Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was interested in fantasy for a while, but then I heard about steadfast and quickly lost interest.

It's a shame too, since the previous edition seemed to have so much tactical potential. Not it just looks like a game of who can jam the biggest block of infantry up their opponent's backside.

You could always see if people are willing to use the older editions

I have the original 1st edition book and a copy of Warhammer Armies around here somewhere..

I get nostalgic thinking of all the army lists in one hardcover book... I miss my old Fimir and Norscan armies :(

i;d look at Kings of war or the forthcoming Warpath by Mantic games.

The games are designed so its not about uber units or army list combo's, but tactics made and decided in the heat of the game.

Phototoxin wrote:

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

QFT. That sums it up perfectly.
I'm greatly down sizing my WHFB armies due to the 8th ed. rules. I'll likley finish my current skaven and that will be it for GW for me.

Yes, it sums it up perfectly if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Fafnir wrote:
It's a shame too, since the previous edition seemed to have so much tactical potential. Not it just looks like a game of who can jam the biggest block of infantry up their opponent's backside.

The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

The magic phase was pretty much the same - predictable, and without risk if you did the maths.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
It's a shame too, since the previous edition seemed to have so much tactical potential. Not it just looks like a game of who can jam the biggest block of infantry up their opponent's backside.

The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

Dont forget that Fear really hurt. Oh the joys of rummaging through forum posts only to see Vampire/Daemons lists!

I admit, 7th wasnt my favorite either. It is almost the exact opposite of 8th in terms of "what wins"

DarkStarSabre wrote:
The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

Really? And you couldn't think of anything to prevent them from getting the charge? Like positioning a fast cavalry unit in front of your infantry or a skirmishing screen?

Or positioning so that those units only took a small part of your army and then had to spend the rest of the game to get back to the fight?

But that would have required actual thought and the use of tactics from most players, you're right the current flavour of "monster infantry units charge forward and roll lots of dice" is alot better...

marielle wrote:The magic phase was pretty much the same - predictable, and without risk if you did the maths.

The magic phase was a support to the game, the game required you to think, not just roll dice and auto-win if you get a particular spell through...

kenshin620 wrote:
Dont forget that Fear really hurt. Oh the joys of rummaging through forum posts only to see Vampire/Daemons lists!

I admit, 7th wasnt my favorite either. It is almost the exact opposite of 8th in terms of "what wins"

Fear only hurt if you where outnumbered and / or lost combat. Vampire Counts only became so dominant because of the piece of ubercrap that was the Daemon Army Book (adn everybody knows who we can blame at GW for that).

Daemons broke 7th edition, I actually prefered 6th to 7th but you can't say that 7th was a bad ruleset just because GW decided to release a completely unbalanced army for it.

Even with all its faults, it was miles better compared to the cesspool that is 8th edition WHFB.

The magic phase was a support to the game, the game required you to think, not just roll dice and auto-win if you get a particular spell through...

No it didn't. There is far more thinking in the current magic system. Do you risk the miscast? Do you risk rolling one die and risk losing the magic phase? etc And most importantly in 8th, because of the winds of magic mechanic, you have to think which spell will be of most use at that point in the game.

7th was far more of an autowin in the magic phase than 8th - it was what underpinned the tier system. To claim otherwise is to ignore the 'thinking' of those people who complain 8th is too random.

marielle wrote:

The magic phase was a support to the game, the game required you to think, not just roll dice and auto-win if you get a particular spell through...

No it didn't. There is far more thinking in the current magic system. Do you risk the miscast? Do you risk rolling one die and risk losing the magic phase? etc And most importantly in 8th, because of the winds of magic mechanic, you have to think which spell will be of most use at that point in the game.

7th was far more of an autowin in the magic phase than 8th - it was what underpinned the tier system. To claim otherwise is to ignore the 'thinking' of those people who complain 8th is too random.

I'm not talking about autowin in the magic phase, I'm talking about the magic phase making you win the game despite of everything else.

If I wanted to play a game about wich wizard is the strongest, I would stick to playing MtG (wich, funny fact, at least when I used to play it, also took alot more thinking than 8th edition WHFB)...

cricketofdeth wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

QFT. That sums it up perfectly.

That's my experience as well. About 20 games of direct experience with multiple armies and sanctioned tourneys as well. QFT+2

One of the biggest ironies is Warmahordes players often say the game is 'chess like', when it really isn't. I play chess, outside of the king dying and sole warcaster dying, ending the game (sometimes) it's not chess like at all:

In Chess players take turns moving a single piece, not an entire side
There don't ever seem to be ties in Warmachine
There's no concept of checkmate, or check
Chess pieces don't magnify each other
Chess pieces do not change abilities with combinations
Chess pieces never 'miss'
Chess pieces never 'shoot'
Chess pieces never 'save'
Battlefields aren't consistent and symmetric
Sides aren't mirrored

Warmahordes players think it sounds sophisticated to say it's very chess like, but it never really is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:If I wanted to play a game about wich wizard is the strongest, I would stick to playing MtG (wich, funny fact, at least when I used to play it, also took alot more thinking than 8th edition WHFB)...

Ouch is it really that bad...?

I'm not talking about autowin in the magic phase, I'm talking about the magic phase making you win the game despite of everything else.

If I wanted to play a game about wich wizard is the strongest, I would stick to playing MtG (wich, funny fact, at least when I used to play it, also took alot more thinking than 8th edition WHFB)...

I have no idea what MtG is.

As for your views on the magic phase, they don't make sense... but hey ho!

I stopped because of the increased randomness makes it less fun. Random magic dice. First turn matters a ton. Even if you get first bummer, I rolled double 1s for magic dice. Opponent rolls high for magic dice and gets off the win button spell I lose. Random charge distances make it less strategic. The rolling terrible and failing a charge you would have made in 7th is really annoying.

8th fantasy is an ok casual game to play with some friends where you might not take the uber spells and if you lose cause of something dumb you can always do a rematch but I don't like it as a tourney game at all.

I been concentrating more on 40k and its summer atm so I haven't had the time to play fantasy. I also have limited people to play Fantasy with in my area.

Kirika wrote:I stopped because of the increased randomness ...8th fantasy is an ok casual game to play with some friends where you might not take the uber spells and if you lose cause of something dumb you can always do a rematch but I don't like it as a tourney game at all.

Wow I hadn't heard it was that dependent on magic foolery, thanks for the insights.

Every game I read about or the one I played seems to hinge on "CAN THEY GET THE BIG SPELL OFF!?!" which is to me a pretty gakky point of tension.

Augustus wrote:One of the biggest ironies is Warmahordes players often say the game is 'chess like', when it really isn't. I play chess, outside of the king dying and sole warcaster dying, ending the game (sometimes) it's not chess like at all.

It's not so much the king dying ending the game, as having to think several moves ahead and keeping track of potential threat vectors to your "king", while trying to open such a vector to theirs. And, of course, in scenarios, the caster kill is not so important.

In any case, the claim that it's all about pulling off one uber combo or the charge of power creep is still moronic to the extreme. The ultra mega mega combos only work against amateurs (like the Fool's mate), and again, it's hard to claim the game has power creep when some of the most powerful casters and units are among the first models ever released for the game, and the single MkII expansion didn't do anything to upset the power balance (even with the introduction of the battle engines). You don't have to like the game, but at least critique it for the right reasons, such as the sometimes mind-boggling internal balance decisions or stupid tournament scenarios.

What I mean by larger investment means that I'd need to get a rulebook, 2 factions and people to play. It's more of a gamble, and the investment is such that the minis cannot be used in GW games.

Whereas wiht GW games if I buy some space marines the bitz will be useful for many armies..

I've always found fantasy to be boring, despite the fact that most local players tell me "it's a more tactical game than 40k". In 40k, a lot more stuff happens. Heck, the game is set up to be over-the-top. You will run into annoying WAAC gamers in tourneys, but if you're a more casual player you can find plenty of wonderful people to do battle with.

I have been playing both WHFB and 40K for a long time. I like the new steadfast rules. It means one giant bad ass unit/creature/hero/lord cannot charge your giant block of troops and route them that easily. Back in 4th edition you could cook up some nasty characters, and I did. At first we hated the terrain rules, but now we like them. When you start to play multiple games and scenarios the terrain rules can play a big part. Deployment is also affected by them. It also can make a not so good army (like wood elves) use terrain to their advantage and make a big difference.

I agree Magic needs to be revamped, and some armies are highly broken. The largest tactical decision you can make is movement in WHFB. Since you get a free wheel to charge and once you hit the base you can close the gap. It has it's flaws like every GW game out there, but at least it is not see who goes first LOL Win like 40K is sometimes.

I have had 40K games where I got second turn and all my trukks were destroyed first turn, then my boyz had to march on foot, which allowed the other guy to just unload on them. Since they have no armor they pretty much just die out right.

Cutlass for my Pirate fix.

Star Mogual for Sci-Fi

RAFM's USX line for Modern Horror.

Dr Who Miniatures for.... DR WHO.

There are a few Pulp games for Pulp. ( Rattrap, Pulp figures, etc.)

Golgo Island and a number of others for some campy stuff.

Pulp City, and Superfigs for my Superhero gaming.

Blackwater Gultch, and some other cowboys and indians games for that wild west thing.

And pretty much anything else I want to get into without being tied down.

Warmahordes is OK. These are better.

Cutlass for my Pirate fix.

Star Mogual for Sci-Fi

RAFM's USX line for Modern Horror.

Dr Who Miniatures for.... DR WHO.

There are a few Pulp games for Pulp. ( Rattrap, Pulp figures, etc.)

Golgo Island and a number of others for some campy stuff.

Pulp City, and Superfigs for my Superhero gaming.

Blackwater Gultch, and some other cowboys and indians games for that wild west thing.

And pretty much anything else I want to get into without being tied down.

Warmahordes is OK. These are better.

Which is a long winded way of saying that you have no opinion...

Or rather that his taste is eclectic, and a roundabout way of saying that the OP's problem would not be so painful if he played multiple games, and thus having one change its rules would not be such a severe impact on his overall gaming enjoyment.

I like 8th, but I agree that it needs the players to agree to some houserules to tone down the madness in the magic phase and make support units like skirmishers and cavalry matter again. Kind of like 5th edition, which utterly sucked unless you added "tournament" restrictions. 6th and 7th were a golden age until Mat Ward's f'ing Daemons book. WHFB had been my favorite game since the day 6th edition was released, and now it's 40k. 40k 5th edition is pretty excellent. There are some army imbalances/mismatches, but overall the 5th ed ruleset and scenarios really work.

I enjoyed my flirtation with Warmachine a few years back, and have quite a bit of painted Cryx, but I didn't like it as much; in the sense of scale and "feel" as much as rules. And so to me it wasn't worth the time and effort investment to get really good at it.

Much respect to the folks who play other stuff. For me, the scale and feel of a several-unit "army" and the speed of play for WH & 40k have made them better than other games. Flames of War also looks quite good, but the setting and models don't appeal as much. Malifaux has excellent models but has the small-skirmish feel of WM/Hordes, and another rather complex ruleset to master.

Phototoxin wrote:What I mean by larger investment means that I'd need to get a rulebook, 2 factions and people to play. It's more of a gamble, and the investment is such that the minis cannot be used in GW games.

Whereas wiht GW games if I buy some space marines the bitz will be useful for many armies..

Soooooo the mini's and rulebook can't be used in GW games so they're worth less to you.... and that you didn't need to get people or a rulebook for GW games....

Omegus wrote:
In any case, the claim that it's all about pulling off one uber combo or the charge of power creep is still moronic to the extreme.

Yup. The Podhammer lads are trying it out, and after their first few tourneys and some games, they swiftly dismissed that idea in their last podcast. So now they are at list building+movement+terrain+combos=experience is what counts, with more +es likely to show up as they get more games under their belt.

Crom wrote:I have been playing both WHFB and 40K for a long time. I like the new steadfast rules. It means one giant bad ass unit/creature/hero/lord cannot charge your giant block of troops and route them that easily. Back in 4th edition you could cook up some nasty characters, and I did. At first we hated the terrain rules, but now we like them. When you start to play multiple games and scenarios the terrain rules can play a big part. Deployment is also affected by them. It also can make a not so good army (like wood elves) use terrain to their advantage and make a big difference.

You are saying that you like Steadfast because it means that an ubber lord from 4th edition Herohammer can't kill your units? Really? That is you whole argument in favour of steadfast?

And you could always use terrain in your favour, as a matter of fact, terrain has a lot less impact in the game now than it did in previous editions, especially for Wood Elves. I would in fact argue that the impact that terrain has in the game currently is preacticaly 0 (zero).

Crom wrote:
I agree Magic needs to be revamped, and some armies are highly broken. The largest tactical decision you can make is movement in WHFB. Since you get a free wheel to charge and once you hit the base you can close the gap. It has it's flaws like every GW game out there, but at least it is not see who goes first LOL Win like 40K is sometimes.

I have had 40K games where I got second turn and all my trukks were destroyed first turn, then my boyz had to march on foot, which allowed the other guy to just unload on them. Since they have no armor they pretty much just die out right.

The largest tactical devision you can make in WHFB is movement? Really? When your charge distance is defined by a dice roll? When charging isn't nearly as important as it was before? When harassment models don't have nearly the same effect in the game that they used to have?

Also, if all your trucks get destroyed in the first turn on a game of 40k, then you are a lousy 40k player and I would advise you to read some of Dashs BRs so that you could pick up some tips on how to prevent such an ocurrence.

There was a time when WHFB was a real tactical game, where movement and placement where the things that won you games. When varied army lists with things like skirmishers and fast cavalry matered. In those days 40k was considered the "kid game" and WHFB was for more mature players. Now those roles are reversed, I just hope that 6th edition 40k doesn't make to that game what 8th edition did to Fantasy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

marielle wrote:
I have no idea what MtG is.

As for your views on the magic phase, they don't make sense... but hey ho!

This forum has a handy feature, if you hover your mouse over some acronym chances are that there will be a tooltip to explain what that acronym is. In this case MtG translates neatly into Magic: the Gathering. If you don't actually know what Magic The Gathering is then I would politely like to ask you how old you are?

As for my views of the magic phase not making sense, then how come, acording to this thread at least, even suporters of 8th edition say that the magic phase is over the top and needs to be toned down because it makes the game less fun?

Soooooo the mini's and rulebook can't be used in GW games so they're worth less to you.... and that you didn't need to get people or a rulebook for GW games....

You're missing the point, it's easy to go into almost any game club nation-wide and find a game of 40k or fantasy. If people at his local club don't play malifaux it could take quite a lot of effort and time above and beyond the basic cost of the minis to learn the rules well enough to teach and get stuff painted to demo it out to get others interested. All for a game he does't know if he'll like yet. That said, Malifaux is pretty darn good.

Warmachine is fantastic, however. Most people in my area play way too big, 75 point+ games, while i feel it plays best at 35 which will run you about $100 to $150 or so, depending on army. While steampunk really isn't my thing (it's not high fantasy enough to satisfy that or hi-tech enough for my sci-fi desires), but there's no denying the game itself is extremely solid. It does suffer from new edition-itis where the stuff that sucked before is awesome and the stuff that rocked in 1st edition isn't so hot or is too expensive (or both), but thats more an issue for long-time players than new ones and there are definately solid choices for every army and all the factions are fairly well balanced against each other. Playing scenarios helps a lot too as it makes balances caster-kill with scenario objectives, and games rarely use victory points except as a tie-breaker.

Best of all, careful movement and planning really REALLY matters, every bit as much and more than it ever did with WFB except you have 10 man units instead of 30 man blocks. Magic is important, but the manner in which it operates makes it integral but balanced against what else is in your list and how the current game is playing out, since you forgo using your 'magic dice" (focus) to boost your robots' and warcaster's physical attacks, and deciding to cast a spell or enhance a warjack or make the warcaster a powerhouse of his own is some of the best times you'll have in wargaming, period.

Warmachine is fantastic, however. Most people in my area play way too big, 75 point+ games, while i feel it plays best at 35 which will run you about $100 to $150 or so, depending on army.

This comment can be used concerning 40K and WHFB. The main difference in my area is that the game mechanics and policy for GW is to promote LARGE scale games than to promote small scale games.

One of the biggest reasons IMHO for the loss of the GW customer base. Smaller games means smaller cost to get into the game.

GW even forgot how to sell their plastic dope to there customers correctly, which is why those who enjoy their plastic drug addiction are going to other companies so they can get their fix at a reasonable cost.

And yes it is a joke, sort of

I find most games are more tactical at smaller scale where you can't just buy everything you want and throw dice at whatever you want to die until it does, then throw dice at the next thing till it dies. Smaller points limits the crazier combos and makes you use what you have more effectively, makes you really think about what's necessary. You don't just casually throw your units around as much becuase small losses hurt. Apocalypse 40k is absolutely the worst game for me, the absolute antithesis of everything I find enjoyable in a game.