaos Dwarfs? They have their own army book now in the Tamaurakan or however it is spelled and yes they are very very competitive.

Agreed. OK was a nice compromise to bring in an eastern army without putting in another human based faction.

The decision to split Chaos in three different factions - Warriors, Daemons and Beastmen.

I really loved the old dynamic which really captured how a Chaos should work i.e. Daemon general = Daemons as Core and Warriors/Beastmen as Special. Warrior General = Warriors as Core and Daemons/Beastmen as Special etc

Now the caveat to this is that I really like the new direction for Beastmen and having become their own animal (excuse the pun), they don't really fit into the old Chaos dynamic anymore.

However, this just makes it even simpler to reintroduce the combined Warrior/Daemon army book.

Hargus56 wrote:

JWhex wrote:
When GW decided to do OK as a new army instead of something interesting like Cathaty or Ind, I think that was the worst possible release.

The new WoC book is certainly far from the worst army book released. Among current books the beastmen and tomb kings are much worse than WoC. I would say demons also are worse because a lot of players do not appreciate the random game mechanics forced on them. There are army books like WE, Brets and Dwarves that are presently worse but they really dont count because they were not so bad when they were released.

If you played undead in 4th and most of 5th the first vampire count book really sucked because you were then left with a partial army and a lot of unusable models.

If you had a combined army of beastmen, demons and WoC when those armies were split you went from a solid army to parts of three different armies.

The Chaos Dwarf army book is perhaps the lamest army book ever because it wasnt even a real army book project, it was just a compilation of reprinted articles from the white dwarf magazine.

OK a mistake? Take a look around these forums OK is huge, they are a very competitive army and everyone loves the flavor and fun of big ole fatties, breaks the 20mm/25mm small infantry, who doesn't like OK?

Also Chaos Dwarfs? They have their own army book now in the Tamaurakan or however it is spelled and yes they are very very competitive.

Yeah I definitely rate OK as the biggest mistake ever, a missed opportunity. I never said they werent competitive. People like them (not everyone though) for what they are which is fine, I hate their background and do not like the models at all, I think the whole fattie aspect is ridiculous.

The fact that there is a chaos dwarf list in the Tamaurakan book has absolutely nothing to do with my comments about the original chaos dwarf army book.

Have to say I don't agree either that OK was a disappointment. I'd rather have them than another human based faction as choices for an army book.

As for the OP's question. I think the last Beastmen book was disappointing. Overpriced rares and most of the specials helps severely limit their viable competitive choices.

Yeah, them's fightin words buddy. OK is the most awesome army ever!

I think at first glance the Beastmen book is disappointing but in the hands of a true believer they can and have made it work. Sure the rares are overcosted when compared to other recent monsters but you play beastmen for the beastmen not for the rares and overall it is tough to beat for the cost 50 AHW gor with the 206 in there, every other comparitive priced unit in the game will eventually go down to it. I'd take WS4 and T4 over a 5+ armor save any day of the week and we laugh at Lore of Metal.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, them's fightin words buddy. OK is the most awesome army ever!

Only when you use minotaur models for counts as fat/stinky/stupid/repulsive/obese/gaseous/ridiculous ogres!

I dunno. I like the aesthetic they gave Warhammer Ogres. Makes them different to other Ogres, at least.

Indeed, their aesthetic is pretty darn attractive and unique. The Ravenous Hordes really are the Ravenous Hordes.

I really like DoC but they probably shouldn't have ever made them a stand-alone army. It just doesn't work thematically.

The greatest thing a WoC general can aspire to is to be an immortal Daemon Prince. Kill like a bazillion guys over 300 years and you got a chance. The most nauseating nurgling zit-creature is an immortal Daemon.

It's hard for mortals (us) to get behind the sensibilities of gods. Orcs are at least orcs. Beastmen have a primordial purpose. But DoC is all kinda like, Grand Game. Convert the world. They're just too meta. Too big. It's fine to have them behind the scenes or have a unit or two here or there in armies. But if your TZ army ever succeeded and converted the world into TZ-land, then TZ would cease to exist because there would be no one to fuel him.

Unless there's the rest of the universe/dimensions they hint at sometimes (hint, because they didn't really define it either), in which why care about the world? Again, when you're an immortal god-thing, it's tough to find motivation.

Vampires are trying to survive. TK are trying to reclaim their kingdom. Slann are trying to enact the Great Plan (and can't have Slann-babies so they're all dying out). But Daemons can just wait. Go to sleep for a billion years and come back and kill all mutant creatures who got contaminated from the giant radioactive holes in the universe that exist in the north.

But I think Beastmen is a really bad book. They tried to make it work, but they're just too real. Orcs and Ogres are pretty dumb, but they're also kind of silly.

Don't know about worst but with the prices the HE one is shaping up to be the most disappointing for me. I was really excited about the shadow warriors until I learnt they are going to be in the same price bracket as the WoC Forsaken.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, their aesthetic is pretty darn attractive and unique. The Ravenous Hordes really are the Ravenous Hordes.

Ravening Hordes!

.Case closed.

Seriously though, I get why they did it but RH was just lazy. Be grateful for your sub-par army books

 jonolikespie wrote:
Don't know about worst but with the prices the HE one is shaping up to be the most disappointing for me. I was really excited about the shadow warriors until I learnt they are going to be in the same price bracket as the WoC Forsaken.

I understand from the rumours they will be core but they are in the elite group price range. I pity anyone starting this game now unless they have deep pockets of cash.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I really like DoC but they probably shouldn't have ever made them a stand-alone army. It just doesn't work thematically.

The greatest thing a WoC general can aspire to is to be an immortal Daemon Prince. Kill like a bazillion guys over 300 years and you got a chance. The most nauseating nurgling zit-creature is an immortal Daemon.

It's hard for mortals (us) to get behind the sensibilities of gods. Orcs are at least orcs. Beastmen have a primordial purpose. But DoC is all kinda like, Grand Game. Convert the world. They're just too meta. Too big. It's fine to have them behind the scenes or have a unit or two here or there in armies. But if your TZ army ever succeeded and converted the world into TZ-land, then TZ would cease to exist because there would be no one to fuel him.

I really agree with this post, very well expressed. While some of the daemon models GW makes are cool, I think they are much better off as choices in a mortal army, like the old 40k rules let you summon them in to a CSM army. If daemons are terrifying things that appear on the battlefield at times of utmost despair (ie because things are already going on) it's a very cool idea. Having them be the main event, and therefore fitting into the structure of an army, core troops, leaders, support etc, is a bit weak. I feel they lack the individual character that would make me collect an army, and I'm not even that keen on them as adversaries. Obviously it's not my job to say they shouldn't be in the game or anything, more power to anyone who plays them.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I really like DoC but they probably shouldn't have ever made them a stand-alone army. It just doesn't work thematically.

Not liking something thematically is fine because it is a matter of personal taste, it is indeed my reason for not liking the ogre kingdoms. The demons at least were in whfb from at least third edition though. I did not like the splitting of the chaos armies but on the other hand demons were a faction that really did not work very well rule wise in 4th and 5th edition.

The one good thing that resulted from splitting the armies is a greater diversity of units and models. I think the three armies should remain but return to the system were units from books different from your general were special choices.

 Flashman wrote:
The decision to split Chaos in three different factions - Warriors, Daemons and Beastmen.

I really loved the old dynamic which really captured how a Chaos should work i.e. Daemon general = Daemons as Core and Warriors/Beastmen as Special. Warrior General = Warriors as Core and Daemons/Beastmen as Special etc

Now the caveat to this is that I really like the new direction for Beastmen and having become their own animal (excuse the pun), they don't really fit into the old Chaos dynamic anymore.

However, this just makes it even simpler to reintroduce the combined Warrior/Daemon army book.

I agree with this it destroyed my chaos army (never really recovered) as did the same with undead split into tomb kings/vampire counts.. and why the heck cant vampire count undead use catapults and archers?... lol....guess there are no vampire count undead longbowmen and such

lomax wrote:
I think both the new book and new models of WoC are the biggest disappointment of all WHFB time, what do you think?

I havent seen anyone I know even pick up that book or the new models yet. I barely even remembered that release. It was a big dissapointment

Being a big disappointment hardly makes it the 'worst WHFB release of all time! of all time!'.

It just makes it a disappointing release. Plenty of armies have those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
and why the heck cant vampire count undead use catapults and archers?... lol....guess there are no vampire count undead longbowmen and such

There is a fluff reason, though it's not explicity spelled out. Vampire Counts make their armies on the move. They march over a field that has a lot of dark energy pooling in it? Invoke the dead to rise. March. See a particularly interesting Barrow? Invoke them to rise. March.

They don't really bother with organising them into regiments, they're just put into regiments for ease of play. A Vampire Count army really is the stereotypical shambling horde of dead. They don't bother trying to separate them into skeleton/zombie swordsmen, skeleton/zombie archers, etc. Skeletons and zombies are really just one big amalgamated horde.

Tomb Kings, on the other hand, are organised into the armies they were in life. That archer regiment was an archer regiment in life, and is reanimated as an archer regiment in death, with the purpose of still actually being an archer regiment. Same with war machine crews.

 Color Sgt. Kell wrote:

lomax wrote:
I think both the new book and new models of WoC are the biggest disappointment of all WHFB time, what do you think?

I havent seen anyone I know even pick up that book or the new models yet. I barely even remembered that release. It was a big dissapointment

Its quite popular here. There was a local tournament last week with about 24 - 26 players. There were no fewer than 4 WoC armies. While I think it is far from the worst book ever, I do own enough models to field a WoC army but I passed on the book because it just did not really inspire me to play the army instead of some of my other armies. If the book was about half the price it currently is I would probably buy it.

JWhex wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Don't know about worst but with the prices the HE one is shaping up to be the most disappointing for me. I was really excited about the shadow warriors until I learnt they are going to be in the same price bracket as the WoC Forsaken.

I understand from the rumours they will be core but they are in the elite group price range. I pity anyone starting this game now unless they have deep pockets of cash.

I meant money. $50 USD for 10 ($70 AUD).

JWhex wrote:

Not liking something thematically is fine because it is a matter of personal taste, it is indeed my reason for not liking the ogre kingdoms.

I like DoC. But they are 2-dimensional.

They are kinda like modern zombie movies except you have to play the zombies. Saying blood for the blood god is about as compelling as saying Brainz. If you're immortal and a daemon, you really have no wants. What does a Keeper of Secrets daydream about? Having a really awesome nudie bar? That seems unlikely.

It's like the snippets of the Liber Mortificus(sp?) that detail a guy walking through the Realm of Chaos is neat from a human's perspective, but it's really boring from a Daemon's perspective. Just like any classic literature of hell. Like Dante's Inferno. If you're seeing souls be tortured, that's scary. But if you're the Bloodletter who is simply torturing the same souls for thousands of years, that's really dull.

So DoC are interesting because they are unstoppable, evil forces. But being an unstoppable evil force isn't interesting. Because you're doing the same thing over and over for eternity.

Beastmen, it was poor when it was in 7th, and it is even poorer in 8th.

Actually though on daemons, they do have their own thoughts and the like. The problem is the only people who will get to talk to them, is those who summon or bind them, so we can't exactly learn much from them. Even the basic bloodletter can think. (Even nurglings, if we go by Ku'gath and the like ) So yes, they can have dreams, they can have aspirations. They just happen to fit more like what their god would desire.

The book makes it clear stuff like nurglings are pretty mindless and Core are very close to mindless. A GD has a personality, but it's a fixed personality. They are all basically 2-dimensional psychopaths. You always know the 3 different emotions or states of being for a Lord of Change. Which is what I said. They don't, paradoxically, change. Something that is immortal and never changes, or even has the possibility, is dull. A LOC is never going to give up the change business and become a fruit vendor in Altdorf. He's just going to be a fragment of his boss--and his boss, the very gods themselves, are just fragments of mortals.

As scary as Khorne is, he's probably got a 15 word vocabulary that is very skull-heavy.

7th edition DoC. Mat Ward singlehandedly shot down game balance and competitive play in Warhammer Fantasy. He then wrote 8th edition, making competitive play officially impossible.

 Kroothawk wrote:
7th edition DoC. Mat Ward singlehandedly shot down game balance and competitive play in Warhammer Fantasy. He then wrote 8th edition, making competitive play officially impossible.

In fairness it seems to be the goal of GW and the design team in general that are crapping all over competitive play in 40k and whfb. They used to support the idea of competitive play maybe they will change back. They are a bunch of hypocrits and even Jervis doesnt deserve any of the respect from people he once had.

"7th edition Daemons broke game balance. This is good news, as you can now concentrate on narrative games!"

lomax wrote:
The worst release of all WHFB time?

WHFB 8th edition.