AoS feels like people making the best of a poor decision (the end times..)
It would be interesting to know how closely related the cancellation of WFB (+ the introduction of the End Times) and the creation of AoS actually was. By which I mean what took place behind the scenes. When did they decide to cancel WFB (because they would have known about it years in advance) and when was the decision to create AoS made? Was AoS made to fill the void left by the departure of WFB or was WFB scraped to make way for AoS? (a what came first, the chicken or the egg scenario)
Ah yes, like Warriors of Chaos then. They are basically unkillable because of their super-duper Chaos Armour, they murder honourable Dwarfs, Lizardmen, High Elves, Bretonnians and Tomb Kings and seem to do almost anything to their corpses afterwards.
Perhaps in the literature that is true (I haven't read it), but in the movie he was more skill-based than tank-based. In the movie it wasn't a case of him getting hit and not being affected by it, but rather his opponents not being able to strike him at all. In the movie he didn't even need to wear armour... all he needed was his trusty shield.
They are also supported vastly by GW who gave them a white dwarf before the one releasing their book to release more stuff to make them OP, when they could have given Bretonnia or Beastmen an 8th Edition book because they really needed one.
I agree that the white dwarf rules update was not needed, especially when considering how quickly it was supplanted by their 8th edition hardcover army book. I could be mistaken, but I thought that the time between the white dwarf and the army book was only a few months. I think the WoC only needed the army book update, and if that freed up the time to update Bretonnia or Beastmen that would have been awesome. My biggest regret in 8th edition was that Bretonnia, Beastmen and Skaven never got their books and that a final round of FAQs were not released. (oh and the poor balance between cannons and monsters, but that is a different matter)
Warriors of Chaos were already OP without the Warshrine and Slaughterbrute to further amplify their OP-ness.
First off, the Warshrine was introduced during 7th edition (it didn't have a model, but had rules) and was actually nerfed in 8th edition. Under its 7th edition rules you could set up a system where you could almost guarantee getting 3+ ward save Chosen.
As for the Slaughterbrute, it is pretty much the weakest unit in the entire army book. It is an EXTREMELY sub-par unit. No competitive list would ever feature them. The Slaughterbrute was literally the WoC version of the Troglodon. If you think that the Slaughterbrute made the WoC more OP, then I would argue you don't understand WoC or Warhammer as a whole. I have a massive WoC army but I don't even own a single Slaughterbrute.
I do love Fantasy, but the one thing I dislike about it is that WoC are a broken, game-breaking army. Of course
@NIGHTBRINGER doesn't see this because he is biased as he plays them as well. He seems to think they are perfectly balanced
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If you are to make a statement like that, then by all means provide evidence (in the form of a quote) to support your accusation. If we start falsely stating the beliefs of others in the absence of evidence, this thing spirals out of control very quickly. It is an underhanded tactic and a fact which I have no issues pointing out. Let's keep it fair and above board
.
While I do play WoC, that doesn't mean I can't accurately gauge their power level. I also play Lizardmen (a middle tier army) and Tomb Kings (a bottom tier army). So I have some experience with different power levels of armies.
I have
always maintained that the WoC are a top tier army. I'd place them in the top 3 armies in terms of power level, alongside the Dark Elves and High Elves. I'd say that Skaven and Wood Elves (only with a skilled general though) come in next, and then perhaps Ogres.
I actually set up a series of three polls over at the EEFL forum to explore this issue. Here are the results (as of Nov. 14, a few more votes might have trickled in since then):
and yet he dislikes the fact that Dwarfs now have a monster in AoS, probably because it, and AoS itself, disturb the 'balance' of WoC being super-strong.
Firstly, I have no idea how powerful Chaos is in AoS. Secondly, I couldn't care less about the power level of Chaos in AoS. Lastly, I dislike the inclusion of a monster in a Dwarf army for fluff/thematic and army variation reasons. I like the fact that armies look, act and play differently. That's what makes Warhammer interesting to me. I don't want each and every army to have the same stock set of units, because in such a world, armies would only vary from one another in the most superficial of terms.
