> My point? I think the 'rules creep' is nearly non-existant. New
> are always decried as more powerful until the next army comes out and
> previous lists are forgotten. In WHFB, virtually no lists are
> weaker than the others (maybe Empire).
What we're talking about is different from the inevitable 'They're
unbeatable!' response to new armies. In general, GW does practice this
rules/power creep. Whether consciously or not. The first WHFB rule
books - Empire, High Elves and Orcs - were the armies at greatest
disadvantage against the new books. The new books (now including the
High Elves) contained a plethora of special rules that were not only
flavor-related but also increases in power. The High Elves are perhaps
the greatest proof of 'rules creep' as you have an old book to compare
to the new one.
In any case, the same occurred (AFAIK) in Epic 2nd Ed, with armies and
units becoming generally more powerful along the timeline from initial
release through Titan Legions and Hive War. Nothing is unbeatable, but
the inability to maintain some balance is definitely annoying.
"Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble
up, if you will ever dig."
- Marcus Aurelius
Received on Tue Sep 16 1997 - 15:21:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:52 UTC