Written by:Boldo
7/9/2008 6:07 PM

After being in charge of game development for the better part of this millenium Gav Thorp has spoken out against comp and tournaments.  In his tirade he did mention that all army books are made to be balanced.  Now I am not sure if I could do a good job designing a game but I am sure the army books are not balanced.  Under Gav's watch there has been no rules for point costing units, and many magic item combos have been just the right points to allow characters to take.  This might not be a problem but a number f books he did not design (like the dark elves) the points just do not work out.  Further the newer books seem to be overpowered compared to the older books.  For example nothing shoots like an empire army and the dwarves can built the same army but are not comparable.  is a 14 pt gunner really eqal to a triple shot 21 pt  fast cav gunner?  And who can match the magic of the Vampire Counts?  A move spell on a 7, raise units on a 4 (three most of the time), and Lords with 6 dice.   How do the Tomb Kings compare?  After all the units are identical.  So I only wonder how a 90 pot herald is equal to a 95 pt warrior piest, or a runesmith.  It seems that there have been numerous arguements over the years about which army book is best and which is worst.  So Gav I understand why you want to defend your work but to argue al books are fair seems to be an untendable rationalization.

TrackbackPrint

Location: BlogsGamingWarhammer gaming