What is the "best" army book in AoS? (IE the one which should be the baseline)

[Neomaxim]

That is just because they're new, and have buzz.  No one will be touting the long-term quality of Mawtribes, and Bone Reapers look like they're back in the trap-book realm, where every category has obvious winners and losers.

I think hypothetical "best book" status requires as much internal balance as possible, with larger amounts of options for diverse playstyles, and external balance should be a goal as well.  I also don't think a perfect book exists, but I find the handful of names which keep coming up very telling as something GW should consider going forward.

[tripchimeras]

I actually really like the Orruk book.  I get that it doesn't have a huge unit selection, but nearly every unit seems takeable, all three subfactions are useable, and the army playstyle and lore mesh together superbly well.   Now the concern on this one may turn out to be its power level.  As of this moment it seems quite strong but not OP, but that may be in part due to the matchup with Slaanesh... More time may be needed to tell.  But I think overall it is a very good representation of what a faction of its style should look like.  It is internally balanced there is a reason to take just about everything from what I can tell.  My only real complaint is that Brutes are not very well diferentiated from Ard Boyz and while I don't think there is a HUGE power level difference between the 2 units, I don't think there is a utility difference either making a case for including both, which really hurts for Ironjawz given how few units they have.  Still I think its a good example of where GW should be going.  Thematic rules that work, decent to strong internal balance, all sub-factions takeable, a real trade-off between taking a specific tribe and going generic, which is not very common. 

I think Cities as a release pairs really well with it too.  I think they show 2 styles of army design that both work and should both be present in the game.  Cities is a big tent book and has flexibility Orruk's lack.  But the synergies are harder to nail and the army building is more difficult.  Each book has drawbacks and bonuses, and are (for the most part) well balanced internally and strong but not OP externally.  I think given how hard internal balance is in a big tent book, Cities nails it pretty well.  There is only 1 truly terrible city, 2 mediocre ones, and 4 that are competitive.  Most of the warscrolls have utility that makes them worthwhile in the right cercumstances, and nothing individually seems crazy OP.  There are trade-offs in each.  I think the one mistake Cities made is making a static gunline a little too attractive.  The game was sorely lacking decent shooting, but they needed to make it dynamic, and while they tried with stuff like pistoliers and Tempest Eye, it looks like the best shooting build may be a couple stationary shooting blocks and a soulscreem bridge... Not exactly fun for anyone.  But as a concept and compared to most releases the dual release of Orruks and Cities was a huge success showcasing very different but complimentary book design principals that do not massively diverge in external balance.  I call that a huge success. 

Especially when compared to the current dual release of Mawtribes and Osiarks which in comparison looks like a book that was released as an afterthought combined with a book intended to be a "game changer".  Very strange combination and while I don't think Osiarks are going to prove to be classically OP I don't think they are particulary well balanced internally or to the game around them.  And Mawtribes seem very forgettable, I don't think they are quite as terrible as the initial reaction has been, but neither do I think it is a particularly inspired release.

Edited November 8, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Horseburner]

1 hour ago, Neomaxim said:

That is just because they're new, and have buzz.  No one will be touting the long-term quality of Mawtribes, and Bone Reapers look like they're back in the trap-book realm, where every category has obvious winners and losers.

I think hypothetical "best book" status requires as much internal balance as possible, with larger amounts of options for diverse playstyles, and external balance should be a goal as well.  I also don't think a perfect book exists, but I find the handful of names which keep coming up very telling as something GW should consider going forward.

 I agree completely. I mostly play Nighthaunt and just started a SCE army with my leftover Soul Wars units. I'm still hoping for a SCE BT update... or Nighthaunt for that matter. 😭

Edited November 8, 2019 by Horseburner
Wording.

[Neomaxim]

As we keep nailing down the definition of "best", I am realizing the more I read it, that Bonereapers strikes me as a pretty terrible book.  The entire book hinges on the Mortek Guard being a solidly points efficient battleline, as without that one core, the rest of the book probably can't function remotely.  Knowing a whole book is one points tweak away from dropping multiple notches competitively is one of the quickest ways to scare me away from an army.  My Legions of Nagash took a considerable tumble with only token changes to Grimghast points, and Bonereapers feel like they're launching on the same precipice. 

[Praecautus]

I am going to vote for khorne also. Sure it has some oddities and some parts need refining. The lore  is ok but in places reads like an overexcited teenager with a thing for gore and axes. They need to capture more the old realm of chaos vibe of why people fall to chaos and the perilous path they choose. But the book has the following plusses

Very large unit selection

majority of units are viable and points wise are generally ok

good ways to boost units without breaking the game

multiple list options

feels like it is well balanced vs other armies

fun combos and tricks

overall the list building feels quite deep.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Praecautus