132
Post by: bbb
6th and 7th editions are considered by some to have been the best time to be playing Warhammer and since 8th edition many people have dropped out of the game.
If Games Workshop were to release in Living Rulebook format (free to download with yearly/quarterly tweaks) the complete rules for Warhammer 7th edition (this would include all army lists), would you start playing the game again?
With family life taking up most of my time haven't been able to play wargames much if at all the last few years, but I'm actively trying to get back to the table in some form. Malifaux and Infinity are the games that have my attention right now in large part due to their rules being available for free on-line. Part of me would like to give Warhammer or 40k a shot, but with $75 rulebooks (not even sure if that's right) and $50 armybooks/codeci I am priced out of those games for now.
If, however, GW were to release those rules in that way, I would seriously be tempted to get to the table again and could probably wrangle up some players too.
I know I could just get the old rules and try to get a group together, but if GW were to make it easy for people to get models to the table I'd be more inclined to try and even buy some figures from them.
I'd think that maintaining a living rules set would be less intensive/costly for them than regularly re-writing and re-publishing the rulebooks. They could keep up with their current editions and revisions, but if they created a "Living" edition, it might be a good way to keep veteran players interested in the game and buying models from them.
Total wishlisting, I know, but I just lament not caring about Warhammer anymore.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I'd prefer 6th edition if we could balance out the few things that were wrong with it.
8th edition isn't terrible, but it's not as good as previous editions.
71201
Post by: JWhex
I dont think you can objectively call 8th as better or worse than 7th. They are different. Charging rules in 8th edition are considered to be a huge improvement by everyone I know that has played a few games.
The real issue with seventh edition was the army books were horribly out of balance and unfortunately we are heading that way in 8th.
8th has its big problem with certain spells that people just spam 6 dice to get IF and I am not a fan that steadfast cannot be disrupted. The step up rule in 8th is a huge improvement to the game. I honestly think if you evaluate the two editions objectively you will find some flaws and benefits to both editions. You dont really gain anything by playing 7th edition except some possible awkward rule conflicts with new army books. If you are going to use 7th edition army books then you will be playing with a system many people characterize as far worse than 8th on account of the demons, skaven and dark elves.
Despite all your polling options what really drives the decision to play a particular rule set is what your local opponents are willing to adopt.
By the way I just did a quick "Island blood warhammer" search on ebay and found the 9th edition rules at a buy it now price of 24 dollars, likewise you could probably find 40k minirule books for a similar price. I feel your pain on the 50 dollar codex/armybook price. I used to buy practically every codex/army book, now I dont even buy them for all my armies, if I am not actively playing the army in the tournament scene.
11194
Post by: Krellnus
Hell no, no way do I want to face a VC army that rocks up with 30 power dice at 1500 points, never again.
17422
Post by: cvtuttle
I do not play Fantasy - but I have quite a few friends that did/do. Many of them left when 8th came out, but I have seen quite a few of them trickling back into it as they get over the changes. Many of them have said it is really quite fun once they let go of their preconceptions.
I wouldn't actually mind trying it - I just don't have time for multiple game systems.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Yes, single models frequently destroying entire armies of their own was incredibly fun to play.
/irony
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
To be honest, I've had more fun playing 8th. Does it have issues? Yup. So did 7th. Tweak things to tone down large unts and magical nukes, and its a goo edition.
55659
Post by: pities2004
8th is better.
The end
3802
Post by: chromedog
I never played 7th ed.
I played 3rd ed before I played 8th.
Yes, just a small gap there. I had no army (my 3rd Ed Wood elf army had been stolen and I didn't see replacing it as cost-effective when I had my 40k stuff as well to play with).
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:To be honest, I've had more fun playing 8th. Does it have issues? Yup. So did 7th. Tweak things to tone down large unts and magical nukes, and its a goo edition.
Yep, pretty much.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
I prefer 8th. It wasn't worse, just different. Once you get past the learning curve of differences, it a fine game. No different from the rabble from the changes between 5th & 6th.
5513
Post by: privateer4hire
I prefer 7th. 6th was good but I hated models lapping around (it's too messy and somebody---usually me----usually screws it up).
The army books kept getting so crazy later on that I finally gave up, though.
71201
Post by: JWhex
privateer4hire wrote:I prefer 7th. 6th was good but I hated models lapping around (it's too messy and somebody---usually me----usually screws it up).
The army books kept getting so crazy later on that I finally gave up, though.
I actually liked the lapping around rule, but I can see why some people would have trouble with it.
19547
Post by: Magos Explorator
I think I am in the minority here... but I preferred 5th!
Around the time 6th edition WHFB and 3rd edition 40k came out I felt a bit disillusioned with both systems (it felt to me like the 'soul' of the games had gone), and I stopped playing both for maybe 6-7 years. I like the more recent editions, but 5th WHFB/2nd 40k are still my favourite.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
People left WHFB because of 8th. People spoke with their wallets.
Regardless of having the return of 7th ED, GW will not be able to reclaim the customers that they have lost.
They deserve all that they get.
68802
Post by: TheAuldGrump
chromedog wrote:I never played 7th ed.
I played 3rd ed before I played 8th.
Yes, just a small gap there. I had no army (my 3rd Ed Wood elf army had been stolen and I didn't see replacing it as cost-effective when I had my 40k stuff as well to play with).
I still enjoy 3rd. My poor, battered hardcover has seen better days, and, oh, how I wish that I still had MacDeath....
The balance was horrible, but the game was so much fun.
The Auld Grump
132
Post by: bbb
I know there were issues with 7th where some things were broken or overpowered, but if they went with the Living Rulebook idea and revised things on a yearly basis they'd be able to iron out those issues over time.
It would be like a running open playtest.
With Blood Bowl they even had a few levels of rules and some were considered experimental until they became offical.
It feels like that would be a good way to promote interest and encourage people to play the game and discuss it.
44565
Post by: pgmason
Adam LongWalker wrote:People left WHFB because of 8th. People spoke with their wallets.
Regardless of having the return of 7th ED, GW will not be able to reclaim the customers that they have lost.
They deserve all that they get.
And plenty of people started or re-started with 8th. They voted with their wallets too. Certainly where I live 8th is more popular.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
7th seemed to suffer with a few OP armybooks, 8th seems to suffer with overemphasis on giant infantry units and magic being to potent.
So, some halfway house between them?
71201
Post by: JWhex
Adam LongWalker wrote:People left WHFB because of 8th. People spoke with their wallets.
Regardless of having the return of 7th ED, GW will not be able to reclaim the customers that they have lost.
They deserve all that they get.
People leave every edition and some people leave when their army book is updated. However, many new gamers are born every year and there is a new cohort of every age group as well. There was a much greater loss when 6th came out because of the whole army book issue and many people did not want to play with the ravening hordes get you by lists.
Some customers will be reclaimed and have been but no doubt others have moved on to other games or other hobbies. If 9th edition is a really good game it will draw in new blood, if not then whfb will probably continue to decline. A lot of people that left 8th edition just over reacted to some new ideas and if they enjoyed whfb in 7th it is a shame they left.
WHFB is a game enjoyed all over the world by a lot of people and it is kind of selfish for you to hope that it fails.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
6th was a great improvement and I liked 7th and thought with a few tweaks that would have been just about right. Loathe 8th. Infact, it shouldn't be called 8th, it should be called Warhammer V2 1st Ed, because it is totally a different game and the rules were designed to sell more models at the cost of game play.
Loathe it to the point that I have virtually sold all my models. I am down to the last bits. To me it lost all its flavor and nuanced tactics. It annoyed right from the start with that overly thick rule book and went downhill from there.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
fullheadofhair wrote: because it is totally a different game and the rules were designed to sell more models at the cost of game play. A lot of people said the same thing about 6th when it was announced and discovered we had to buy new Army Books and points costs were on average half what they were in 5th. Most of those people ended up enjoying the hell out of 6th once they got over the changes. Incidentally, I've found that most people that said that about 8th have changed their mind once they started playing it regularly, too.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
Once of the best ways to get folk back into the game would be to (try and) make the games smaller
The points values of the armies played has kept creeping upwards (they same happens in 40K), so making it harder and harder for new players to get into the game , or older players who no longer have the models to return
Suggesting a smaller basic game (maybe 70-80% of the current standard) with (potentially) a larger apocalypse style split off for those who want 100s of models on the table might be the way to go
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Platuan4th wrote: fullheadofhair wrote: because it is totally a different game and the rules were designed to sell more models at the cost of game play.
A lot of people said the same thing about 6th when it was announced and discovered we had to buy new Army Books and points costs were on average half what they were in 5th.
Most of those people ended up enjoying the hell out of 6th once they got over the changes.
Incidentally, I've found that most people that said that about 8th have changed their mind once they started playing it regularly, too.
I appreciated 6 and 7 from the get go - 5th definitely had its annoyances and issues where there was no answer - very frustrating. I like the move to more units and the fact that more variety of units started appearing on the table. I like the way the FOC worked and the fact that sometimes you were torn between which rare unit you wanted to take because they were so limited.
With 8th, the fourth time of facing a 75+ man unit was enough for me. Rolling that many dice and just getting bogged down was boring. The magic system changes were interesting and I quite liked that and could even see the benefit of losing all those dispel scrolls. But the basic game play was just too boring IMHO and encourage these huge units that were often unkillable or took a huge amount of your army and time to kill them that killing th eunit became boring.
Now I don't own a single GW army and this year, with the changes to BL meaning I havent bought any books, I find that my interest in GW worlds has diminished to the point I haven't actually bought a single GW model.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
The massive blocks thing is a problem with the players, not the system per se. We've been playing 8th here with MSU/MMU lists and it's frankly been more fun than 7th was.
I guess it depends on how your meta sees how list building "should be". They tried the massive blocks with a couple support units before I got here and hated that, so they switched to smaller units with more of them and it changed a lot of minds about how good the system is. We keep to the 2400/2500 standard, we've just shifted how we build the list. Orlando's idea of smaller games is good, too.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Platuan4th wrote: fullheadofhair wrote: because it is totally a different game and the rules were designed to sell more models at the cost of game play.
A lot of people said the same thing about 6th when it was announced and discovered we had to buy new Army Books and points costs were on average half what they were in 5th.
Most of those people ended up enjoying the hell out of 6th once they got over the changes.
Because 6th edition was a genuinely good edition that rewarded varied armies and in depth tactical game play.
8th edition on the other hand should be called "advanced yatsee edition" because all you really do is roll dice and afterwards roll some more dice and whoever rolls the best dice wins!
17422
Post by: cvtuttle
Adam LongWalker wrote:People left WHFB because of 8th. People spoke with their wallets.
Regardless of having the return of 7th ED, GW will not be able to reclaim the customers that they have lost.
They deserve all that they get.
And my point is that people seem to be trickling back to it. Especially in the Northern California/Bay Area scene. They had dismissed it quickly - but now seem to be coming back.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
pgmason wrote: Adam LongWalker wrote:People left WHFB because of 8th. People spoke with their wallets.
Regardless of having the return of 7th ED, GW will not be able to reclaim the customers that they have lost.
They deserve all that they get.
And plenty of people started or re-started with 8th. They voted with their wallets too. Certainly where I live 8th is more popular.
I have to agree with this. During 6th and 7th, there was literally no WHFB presence in north metro Atlanta. I remember a tournament I went to that had six people show up, and that was pretty typical, even though WHFB tournaments might happen once a year.
Now, our FLGS has typically 10-11 WHFB tournaments each year. Usually, the only month there isn't a tournament is December. Typical turnout is 20+ We're even trying a Swedish Comp style tournament for the first time on the 23rd, and we already have 14 people signed up (and people hate comp around here). You can find one or more groups of people playing WHFB on just about every day of the week, while during 6th and 7th, you could go literally months without seeing a single pickup game.
From a personal experience, I started playing in 3rd edition in the late 1980's. I didn't play much during the 1990's due to being in college and having no money. I started playing again in 2002. From a game mechanic system, I prefer 8th out of all of the editions I've played, though I really loved the freedom allowed by 3rd. I also miss Dwarf Wizards from 3rd. In all honesty, "step up" fixed the single biggest complaint I had about WHFB since I started playing 25 years ago.
I agree with others that 8th has a few issues. I think the biggest is equating Miscast with IF. Now, there's little disincentive to throwing six dice at an important spell. If it went back to 6-6 being irresistable force and 1-1 being miscast, with miscast trumping IF, then you'd see a lot less of this issue.
9594
Post by: RiTides
MeanGreenStompa wrote:7th seemed to suffer with a few OP armybooks, 8th seems to suffer with overemphasis on giant infantry units and magic being to potent.
So, some halfway house between them?
I'd never go back to 7th due to army book imbalance. But the core rules in 8th need an update. I'm getting back in with chaos dwarfs, but greatly looking forward to 9th edition in 2015 (or, by a miracle, 2014).
55659
Post by: pities2004
Sigvatr wrote: Crazy_Carnifex wrote:To be honest, I've had more fun playing 8th. Does it have issues? Yup. So did 7th. Tweak things to tone down large unts and magical nukes, and its a goo edition.
Yep, pretty much.
100% agree, I enjoy 8th more than any of the previous editions I have played (started with 5th)
I enjoy the extra combat flavor, hordes, supporting attacks, and super powerful magic is always fun.
56135
Post by: Mr Mugguffins
Sigvatr wrote:Yes, single models frequently destroying entire armies of their own was incredibly fun to play.
/irony
This guy gets it.
Hero Hammer was awe full, the only reason people tend to get nostalgic is because they ran those incredibly broken heroes.
Also, if you think magic is bad now, try dealing with certain army books being able to churn out 20+ power dice.
59141
Post by: Elemental
JWhex wrote:People leave every edition and some people leave when their army book is updated. However, many new gamers are born every year and there is a new cohort of every age group as well.
The problem there is the heavy start-up costs will put off a lot of people who might start it up. The price hikes and the emphasis on huge units is tolerable when you have an army and just need to expand it a bit with the new stuff. Not so much when you start adding up the costs of starting an army big enough to play "standard" (2-3000pts) from scratch.
20887
Post by: xxvaderxx
bbb wrote:6th and 7th editions are considered by some to have been the best time to be playing Warhammer and since 8th edition many people have dropped out of the game.
Pff 6 and 7th sucked, Vampires dominated EVERYONE, Combat was always won by the hardest hitting troop and there was little to no way around it. The only thing 8 really needs is for cav to move much much more and steadfast be cancelled by flanking, done you are golden.
3289
Post by: 12thRonin
If by "Vampires" you mean Daemons, then you are right. And who wrote that turd of a book...
34634
Post by: cgage00
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7th ed was terrible. Power armies Power characters NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!
19148
Post by: Aerethan
7th was only "bad" because the army books were bad.
Ignore for a second the old army books, and look only at the current ones.
7th edition with the new 12 PD cap would work rather well with the new army books.
The last 2 editions both saw rules written specifically for selling more models which meant bigger games(among other factors on game size): Minimum rank bonus becoming 5 wide(which screwed up every cavalry box that was released during 6th edition, which is most of them) and Steadfast.
I remember a time when 2000 points was a full size game, and 3000 was crazy talk unless you had all day. But back then units of 20 was a reasonable size for say Empire infantry.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)
One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.
20887
Post by: xxvaderxx
nkelsch wrote:I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)
One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.
And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.
132
Post by: bbb
xxvaderxx wrote:nkelsch wrote:I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)
One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.
And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.
Spending $50 to get rules for my models every 4-6 years is keeping me from playing the game right now. I'd probably spend more than $50 on models if the rules for them were free. Also, if the rules were regularly tweaked to fix balance issues that would lend itself to more purchases too.
One of the interviews with the old GW crew on realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co. uk summed it up perfectly. They created the rules for Warhammer and gave them away for free to sell more models. And it worked...
71201
Post by: JWhex
bbb wrote:xxvaderxx wrote:nkelsch wrote:I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)
One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.
And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.
Spending $50 to get rules for my models every 4-6 years is keeping me from playing the game right now. I'd probably spend more than $50 on models if the rules for them were free. Also, if the rules were regularly tweaked to fix balance issues that would lend itself to more purchases too.
One of the interviews with the old GW crew on realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co. uk summed it up perfectly. They created the rules for Warhammer and gave them away for free to sell more models. And it worked...
WTF are you talking about, since first edition you had to buy the rules and supplements?
7942
Post by: nkelsch
bbb wrote:xxvaderxx wrote:nkelsch wrote:I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)
One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.
And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.
Spending $50 to get rules for my models every 4-6 years is keeping me from playing the game right now. I'd probably spend more than $50 on models if the rules for them were free. Also, if the rules were regularly tweaked to fix balance issues that would lend itself to more purchases too.
One of the interviews with the old GW crew on realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co. uk summed it up perfectly. They created the rules for Warhammer and gave them away for free to sell more models. And it worked...
Yeah, it draws people in and potentially solves balance issues with nimble re-addressing *ALL* rules with every update which makes a better game which then draws people in.
If the alternative is "Living rulebook" or "dead franchise" I would hope the LRB would be tried before just killing fantasy all together.
9594
Post by: RiTides
xxvaderxx wrote:The only thing 8 really needs is for cav to move much much more and steadfast be cancelled by flanking, done you are golden.
I still don't understand why tournies don't just errata that flanking cancels steadfast. I ran into 2 guys at a local store last week that still thought it did
It just makes so much sense, and could even be required that you need to have 2 ranks in the flank like I believe it was in 7th... and it would fix things immeasurably!
51394
Post by: judgedoug
You know, a year ago, I'd murder a hobo for them to dump 8th and go back to a 6th/7th hybrid... but after a year of playing Kings of War, it's easy to see just how flawed of a ruleset Warhammer is. Kings of War is just so much better as a mass-combat game. Now, don't get me wrong, Warhammer 6/7 is still great, and I'm still using the rules for skirmish games, but it's not good for much more than that.
56400
Post by: Orktavius
Aerethan wrote:7th was only "bad" because the army books were bad.
Ignore for a second the old army books, and look only at the current ones.
7th edition with the new 12 PD cap would work rather well with the new army books.
The last 2 editions both saw rules written specifically for selling more models which meant bigger games(among other factors on game size): Minimum rank bonus becoming 5 wide(which screwed up every cavalry box that was released during 6th edition, which is most of them) and Steadfast.
I remember a time when 2000 points was a full size game, and 3000 was crazy talk unless you had all day. But back then units of 20 was a reasonable size for say Empire infantry.
Yeah, but the reason 20 was a reasonable size was because it was a waste of points to go any bigger when a unit of knights could just charge in, kill the front rank denying attacks back, break the unit and run it down and on into the next one in a single turn.
Steadfast not being removable (other than the old fashioned method of killing things) is a pain in the ass but it's better than losing the game in the deployment step or because your cavalry was better than mine.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Orktavius wrote: Aerethan wrote:7th was only "bad" because the army books were bad.
Ignore for a second the old army books, and look only at the current ones.
7th edition with the new 12 PD cap would work rather well with the new army books.
The last 2 editions both saw rules written specifically for selling more models which meant bigger games(among other factors on game size): Minimum rank bonus becoming 5 wide(which screwed up every cavalry box that was released during 6th edition, which is most of them) and Steadfast.
I remember a time when 2000 points was a full size game, and 3000 was crazy talk unless you had all day. But back then units of 20 was a reasonable size for say Empire infantry.
Yeah, but the reason 20 was a reasonable size was because it was a waste of points to go any bigger when a unit of knights could just charge in, kill the front rank denying attacks back, break the unit and run it down and on into the next one in a single turn.
Steadfast not being removable (other than the old fashioned method of killing things) is a pain in the ass but it's better than losing the game in the deployment step or because your cavalry was better than mine.
Which is why you pepper in some of the newer rules, like stepping up, supporting attacks etc.
29976
Post by: Saphos
Our group of 5 here started playing with 8th (one came back basically). I didn´t like 6th/7th, very much liked the changes in 8th. The startup costs are a problem nowadays, but we regularly play smaller games and still enjoy it immensely as long as you don´t go stupid on characters or the like. So I sincerely hope that they´ll get all or at least most off the books done before 9th so that our little circle can stay with 8th if we don´t like 9th.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
8th edition is the only Fantasy edition I've ever enjoyed playing. Which is odd because I've almost completely stopped enjoying 40K as soon as 6th edition came out. IMHO the two systems need to be different games, and really should share as few mechanics as possible.
49823
Post by: silent25
Having more fun with 8th than I did with 6/7th. There were more problems with 6/7th than there are with 8th. When I hear people talk about how 6/7th was more "tactical", they always seem to refer to how being able to guess your unit was 1/8th too far away from his. Guessing ranges is not a tabletop game skill, it's a carpentry skill.
But still, there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people dropped 8th. It is still healthy in my area, but that appears to be the exception, not the norm.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
It's too late for me, 8th edition soured me on Fantasy badly enough to never want to play it again, no matter the edition.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
I love 8th edition, I'd never go back!
3806
Post by: Grot 6
All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.
They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Grot 6 wrote:All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.
They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.
5th and 6th were quite different. You might be thinking of 4th and 5th which were 'hero hammer' with large powerful characters, wizards with army-destroying spells, giant deathstars of troops - basically what 8th edition is now. 6th edition was the 'reset button' Warhammer, invalidating all previous army books and rules, came with the Ravening Hordes army book that brought every army into line and removed all overpowered everything. 2000-2005, from the release of Warhammer 6th, through Warhammer Skirmish, the 2002,2003,2004 annuals, Lustria, Albion, and Storm of Chaos campaigns, and the General's Compendium, was the Golden Age of Warhammer, with balanced army books and a solid ruleset; never before seen and never to be seen again.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
judgedoug wrote: Grot 6 wrote:All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.
They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.
5th and 6th were quite different. You might be thinking of 4th and 5th which were 'hero hammer' with large powerful characters, wizards with army-destroying spells, giant deathstars of troops - basically what 8th edition is now. 6th edition was the 'reset button' Warhammer, invalidating all previous army books and rules, came with the Ravening Hordes army book that brought every army into line and removed all overpowered everything. 2000-2005, from the release of Warhammer 6th, through Warhammer Skirmish, the 2002,2003,2004 annuals, Lustria, Albion, and Storm of Chaos campaigns, and the General's Compendium, was the Golden Age of Warhammer, with balanced army books and a solid ruleset; never before seen and never to be seen again.
I agree, 6th was the golden age of WFB. Don't forget Warbands came out during that time as a means of getting players started with smaller armies, and to promote painting as you go across several units. Warbands was the perfect way of getting new players in at a lower price point, as 2 basic boxes and the army book(which at the time was $22) was all you needed.
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
The best thing GW could do with 9th is to replace the extra stuff they removed from the 6th ed rule book going into 7th - seige, skirmish, those sorts of rules.
Personally, I'm not a HUGE fan of 8th, but I think WFB suffers more from the cost of an army for a "full sized" game. If I want a different play style in games, I'd buy a different army rather than have random dice rolls added to the core mechanics.
33033
Post by: kenshin620
7th had Daemons
so no thank you
3806
Post by: Grot 6
judgedoug wrote: Grot 6 wrote:All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.
They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.
5th and 6th were quite different. You might be thinking of 4th and 5th which were 'hero hammer' with large powerful characters, wizards with army-destroying spells, giant deathstars of troops - basically what 8th edition is now. 6th edition was the 'reset button' Warhammer, invalidating all previous army books and rules, came with the Ravening Hordes army book that brought every army into line and removed all overpowered everything. 2000-2005, from the release of Warhammer 6th, through Warhammer Skirmish, the 2002,2003,2004 annuals, Lustria, Albion, and Storm of Chaos campaigns, and the General's Compendium, was the Golden Age of Warhammer, with balanced army books and a solid ruleset; never before seen and never to be seen again.
It might have been, I distinctly remember the bad vibes and ill will, along with the double whammy price increase, and the realignment that had everyone going. Might have been the end of 4th, early 5th.
There was a lot going on that year, along with that too, Fantasy took a serious hit at that time, iirc.
32828
Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim?
Sigvatr wrote:Yes, single models frequently destroying entire armies of their own was incredibly fun to play.
/irony
Exactly! That was my the greatest issue with 7th, the one thing that turned me off the game. 8th was what got me back, and in a big way. It's not without it's flaws, but I'd never go back to 7th. Frankly, if GW went back to 7th, I'd either quit or continue using 8th.
~Tim?
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
8th has demons as an army as well.......
TBH theres always got to be a top army for the edition, only the name of the army changes.
Personally when playing WFB, I'll probably use 8th ed rules with whatever army book I have in the cupboard regardless of edition (bought loads of them until they asked £25 a go) with scenario based games and chosen forces to fit the story/scenario in play.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
TBH theres always got to be a top army for the edition, only the name of the army changes.
Maybe I'm just getting rose-tinted glasses, but what army was top/overpowered in 6th edition?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
judgedoug wrote:Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
TBH theres always got to be a top army for the edition, only the name of the army changes.
Maybe I'm just getting rose-tinted glasses, but what army was top/overpowered in 6th edition?
Skaven were the top cheese lists back in 6th. Not great by todays standards of power, but back then it was pretty damn rough.
MSU Wood Elves before they got a proper book were also quite nasty.
Still, it was a far more balanced game overall than what we've had since 7th edition.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Aerethan wrote:
Skaven were the top cheese lists back in 6th. Not great by todays standards of power, but back then it was pretty damn rough.
MSU Wood Elves before they got a proper book were also quite nasty.
Still, it was a far more balanced game overall than what we've had since 7th edition.
I don't think I had many Skaven opponents in 6th, and I don't remember the WE book being overpowered... but it's still the same book used currently, right?
The run of 6th was probably the most balanced WHFB since 3rd... and I have little experience with 3rd, but I heard certain armies could be super-cheezed back then due to the open ended nature of army construction.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
judgedoug wrote: Aerethan wrote:
Skaven were the top cheese lists back in 6th. Not great by todays standards of power, but back then it was pretty damn rough.
MSU Wood Elves before they got a proper book were also quite nasty.
Still, it was a far more balanced game overall than what we've had since 7th edition.
I don't think I had many Skaven opponents in 6th, and I don't remember the WE book being overpowered... but it's still the same book used currently, right?
The run of 6th was probably the most balanced WHFB since 3rd... and I have little experience with 3rd, but I heard certain armies could be super-cheezed back then due to the open ended nature of army construction.
Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).
Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Aerethan wrote:Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).
Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.
Ah yes! Actually, I think I only fielded a steam tank maybe once. I would rather have lots of extra pistoliers or some swordsmen regiments.
It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.
But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
judgedoug wrote: Aerethan wrote:Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).
Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.
Ah yes! Actually, I think I only fielded a steam tank maybe once. I would rather have lots of extra pistoliers or some swordsmen regiments.
It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.
But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.
Cool story bro. No one here cares about Kings of War.
I think 8th is really fun. Don't have to worry about power dice levels that you can't possibly deal with. The new infantry rules make combat much more fun.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Absolutely not, but I do appreciate the weight of the poll.
23793
Post by: Acardia
8th for me has been the best edition, and I've played since 3rd. That being said I do miss the openness of rules, lists, and additional content that was added via annuals, regiments of renown, campaign packs WD, ect.
Does it need some tweeking, yes. Cannons need toned down a little(d3 wounds vs monsters maybe) steadfast needs tweeked, as well a nerfing the 6 spells from test or die, to test and take a wound no armour save. (of course then banner of the world dragon will need even more tweeking.) maybe something to improve fear/terror. But the whole of 8th is good.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Re: Daemons in 7th edition. I once got tabled and only killed 2 models by them.
Yes, VC and DE could compete... but 7th ed Daemons have got to be the most unbalanced book GW has ever put out... at least, imo, and since I've been playing GW games (going back to 3rd edition 40k).
51394
Post by: judgedoug
cincydooley wrote: judgedoug wrote:It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.
But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.
Cool story bro. No one here cares about Kings of War.
I think 8th is really fun. Don't have to worry about power dice levels that you can't possibly deal with. The new infantry rules make combat much more fun.
Oh, no worries!
I also think 8th is really a fun children's game. Don't have to worry about tactics when you can just roll a few dice that decide the whole game. The new spell and movement rules and infantry deathstars make the game easy-peasy since you don't have to use your brain.
8th edition is a turd, and you can polish it all you want and spray as much perfume on it as you please and dress it up in pretty bows... but it's still just a sad, sad lump of fecal matter. That may just be your sort of thing, though, so who am I to judge?
Oh, hey, that reminds me - a couple weeks ago a couple of us in our gaming group were bored after a game, and we invented a quick dice rolling game. One person starts it off by rolling a single die, and whatever gets rolled is everyone's target number. Then the other people, each with six dice, try to roll that same number on all six dice. If you do roll that number on some of the dice, set the die or dice aside and roll the rest, and repeat. Whoever gets all six of their dice to match the target number wins! It's really simple, takes no skill, and is entirely reliant upon total luck. I feel it's the next logical progression in Warhammer rules, so I believe I'll submit it to GW for 9th edition consideration.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
judgedoug wrote: cincydooley wrote: judgedoug wrote:It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.
But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.
Cool story bro. No one here cares about Kings of War.
I think 8th is really fun. Don't have to worry about power dice levels that you can't possibly deal with. The new infantry rules make combat much more fun.
Oh, no worries!
I also think 8th is really a fun children's game. Don't have to worry about tactics when you can just roll a few dice that decide the whole game. The new spell and movement rules and infantry deathstars make the game easy-peasy since you don't have to use your brain.
8th edition is a turd, and you can polish it all you want and spray as much perfume on it as you please and dress it up in pretty bows... but it's still just a sad, sad lump of fecal matter. That may just be your sort of thing, though, so who am I to judge?
Oh, hey, that reminds me - a couple weeks ago a couple of us in our gaming group were bored after a game, and we invented a quick dice rolling game. One person starts it off by rolling a single die, and whatever gets rolled is everyone's target number. Then the other people, each with six dice, try to roll that same number on all six dice. If you do roll that number on some of the dice, set the die or dice aside and roll the rest, and repeat. Whoever gets all six of their dice to match the target number wins! It's really simple, takes no skill, and is entirely reliant upon total luck. I feel it's the next logical progression in Warhammer rules, so I believe I'll submit it to GW for 9th edition consideration.
Seriously, go take your KoW rantings to a thread that has anything to do with that set of rules. This one doesnt. At all.
That's really delightful that you enjoy those rules. Really. I've never seen anyone play them, personally. 8E, however, has seen a pretty significant rise in players, with three of the local LGS having leagues for it.
But feel free to submit your idea. It's really a great one. Good thing there isn't any dice rolling in KoW!
132
Post by: bbb
judgedoug wrote: Aerethan wrote:Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).
Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.
Ah yes! Actually, I think I only fielded a steam tank maybe once. I would rather have lots of extra pistoliers or some swordsmen regiments.
It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.
But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.
What do you like about Kings of War? Would you say you prefer it over all previous Warhammer versions, or just 8th? Do you use your existing Warhammer figures for it? How many people in your group switched over? Automatically Appended Next Post: So for anyone not interested in 7th edition due to overpowered army books, the idea I was originally putting out there was a "living" rule set based on 7th edition and with yearly updates to balance everything out, so the idea of overpowered armies would ideally be eliminated with every list getting revisions to eliminate game breaking imbalances.
I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.
16387
Post by: Manchu
cincydooley wrote:Seriously, go take your KoW rantings to a thread that has anything to do with that set of rules. This one doesnt. At all. KoW is a popular alternative for WHFB players who dislike the current WHFB edition. For that reason, and moreover given that Alessio worked on earlier editions of WHFB, I don't see how mentioning KoW is off-topic.
18410
Post by: filbert
bbb wrote:
I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.
Thing is, there never seems to be a consensus on what edition objectively was the 'best'. I have talked to people who swear blind that 3rd was a golden age, whereas I have a particular fondness for 4th since that was the edition that got me into wargaming as a whole.
I posted a similar poll a while back about 40k when 6th dropped as I wasn't particularly enthralled by the new changes and a similar result occurred there; a wide range of preferences ranging from Rogue Trader through to 6th and all points in between. I mean, I have fond memories of 3rd and still play that now but I am under no illusions that it doesn't stand up to other editions as being particularly good or balanced.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
filbert wrote: bbb wrote:
I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.
Thing is, there never seems to be a consensus on what edition objectively was the 'best'. I have talked to people who swear blind that 3rd was a golden age, whereas I have a particular fondness for 4th since that was the edition that got me into wargaming as a whole.
I posted a similar poll a while back about 40k when 6th dropped as I wasn't particularly enthralled by the new changes and a similar result occurred there; a wide range of preferences ranging from Rogue Trader through to 6th and all points in between. I mean, I have fond memories of 3rd and still play that now but I am under no illusions that it doesn't stand up to other editions as being particularly good or balanced.
I'd say that objectively, even if 6th wasn't the best core book, it was the best supported edition. Every army got a book, and we had supplements coming out our ears.
6th edition was the last time GW gave WFB any real attention, since then it's been playing second fiddle.
132
Post by: bbb
filbert wrote: bbb wrote:
I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.
Thing is, there never seems to be a consensus on what edition objectively was the 'best'. I have talked to people who swear blind that 3rd was a golden age, whereas I have a particular fondness for 4th since that was the edition that got me into wargaming as a whole.
I posted a similar poll a while back about 40k when 6th dropped as I wasn't particularly enthralled by the new changes and a similar result occurred there; a wide range of preferences ranging from Rogue Trader through to 6th and all points in between. I mean, I have fond memories of 3rd and still play that now but I am under no illusions that it doesn't stand up to other editions as being particularly good or balanced.
Yeah, I started in 5th edition, so I have fond memories of Beastmen with 2 wounds, Pink Horrors that split into Blue Horrors, ranks being 4 wide, etc. But even with fond memories I know that 6th and 7th are better games.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I do miss ranks of 4, especially for Cavalry.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
For me, late 6th early 7th was the best time to be playing Fantasy. They ruined 7th with some terrible books towards the end, but it was a pretty good edition apart from that. I started playing in 5th, and I think it was okay, but massively dominated by herohammer.
If they brought back 7th edition with revisions to the broken books that came out (Vampires, Dark Elves, Undead) and balanced everything a little better, I'd be very happy to play it. As is, KOW is the same sort of game and it's rules are free.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Manchu wrote: cincydooley wrote:Seriously, go take your KoW rantings to a thread that has anything to do with that set of rules. This one doesnt. At all. KoW is a popular alternative for WHFB players who dislike the current WHFB edition. For that reason, and moreover given that Alessio worked on earlier editions of WHFB, I don't see how mentioning KoW is off-topic.
We'll have to agree to disagree on it being a "popular" alternative.
Though to be fair, they did have a bitchin team tournament at Adepticon this year. Oh wait... no. That was WHFB. Silly me.
But you know, they did have a tournament at the juggernaught miniatures festival that is Origins this year, so I guess I concede your point about popularity. An Origins Kings of War tournament certainly dwarfs Buckeye Battles.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I didn't claim KoW is more popular than WHFB. :/
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Personally I find 8th to be a better ruleset in many ways. however hampered by several major flaws. Steadfast should be negated by being disrupted or getting flank charge or *something*, cannons need to be made a bit less "sniper"-ey, and above all, Magic needs to be fixed for multiple reasons already mentioned. Having powerful magic is one thing, but that magic is a mandatory must have (an army can make do without shooting, some armies can make do without much in the way of CC, but Magic is a must-have, if for no other reason than defense) is an issue, especially when it can be finagled to be nigh-uncounterable. As others noted, 1,1 being an overriding miscast would help things.
18698
Post by: kronk
If Games Workshop were to re-release the 7th edition of WHFB would you play again? No. I barely have enough time to paint, model, and play Warhammer 40k. My group isn't interested in Fantasy, and I'd rather not play pick up games at an FLGS. So no Fantasy for me.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
You're absolutely right. I'm just being pissy. My apologies.
It just gets irritating, to me, when people come into a conversation about one system and espouse why another system is better.
My bad!
16387
Post by: Manchu
I know next to nothing about KoW except: (1) Alessio wrote it and he used to work on WHFB (2) some folks who don't care for 8E like KoW (3) I'm not personally excited about it So, while I wouldn't say 9E should be KoW or anything, KoW might be a good example of why OP's topic exists in the first place -- namely, general dissatisfaction with 8E. Of course, I guess it also means that folks who like 8E may not find KoW very appealing, either.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
For me, the setting is far more important than the most current ruleset. Like I said earlier, my main opponent is my wife, so if we don't like a rule then we ignore it, or come up with a new rule we feel should exist.
I play WFB because I love the world it portrays, and the models in general are attractive.
So regardless of how bad GW might make the game, I'll still play it, even if that means using 6th edition kitbashed rules.
Now as far as pick up games, I'd rather play 6th than 8th for about 90% of the rules.
39827
Post by: scarletsquig
3rd edition and 6th edition were the best.
I really enjoyed 6th, great set of rules, reasonably balanced books.
Also, lol at how someone casually mentioning KoW in a single offhand line about what their club plays (while stating that warhammer 6th is still played in the same sentence) attracts a multi-paragraph GW fan rage post. :p
I don't play 8th because there's too many damn rules, games take 4-5 hours and are largely randomly determined, and all the new army books revolve around buff/combo-stacking, uber-magic and giant monsters, along with the mandatory 3 giant blocks of infantry to put the mandatory bsb and general in.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
bbb wrote:
What do you like about Kings of War? Would you say you prefer it over all previous Warhammer versions, or just 8th? Do you use your existing Warhammer figures for it? How many people in your group switched over?
Well, I got into Warhammer in 4th edition, and had fun - but it was a pretty bad system with spells that could wipe out units, giant LD 10 stubborn infantry deathstars, uber characters flying all over the place (which is one of the many, many reasons I hate 8th; 8th is just 4th with TWICE the SUPER MEGA POWER). I played it because it was basically the only thing around at the time, and I was a teenager and didn't know better. I kinda stopped playing after 5th... but then 6th came out.
6th was just so good, and it had such a wealth of stuff, every White Dwarf had new scenarios or conversion projects, we had good solid army books and a new worldwide campaign every year. Plus the rules are _tight_. I loved playing 300 point skirmishes, 1500 point games, 2000 point games, 2500 point games...
But just like with every edition of Warhammer, it bogs down with larger games. No matter how well you knew the rules, it'd take 4+ hours for a very large game. Warhammer has so much micro detail and granularity that it works best at smaller games. And 6th was the best in terms of rules balance because there were so few "single die rolls" where the entire game could be won or lost based on the outcome of a single die or 2d6 (another reason I hate 8th).
Kings of War is kind of the opposite. It shines at the huge game level. (This is another strike against 8th - the pseudo-move to 'larger' games basically failed by forcing you to take larger units, but at it's core, it's still the tired old Warhammer ruleset)
Kings of War is almost the opposite. It doesn't work as well for smaller games, but it absolutely _shines_ at larger games. And by larger, I mean two to three times the model count of a 2000 point Warhammer army. It plays in half the time with double the models, so you never feel the long-game-drag like many large Warhammer games will have. Because of the streamlined rules, you tend to be more confident in your movements and tactical positioning. I have never lost a game of Kings of War and gone, "man if that stupid cheesy spell hadn't wiped out my unit of Greatswords"... I can point to specific tactical blunders that cost me the game. I win or lose based on my tactical decisions, not random happenstance.
I once read that Warhammer has progressed that way from 6th through 8th, adding the more random stuff like charge ranges, random unit-destroying spells, random auto-deaths, etc, to move away from tournament play, so that even younger kids can have fun and not be punished for poor tactical decisions. For me, however, those elements when they started showing up in 7th, and definitely through 8th, just ruined it for me. If I want the game to be decided on the roll of a single die , let's just roll a die before the game and not waste time setting up models. When the ruleset is polished enough that I can lose horribly and not feel like I was cheated, that I can learn from a tactical mistake and not because someone rolled a '6' somewhere along the way, that is a success, and that is fun for me, even if it was a crushing defeat.
So to go back to your original questions, I'm not entirely sure I prefer KoW to 6th...(it's definitely superior to 8th, as it does everything 8th is trying to do, but way better) as it's just different. Kings of War succeeds in playing huge massive games in a way that Warhammer never could. But I still love 6th, and the Warhammer rules really shine in smaller games, which is why I am running a Warhammer 6th Skirmish campaign for some of my group's members in a few months. If GW for some reason dropped 8th in favor of going back to 6th and started supporting Warhammer like it used to, I'd probably play both actively.
I have several WHFB armies - a huge Empire army (since 4th edition), a huge Tomb Kings army, and a huge High Elf army. I am considering rebasing my Empire for KoW. I also have unit-based armies for Kings of War - a huge Orc army and a large Goblin army. I have also used my Hail Caesar Greek Hoplite army in Kings of War. Every single Warhammer player in our local group either stopped playing Warhammer after 8th came out or switched over. There's 6 active KoW players at our weekly gaming group, and a couple have entirely rebased their Warhammer armies onto unit-basing. I've also been asked to demo KoW at one of the three FLGS because Warhammer doesn't sell anymore.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Do you have to re-base your army to use it for KoW? Seems like you could just not remove any bases from the unit as models die and get the same result? (Or maybe there's a different unit width than the individual bases could achieve)
Regardless, I've kept an eye on KoW... there was a guy demoing it at our local store. But, I prefer fantasy atm and so I just hope they fix things with 9th edition... eventually
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Manchu wrote:I know next to nothing about KoW except:
(1) Alessio wrote it and he used to work on WHFB
(2) some folks who don't care for 8E like KoW
(3) I'm not personally excited about it
Lemme know if you change your mind, I'd love to run a game for ya!
Oh, and for all the GW fanboys that are jumping down my throat, lemme offer to you that I've been playing and enjoying 40k 6th edition recently (I even bought some GW models, gasp!). I like to play games that are fun no matter what and have a good ruleset. WHFB 8th is just not one of those. Automatically Appended Next Post: RiTides wrote:Do you have to re-base your army to use it for KoW? Seems like you could just not remove any bases from the unit as models die and get the same result? (Or maybe there's a different unit width than the individual bases could achieve)
Regardless, I've kept an eye on KoW... there was a guy demoing it at our local store. But, I prefer fantasy atm and so I just hope they fix things with 9th edition... eventually 
Lordy no. But unit-basing is just easier for storage and transport. Since there's no individual casualty removal in KoW (it uses the concept of 'nerve', which is a combination of casualties and morale), a lot of players just unit-base their armies. My goblin and orc armies are all unit-based; the Helsvakt army I'm building using Red Box Games and Mierce figures are unit-based but on trays so I can remove models for skirmish gaming, and all my Warhammer armies are still individually based. One of my buddies rebased his entire Warhammer Goblin army so it's all mini-dioramas and such, but has kept is so that a couple figures in each unit could be removed for skirmish games.
Most KoW units are 5x2, 5x4, or 10x4, when dealing with 20mm bases.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ahh. There's the fanboy word tossed out. Well played sir. That definitely makes your position a stronger one. Kudos to you on that brilliant maneuver.
49823
Post by: silent25
judgedoug wrote:
I also think 8th is really a fun children's game. Don't have to worry about tactics when you can just roll a few dice that decide the whole game. The new spell and movement rules and infantry deathstars make the game easy-peasy since you don't have to use your brain.
8th edition is a turd, and you can polish it all you want and spray as much perfume on it as you please and dress it up in pretty bows... but it's still just a sad, sad lump of fecal matter. That may just be your sort of thing, though, so who am I to judge?
Sorry, have to respond to this post as it illustrates the most ignorant view of 8th that was espoused by people in the first months of release. The people who would always say the game has no tactics were unable to adapt. It isn't that there aren't any tactics anymore, it's that your old tactics don't work anymore. The tactics changed. Bait and flee units were replaced by sacrificial units. Death stars were defeated by simply fleeing. They didn't have the units to ever catch those fleeing units.
Only reason I say this is because I heard the exact same arguments from a local Lizardman player. Problem he demonstrated he would call something childish and stupid because it wasn't something he was use to dealing with. When the 7th ed LM book came out, he claimed GW had nerfed LM to the ground and had become a bottom tier book. It wasn't because the book was weak, it was because his old run and gun skink army was not longer viable. The game changed and he didn't want to adapt to the changes.
Is the edition perfect? No, far from it. But as everyone has pointed out, every edition has had problems. People are just looking at the earlier ones with rose color glasses.
As for everyone who claimed 6th was the paragon of army balance, may I remind of this little broken bundle of joy:
Are we forgetting the Von Carstein army? First turn charging slayer armies? The Sea Guard army that could open fire on one unit and delete it before the game started? There was some pretty broken stuff in there.
@Manchu, I thought WarmarHordes was the popular alternative to WHFB?
16387
Post by: Manchu
silent25 wrote:@Manchu, I thought WarmarHordes was the popular alternative to WHFB?
I dunno, WM/H doesn't feel anything like WHFB to me. Also, I think WM/H is not for people who dislike a specific edition of WHFB or 40k but for folks who want a much more competitive (not a synonym for tactical) game.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
silent25 wrote: judgedoug wrote:
I also think 8th is really a fun children's game. Don't have to worry about tactics when you can just roll a few dice that decide the whole game. The new spell and movement rules and infantry deathstars make the game easy-peasy since you don't have to use your brain.
8th edition is a turd, and you can polish it all you want and spray as much perfume on it as you please and dress it up in pretty bows... but it's still just a sad, sad lump of fecal matter. That may just be your sort of thing, though, so who am I to judge?
Sorry, have to respond to this post as it illustrates the most ignorant view of 8th that was espoused by people in the first months of release. The people who would always say the game has no tactics were unable to adapt. It isn't that there aren't any tactics anymore, it's that your old tactics don't work anymore. The tactics changed. Bait and flee units were replaced by sacrificial units. Death stars were defeated by simply fleeing. They didn't have the units to ever catch those fleeing units.
Only reason I say this is because I heard the exact same arguments from a local Lizardman player. Problem he demonstrated he would call something childish and stupid because it wasn't something he was use to dealing with. When the 7th ed LM book came out, he claimed GW had nerfed LM to the ground and had become a bottom tier book. It wasn't because the book was weak, it was because his old run and gun skink army was not longer viable. The game changed and he didn't want to adapt to the changes.
Is the edition perfect? No, far from it. But as everyone has pointed out, every edition has had problems. People are just looking at the earlier ones with rose color glasses.
As for everyone who claimed 6th was the paragon of army balance, may I remind of this little broken bundle of joy:
Are we forgetting the Von Carstein army? First turn charging slayer armies? The Sea Guard army that could open fire on one unit and delete it before the game started? There was some pretty broken stuff in there.
@Manchu, I thought WarmarHordes was the popular alternative to WHFB?
Supplements are hardly game breaking. The campaign lists were written as fluff armies, much like the old appendix lists in the back of books.
49823
Post by: silent25
Aerethan wrote:
Supplements are hardly game breaking. The campaign lists were written as fluff armies, much like the old appendix lists in the back of books.
Except these were tournament legal and didn't need your opponents permission unlike the appendix armies. These saw general play.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
silent25 wrote: Aerethan wrote:
Supplements are hardly game breaking. The campaign lists were written as fluff armies, much like the old appendix lists in the back of books.
Except these were tournament legal and didn't need your opponents permission unlike the appendix armies. These saw general play.
For all of 1 year before 7th edition came out. And supplements don't dictate friendly games, which outnumber tourneys by a great deal.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
cincydooley wrote:Ahh. There's the fanboy word tossed out. Well played sir. That definitely makes your position a stronger one. Kudos to you on that brilliant maneuver.
Well, I'm also a fanboy  I enjoy 40k 6th more than any 40k since 2nd, and I love Epic Space Marine, Mordheim, and Space Hulk. And obviously WHFB 6th. GW has made some excellent games! Automatically Appended Next Post: silent25 wrote:
Sorry, have to respond to this post as it illustrates the most ignorant view of 8th that was espoused by people in the first months of release. The people who would always say the game has no tactics were unable to adapt. It isn't that there aren't any tactics anymore, it's that your old tactics don't work anymore. The tactics changed. Bait and flee units were replaced by sacrificial units. Death stars were defeated by simply fleeing. They didn't have the units to ever catch those fleeing units.
Is the edition perfect? No, far from it. But as everyone has pointed out, every edition has had problems. People are just looking at the earlier ones with rose color glasses.
Okay, I agree with you to some extent. But I agree in that the rules absolutely did change and required a totally different set of tactics. But the game changed from a semblance of real world tactical application, to gaming the system. The system became another opponent. It's hard to explain... let me go about it a different way. 8th, moreso than any other edition, wins or loses you the game at the army list construction level. 6th, more than any other edition aside from 3rd (but I have little experience with 3rd, so that may be wrong), allowed entirely flully non-tournament armies to actually be able to compete, because you weren't also fighting the ruleset.
I played 8th and watched plenty of 8th games. In every single one, a few lucky rolls from magic spells or absurd charges (failed on two 1's or stupid lucky on two 6's) were the turning points in the game. 6th didn't have the overwhelming reliance on a few lucky rolls; there were certainly lucky rolls but they were often less meaningful than 8th.
And I certainly understand rose-colored glasses, which is why I can freely admit that 40k 6th is better than 2nd, despite starting with 2nd. (everyone has fondness for the edition they started in). I started Warhammer in 4th in the mid 90's, and man, after all these years and years of Warhammer, 6th is just by far the best. Anecdotally, I never met a single person who didn't enjoy 6th; yet I've met many people who despise 8th.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, going back and re-reading my posts, I believe I did come across as harsh and combative to cincydooley, at which point I would like to publicly apologize. I'm often the target of derision because I do like Kings of War from the Warhammer community at large, so I tend to be very defensive. Which honestly is pretty absurd, we're all just playing with toy soldiers with different rulesets. But yeah, sorry for attacking you
29630
Post by: DukeRustfield
RiTides wrote:7th ed Daemons have got to be the most unbalanced book GW has ever put out
When I first went to the Los Angeles Battle Bunker, which is the largest collection of WHFB I saw in a non-tournament (and thus, presumably not cut-throat) it was 7th edition. The most common army was Daemons. I only ever ONCE saw Ogres and it was this sad little kid.
Many of the gripes I've heard post new army book and post new BRB have been about: "my $1000 100-hour army now sucks." Or isn't as good. In every game that has ever existed people gripe about nerfs to "their" team. No matter much much that team needed it. I'm still boggled by the WoC players who can't get over the very needed Marauder nerf who got in return a fantastic book. But all they see is those hours painting, wasted.
I was just walking home from mailing an envelope and a guy drove past in his 1920s car (I'm in Los Angeles, people love their cars here). It took me a moment to cross the street and I almost choked on the exhaust fumes. It was that stupid car. Yeah, it looks cool, but it's slow, pollutes, get horrible mileage, has no amenities, and is basically worse in every way than a new model KIA while costing 50 times as much. Nostalgia is cool and all, but there's a reason we update.
42687
Post by: Coyote81
I've been playing warhammer since 5th ed consistantly. Every edition has changes, but for the msot part, they have been slight changes and normally for the good. 8th edition seemed like a revamp of the system as a whole. i honestly feel that it's very underhanded of GW to revamp as system that emphasised variety (Most people I know owned 1 of every unit at a minimum, maybe 2-3 of some troops) to a new system focused on large blocks of infantry, which few armies (skaven, orcs, and undead) ran in 7th edition. I agree with many posts. yes 8th ed still has tactics, but honestly, they are far fewer and farther between the 6/7th editions. I also find it very sad to watch games, with maybe 4-6 units per side. I love the era where each side would look like a battlefield, with 10+ units lined up in a battle like. Skirmishers and Fast Cav harassing the flanks and falling back at different points. Remember the days when artillery was inaccurate, and prone to explode? Remember when a unit of 10 archers was soemthing you had to deal with because they were a real threat? Who cares about S3 bow shots in 8th? The common archer (I real weapon in dark age warfare) has become a laughing stock. And it makes me sad.
But there are a lot of things I enjoy about 8th ed. I think 8th ed has the best magic system since 5th and it's Colleges of magic. (Just need to balance some of the spells) 8th ed did a great job centralizing the universal special rules, making things a lot easier. I really like the way they handle the charges, but the random distances take a lot away from the game for me. Failing 7" charges, and having the game won or lost on the random movement is a bit disheartening.
Would I go back to 7th if they re-released it? Possibly. Would I like them to Make a new edition taking the best things of 7th and the best of 8th and put them together? Yes!
4042
Post by: Da Boss
6th/7th had the most diversity in army builds, too.
You had mixed force low quality armies, like Empire and Orcs and Goblins.
Mixed force elite armies like Dark and High elves.
Brutal but slow close combat from Hordes of Chaos.
All skirmishing low leadership close combat from Beasts of Chaos.
Nippy, MSU shooty mobile forces with Skinks and Wood Elves.
True hordes like Goblins and Skaven, often with wacky elements.
Cavalry heavy with Brets and various cavalry themed sub lists.
Infantry and Warmachines with Dwarves.
All Monsters with Ogres.
And of course, Undead being their usual undead selves.
It was a VERY diverse edition. There's still the option for diversity, but for example the all skirmishing idea is pretty much gone these days, most armies boil down to similar archetypes (so, big blocks of whatever's cheap, hammer units and stompy monsters, monstrous cavarly or monstrous infantry). There's a few mould breakers with the likes of Ogre Kingdoms and so on, but many other builds have been rendered ineffective and armies seem to have become very samey.
That's just my perspective though. I'm sure someone can counter my argument. I was put off 8th by the over powered magic phase and the over simplistic nature of Steadfast. I prefer flanking to mean something in my big block games.
28528
Post by: Nitros14
No interest in playing that again. I like infantry to be able to do something. I like step up. I like the new magic rules. Cavalry and skirmishers are still valuable in 8th they just aren't dominating.
51489
Post by: necrovamp
I Never left 7th, 6th was my favourite, but 7th wasn't that much of a change. 8th is stupid. The game has gone from a beer and pretzels game with a decent amount of skill involved which you could have a fun evening playing to a game to 8th, which I have played a few times which is basically a game where you roll a bunch if die and then see who wins, I hate the random aspects of it, a wargame should not be that random. 8th has the feeling it's a game for little children, not a half serious wargame.
yes the army books in 7th were a off, but rather than complain and spend more money on 8th, me and me friends just tweaked the books until we were happy with a balance and stuck with that. We found that when 8th came out, the bottom dropped out the WHFB scene and it just hasn't come back.
The whole 8th edition seems to me and my friends at least to be a massive advertisement to buy more models. 'you can get more models on the table now!' said the rep, just as he removed 10 off the table due to magic wiping them out. So yes, you can put more models on the table, but you may as well take them off again. And while 7th was HeroHammer, 8th is MagicHammer x3 .
I was really anticipating 8th to sort all the issues of OP characters and armies and all the little niggly bits, but it never happened, instead I was left with a childs die rolling game with lots and lots of models
:(
The bottom dropping out of the scene may be attributed to the price rise and finecast, along with 8th itself.
52872
Post by: captain collius
People look at the pole results. Everyone I have meet in person thinks 8th is better. Also 8th is enjoyable even if it does have some rather egregious warts.
If you think this game is push models roll dice. Then you aren't playing 40k 6th edition right that is all it is.
56543
Post by: Goldshield
Started in the waning years of 5th. Played most of my days in 6th. After a year of 7th, I decided to take a sabbatical since I really wasn't finding the game as enjoyable as I once was (probably a good thing because if I had went to tournaments outside my area during the 'era of darkness' with shadestars, Daemons, and all that other nonsense then Ebay would have sounded oh so sweeter to cash out). 8th edition got me back in the game because it just felt like good ol' fun once again.
Is it flawed? Yes. I never agreed with basic cannons now doing a D6 MW. Steadfast needs tweaking. Magic needs tweaking. It would be nice if they can balance combat characters with massive units. But overall, I'm having fun.
Most of the old players from Fantasy have moved on in my area due probably more to one reason or another besides the edition changes. I tried to get it restarted again in my area with 8th. People did seem to be having fun just throwing dice everywhere, smashing units at each other just to see what happened and having an equal playing field with magic against each other. This may have also been added to the fact that a number of them were somewhat disillusioned with the 40k Grey Knights - Necrons era that was dominating the scene and just dragging others down.
You could see the light in their eyes where not half the armies on the field are Space Marines. The wonder and merriment of treading into unknown grounds where one does not know what is going to happen by breaking down everything into soulless calculations of statistics or netlisting so that everything is optimized. The fact that there was not only guys on foot, but all sorts of different types from large Ogres to destructive warmachines to a freaking monster coming down on your hapless units just felt like their was loads of variety to play with. It felt like the old days when a number of us were crowded around a dinner table at a friends house and just playing just to play, laughing when you call upon the Gods of Chaos for an extra D3 to your stats and get your head asploded instead.
However, eventhough I was happy to put my extras of OnG, Dwarves, Ogres and proxies from starter sets on the field just for people to learn and have fun, when it came down to if they would get in the game - it just wasn't easy for them to justify buying into a massive undertaking with ten-man core boxes for troops along with their own investment into 40k.
The thing that I find most sad about it is that I have to tell them "Listen, I understand this is a huge investment if you want to really play this game, but I will do whatever I can to help you out." Whether it is looking for deals on ebay/people I know, handing out extra movement trays from the many that I have acquired, buying a rulebook and leaving it at the store as a copy for everybody to use, I was doing what I could to get some form of a community going.
But alas, GW's excessive price demand wins out again. A game that craves an epic battle scene with massive armies but is apparently not met with any support in getting into the game is doomed to hobble along in my area. I don't believe 8th edition by its ruleset is destroying the game though it began weeding out the powergamers (good), it is the prices and its going to always be the prices. And since the gaming area is predominately 40k, you are in a position where you have to pick one or the other. It's just the way its going to be.
But hey, I still have some friends that still have their armies and we get together every now and then just to crowd around the dinner table. It's the only thing I have left for this game. I am glad that these books are getting balanced, churned out more, and thank the developers profusely. Maybe one day GW will put a big foot forward and begin to fit the game more accordingly to people's wallets. But in the meantime, just keep rolling on I guess.
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
90% of the people I have asked reckon 8th is worse.
Meaningless really.
29630
Post by: DukeRustfield
I just looked at the results of the same poll on the forum in your signature and it was 78% against. But on the first page, not one person had played the game and they were saying it was worse.
I was at a pub(!) today. Yeah, when your famous brits retire, they come to us. And an elderly man came in asking for a phone book. The bartender and I exchanged looks. What? Do they even still have those? He left. She told me later that he was the same guy who refused to get a new phone and said his old flip top was fine. But he's scrounging around pubs for phone books so he can look up hardware stores...
tl;dr stuff changes and some people are going to drag their feet and say it's worse no matter what. I'm sure I'll do it some day too.
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
DukeRustfield wrote:I just looked at the results of the same poll on the forum in your signature and it was 78% against. But on the first page, not one person had played the game and they were saying it was worse.
.
That is not everybody I have asked, although the club was pretty clear they thought it wasn't a great edition. Of those "not one person had played", one of them is a UK masters winner under 8th edition, so people have played the game but decided to move elsewhere.
23617
Post by: Lexx
8th is what got me into fantasy more. Before that I had no interest due to how the previous edition played. So if it went back towards 7th I would likely take a break till things change and try 40k again.
52872
Post by: captain collius
Great this is an actual poll with actual result rather than an anecdotal story. Which is actually meaningless.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
captain collius wrote:
Great this is an actual poll with actual result rather than an anecdotal story. Which is actually meaningless.
I just looked at the results of the same poll on the forum in your signature and it was 78% against.
Actual data is not meaningless though.
8th has plenty of MAJOR problems. 7th had a few, and 6th had very few MAJOR problems. Add to that, armies having their unique character builds nerfed into the ground, by taking 30-50 magic items per army down to 10. Now every army has access to crap overpriced BRB items.
52872
Post by: captain collius
Aerethan wrote: captain collius wrote:
Great this is an actual poll with actual result rather than an anecdotal story. Which is actually meaningless.
I just looked at the results of the same poll on the forum in your signature and it was 78% against.
Actual data is not meaningless though.
8th has plenty of MAJOR problems. 7th had a few, and 6th had very few MAJOR problems. Add to that, armies having their unique character builds nerfed into the ground, by taking 30-50 magic items per army down to 10. Now every army has access to crap overpriced BRB items.
Yeah
First of all 8th has problems I don't doubt this.
Also as to the magical items while I miss them they created some broken combos just look at how powerful Lizardmen, Skaven and Dark Elves are.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
My anecdotal experience mirrors the poll. Vocal detractors who rant, and twice as many that just enjoy themselves and the game. editing to add: and given the weight of the poll, it seems to be even better.
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
kirsanth wrote:My anecdotal experience mirrors the poll. Vocal detractors who rant, and twice as many that just enjoy themselves and the game.
editing to add:
and given the weight of the poll, it seems to be even better.
Unhappy players speak louder online!
I'm building up to a scenario led game of 8th soon - revenge of the doomlord from the 4th edition Undead army book.
132
Post by: bbb
As far as mechanics go, what has been everyone's favorite mechanics for Warhammer? Either ones that no longer exist or ones that are new with 8th edition or ones that have never left the game.
Part of my initial question revolved around a "living" edition of the game, so while 7th was the basis initially, I'd be curious to have people say what their favorite mechanics are regardless of what edition they're from.
Maybe by compiling a list of them we could get a better idea of what people think makes the game work best.
I was just thinking about how 5th edition was considered Herohammer, but what if you included the step-up and fight in two ranks rules? Would that alone help that edition to be more balanced?
Not that it'll ever happen, but I'm just curious what people think and what people would like to see in a "living" edition. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, based on our small sample, if we just look at the two questions:
Yes, 8th turned me off the game
No, 8th is better
While twice as many people prefer 8th to those who were turned off the game, that is still a lot of people who used to play, but do not any longer due to 8th.
51489
Post by: necrovamp
To be honest I may have gone on to play 8th if GW didn't keep putting up the prices and doing stupid things such as making core units 30 strong (ish) and then putting out boxes of 10 models for £20 (ish) The price of the rulebook was waay to much. The whole edition smelt of 1 big marketing ploy to sell more models, yes you can have 3 units of 30 models, but one or good spells and you may as well take 60 of them back off the table kind of thing.
All this was what turned us off the game, we were already growing disillusioned with the company by the end of 7th. We are happy with 7th so we voted not to carry on and stay with 7th. There are 5 of us in the group, and only 1 of us wanted to go on to 8th
25446
Post by: Tau_player001
Interesting how people call 8th "little's children" game. I left 7th at the time the LM book was released. I was already tired of the army books which made any competitive game a one sided festival if you happened to pick the wrong book (daemons was the bigges fethed up army book i had ever read/played against).
Second, while i am not a fan of steadfast in its current iteration, it serves a good purpose, which didn't exist on 7th, and it was the cavalry lists just winning depending on who got the charge. Those were the days, huh ? So much for tactical challenge. I really wonder how many people had actually tried 8th, instead of playing a few games, not getting used to the new edition being different, and just called it random.
Problems with 8th as many had pointed out :
- BRB and old books (skaven cough cough) 6th spells (i may add, no spell should give/take away 1d3 S/T stat, it's just too much)
- Not a real way to negate steadfast except if you bring more ranks. I believe this could be easilly fixed with flank charges of X amount of models/ranks being able to break steadfast.
Aside that, i actually came back after stopping on 7th, i pestered about 8th and "how random it is", to end up enjoying the game way more than i did on 7th and realizing most of the problems of the game, was just fearmongering.
74991
Post by: GooberNumber9
Total blasphemy: I love TLoS and I love pre-measuring and random charges.
There, I said it, and I feel good about it.
I played 40k for ages starting back in Rogue Trader and when TLoS came out it was a breath of fresh air and also removed a couple pages of rules from the ruleset. When 8th dropped and it had pre-measuring any time it made things so relaxed and fun (I didn't have to hold back on the tape measure until I'd decided everything) that I hoped 40k would go the same way.
In the end though, if they got rid of both of those things in 9th I would still play 9th because I don't want to try to find or build up a community of people who are playing some old edition. I love meeting new people through pickup games and I don't want to have to keep two or more rulesets in mind. So I'm always playing the latest version of whatever game I want to play.
Just one gamer's opinion.
And one other weird thing: I don't see anything like what some people are complaining about on this thread. Yeah, I see some large blocks of infantry but only in the hands of newbs whose eyes light up when they read the horde rule and think everything has to be like that. In my area, the people who say the flexibility of more units between 10 and 25 strong that can be used in combo charges is better than a few big blocks are turning out to be right. The horders are losing games to the people who master the movement phase and if you don't have diverters and something fast and something that shoots people will find the holes in your list and you're done. The only thing I expect in every list is a dispel scroll, and I feel like the different armies play VERY differently.
My biggest complaint about variety is that I never see Wood Elves, Beastmen, or Bretonnians in my area. And I can't afford to build another army just to be the guy playing Beastmen.
|
|