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.

The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players. Sure, WoC and Ogres can get in with less expensive armies at a comparable cost to 40K, but good luck if you are interested in Skaven, Orcs & Goblins, or Vampire Counts etc.

I really think the price to build an army is what is keeping new blood from taking the plunge and causing veterans to pass when their armies get redone or there is a new rule edition and they need to readjust and buy more variety.
The new Dark Elves drive this point home with the new Witch Elves box at $60 for 10 core troops. $180-$240 just to get 1 playable unit that is maybe 1/6th of your total army points is really pushing the wallet hard despite the fact they are fantastic models.

When you can start for less than $100-$150 armies in Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, Dystopian Wars etc. Its not hard to see why younger gamers and college students are not playing this game like back in the day.

Fewer new people is what hits the hobby hardest.

 D6Damager wrote:
The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players.

I can agree with this.
My lady and I basically started with 8th.

We are fine taking aeons to get armies together, but even so there are units that are just not going to really happen and some fun ideas just ignored because of cost.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Pistols count as an extra weapon in melee.

Apologies. I meant 'be able to shoot them in close combat again - S4 AP attacks' like in the old days.

 D6Damager wrote:
The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players. Sure, WoC and Ogres can get in with less expensive armies at a comparable cost to 40K, but good luck if you are interested in Skaven, Orcs & Goblins, or Vampire Counts etc.

I really think the price to build an army is what is keeping new blood from taking the plunge and causing veterans to pass when their armies get redone or there is a new rule edition and they need to readjust and buy more variety.
The new Dark Elves drive this point home with the new Witch Elves box at $60 for 10 core troops. $180-$240 just to get 1 playable unit that is maybe 1/6th of your total army points is really pushing the wallet hard despite the fact they are fantastic models.

Yep. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem like GW has gotten the picture. This was the last hurdle that kept me from getting new people into the game at my LGS while all the old guys kept fading away. It also seems that even though Fantasy and 40k are getting similar treatments in terms of shorter boxes and higher prices, it seems rather clear that Fantasy has a greater chance of sinking to the bottom faster.

I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

Definitely agree, Step Up was a huge improvement. 7th makes subpar infantry exponentially worse because they won't even get to use their crappy attack in the first place. Initiative becomes more important for smaller units vs smaller units, so Steadfast might be the real culprit if anything. Just don't get rid of Step Up, I love it even with my I5 army.

I didn't like removing the casting limit of wizards, personally. I think the devastation some magic causes in 8th could be mitigated if people were made to pay for a higher chance of rolling IF instead of being able to throw max dice at it regardless of wizard level.

I also think it makes sense to have to pay points for the privilege of throwing higher-levelled spells around; that a level 1 wizard can just as easily throw at powered up fireball at the enemy as a level 4 doesn't make much sense to me, and higher wizard levels only seems to matter now for spell selection, whereas in 7th it was also the difference between being able to cast the first few spells, and being able to cast everything from your lore.

Then again, I've not played 8th since it came out.

 Evertras wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

Definitely agree, Step Up was a huge improvement. 7th makes subpar infantry exponentially worse because they won't even get to use their crappy attack in the first place. Initiative becomes more important for smaller units vs smaller units, so Steadfast might be the real culprit if anything. Just don't get rid of Step Up, I love it even with my I5 army.

Yeah, that rule in seventh was terrible. It basically gave high ini units the advantage.

Magic is a bit silly in 8th. There should be a limit to the number of dispel dice/ power dice, like "a wizard can use up to the same number of dice as one more than his casting level. For example, a lv4 wizard may use up to 5 dice with casting or dispelling." At the moment, it's possible to have a cheap lvl1 wizard commit suicide by rolling a bunch of dice and firing off one of the unit killer spells.

I really enjoyed 7th and 6th, I feel that the army books were what broke that edition.

For 8th, it has it's good points but I don't like the game size creep, the super spells and steadfast. I think the community is pretty consistent with disliking those elements. I'd be okay if Steadfast was removed by flanking and if Irresistable Force was removed and replaced with a double 1 miscast mechanic.

Eh, steadfast is ok, imo.

It just needs a few counters, like cavalry. Because you know, disrupting ranked infantry is kind of their job.

I quite like 8th edition. A lot of people who play it seem to enjoy it.

I agree with an above poster though about the "game size creep" aspect though...but thats just GW for you lol

Honestly I prefer the larger game sizes as it really does give more of a proper armies feel instead of the old 2k/2250pts which felt more like your 'uber Lord and his 50 best drinking buddies.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eh, steadfast is ok, imo.

It just needs a few counters, like cavalry. Because you know, disrupting ranked infantry is kind of their job.

.Actually from what I read, most cavalry in all historical eras don't charge ranked disiplined troops - as they loose - now given that some cavalry in warhammer is not normal but monsters but then much infantry in warhammer is not normal either. Cavalry tends to be best against broken or badly trained soliders...........

 Mr Morden wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eh, steadfast is ok, imo.

It just needs a few counters, like cavalry. Because you know, disrupting ranked infantry is kind of their job.

.Actually from what I read, most cavalry in all historical eras don't charge ranked disiplined troops - as they loose - now given that some cavalry in warhammer is not normal but monsters but then much infantry in warhammer is not normal either. Cavalry tends to be best against broken or badly trained soliders...........

Damn, I must have been thinking of the broken variety.

Yeah, historically speaking, the role of cavalry is often oversold. In reality, cavalry have traditionally only ever been good against other cavalry, and have been good at running down broken units and turning disorganized retreats into annihilating routs.

It's the speed of the cavalry (being able to apply just that little bit more pressure at the exact right spot - highly mobile way to achieve local force superiority), rather than the hard-hitting nature of cavalry that made them worth anything on the battlefield.

I mean, I think a unit of cavalry only ever broke a musket square like once in the entire Napoleonic war, and I bet you could count on one hand the number of times that cavalry managed to break open a well-formed tercio.

Not that that has anything to do with a fantasy game per se, but thought I'd chip that in. Cavalry are "supposed" to be much more like empire outriders than bretonnian knights, at least, as far as their battlefield role has traditionally been.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, historically speaking, the role of cavalry is often oversold. In reality, cavalry have traditionally only ever been good against other cavalry, and have been good at running down broken units and turning disorganized retreats into annihilating routs.

It's the speed of the cavalry (being able to apply just that little bit more pressure at the exact right spot - highly mobile way to achieve local force superiority), rather than the hard-hitting nature of cavalry that made them worth anything on the battlefield.

I mean, I think a unit of cavalry only ever broke a musket square like once in the entire Napoleonic war, and I bet you could count on one hand the number of times that cavalry managed to break open a well-formed tercio.

Not that that has anything to do with a fantasy game per se, but thought I'd chip that in. Cavalry are "supposed" to be much more like empire outriders than bretonnian knights, at least, as far as their battlefield role has traditionally been.

Ok then, what would have been the line breakers?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Evertras wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

Definitely agree, Step Up was a huge improvement. 7th makes subpar infantry exponentially worse because they won't even get to use their crappy attack in the first place. Initiative becomes more important for smaller units vs smaller units, so Steadfast might be the real culprit if anything. Just don't get rid of Step Up, I love it even with my I5 army.

Yeah, that rule in seventh was terrible. It basically gave high ini units the advantage.

If your low ini unit got the charge they got to go first. Subsequent rounds played out the way they do now though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Magic is a bit silly in 8th. There should be a limit to the number of dispel dice/ power dice, like "a wizard can use up to the same number of dice as one more than his casting level. For example, a lv4 wizard may use up to 5 dice with casting or dispelling." At the moment, it's possible to have a cheap lvl1 wizard commit suicide by rolling a bunch of dice and firing off one of the unit killer spells.

I thought it was really strange they removed that from the game. The "your level +1" dice limit you describe was exactly how it worked in 7th. Though no specific wizard did the dispelling back then.

I thought it was really strange they removed that from the game. The "your level +1" dice limit you describe was exactly how it worked in 7th. Though no specific wizard did the dispelling back then.

With the exception of Dark Elves..Which reminded me why I hated magic in general in 7th, along with Vampire Counts which were very popular armies.

Magic really needs a stabilizer in 9th to say the least. Something where an army can't break it.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Ok then, what would have been the line breakers?

Ever since gustavus adolphus - cannons. You brutalized a part of the line and then casually walked some infantry or cavalry into the pulpified weak spot you created. Before then, it was still shooting, except it was archers. I mean, look at the battle of Hastings. That was an entire day of cavalry pointlessly charging into a shield wall and getting knocked back every time. Meanwhile, over that same period of time, the norman archers were slowly grinding down the saxon wall, eventually perforating the front line and killing the king and a bunch of generals. Once the saxons, leaderless and low in numbers thanks to shooting attacks were stressed to the point of breaking, only then did the knights start to be able to break through.

Once again, we're talking about a fantasy game, not real warfare, but if you wanted to make the former look like the latter, then the best strategy would be for archers to seriously weaken a unit and then have knights crash into them, and while the knights are attacking the first unit, then the archers shift fire to weaken up the next unit for the knights to charge after they're done with the first one.

I don't know how steadfast works (still haven't really read the rules), but I'm under the impression that it works worse once huge units start taking a bunch of casualties. Maybe the problem here isn't that knights are too weak against hordes, but that knight players are pointlessly rushing knights into huge blocks of unhurt infantry (something they shouldn't win anyways), rather than taking precautions and weakening their targets first.

I mean, bretonnians get knights, but they also get archers too...

Steadfast basically works like this. If you have more Ranks than the enemy your unit is Stubborn. So you don't take that Ld modifier to your Ld test for losing combat.

And because combat in fantasy tends to be won or lost by large amounts the difference between Steadfast and not having it can often be the difference between a Ld9 test or hoping for snake eyes. Especially since you will almost always be in range for the General's Ld and a reroll from the BSB.


And unfortunately, BS based shooting is really lame in fantasy because of all the modifiers it suffers. Over half range, soft cover, hard cover, stand and shoot, multiple shots, etc...

Even a BS4 model will often be needing 5s and 6s in the best case scenario. And there isn't enough volume of fire to make up for it either, and range is too short as well.

The only shooting that is viable is anything that doesn't use BS(like cannons) or is able to ignore some of the modifiers.

 Ailaros wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Ok then, what would have been the line breakers?

Ever since gustavus adolphus - cannons. You brutalized a part of the line and then casually walked some infantry or cavalry into the pulpified weak spot you created. Before then, it was still shooting, except it was archers. I mean, look at the battle of Hastings. That was an entire day of cavalry pointlessly charging into a shield wall and getting knocked back every time. Meanwhile, over that same period of time, the norman archers were slowly grinding down the saxon wall, eventually perforating the front line and killing the king and a bunch of generals. Once the saxons, leaderless and low in numbers thanks to shooting attacks were stressed to the point of breaking, only then did the knights start to be able to break through.

Once again, we're talking about a fantasy game, not real warfare, but if you wanted to make the former look like the latter, then the best strategy would be for archers to seriously weaken a unit and then have knights crash into them, and while the knights are attacking the first unit, then the archers shift fire to weaken up the next unit for the knights to charge after they're done with the first one.

I don't know how steadfast works (still haven't really read the rules), but I'm under the impression that it works worse once huge units start taking a bunch of casualties. Maybe the problem here isn't that knights are too weak against hordes, but that knight players are pointlessly rushing knights into huge blocks of unhurt infantry (something they shouldn't win anyways), rather than taking precautions and weakening their targets first.

I mean, bretonnians get knights, but they also get archers too...

Steadfast basically means that a unit in CC becomes stubborn if it has more ranks than the enemy.

This makes hoards very, very hard to remove, because they will usually be accompagned by a high ld character or a general nearby, and possibly a BsB to boot. Shooting won't remove enough of them fast enough, and not everyone has access to pie plates.

Ever since gustavus adolphus - cannons. You brutalized a part of the line and then casually walked some infantry or cavalry into the pulpified weak spot you created. Before then, it was still shooting, except it was archers. I mean, look at the battle of Hastings. That was an entire day of cavalry pointlessly charging into a shield wall and getting knocked back every time. Meanwhile, over that same period of time, the norman archers were slowly grinding down the saxon wall, eventually perforating the front line and killing the king and a bunch of generals. Once the saxons, leaderless and low in numbers thanks to shooting attacks were stressed to the point of breaking, only then did the knights start to be able to break through.

Once again, we're talking about a fantasy game, not real warfare, but if you wanted to make the former look like the latter, then the best strategy would be for archers to seriously weaken a unit and then have knights crash into them, and while the knights are attacking the first unit, then the archers shift fire to weaken up the next unit for the knights to charge after they're done with the first one.

I don't know how steadfast works (still haven't really read the rules), but I'm under the impression that it works worse once huge units start taking a bunch of casualties. Maybe the problem here isn't that knights are too weak against hordes, but that knight players are pointlessly rushing knights into huge blocks of unhurt infantry (something they shouldn't win anyways), rather than taking precautions and weakening their targets first.

I mean, bretonnians get knights, but they also get archers too...

Indeed and if you did not have decent missile support - your inftantry needed to be better than his infantry - for instance Roman infantry had no real fear of Cavalry whilst it was in good order - even Pathian Cataphrats needed to have the Roman infantry worn down by the archery first.

Off hand I can't think of any battles where Cavalry destroyed properely formed infantry on its own? Then again something like Cold One Cavalry tearing into a formed unit of say swordsmen would be something else..................

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I thought it was really strange they removed that from the game. The "your level +1" dice limit you describe was exactly how it worked in 7th. Though no specific wizard did the dispelling back then.

With the exception of Dark Elves..Which reminded me why I hated magic in general in 7th, along with Vampire Counts which were very popular armies.

Magic really needs a stabilizer in 9th to say the least. Something where an army can't break it.

Yeah several books really broke the core rules of the game. We stopped playing before those books came out though. This led to me being really confused by all the anti-7th sentiments when I first started posting here.

Ugh, 7th ed Vampires were the worse. Too much spam >.<

And skaven with their super powerful never failing guns.

Okay. I'm certainly well-versed with what the difference between stubborn/fearless vs. not in 40k. That said, stubborn doesn't stop the units from dying it just stops them from breaking (most of the time). Also, if the BSB or general is so big of a deal, then why can't people handle those units first? I mean, when I play guard people certainly shoot at my commissars and standard bearers first.

Plus, there's also a bit of a balance thing here as well, regardless of historical accuracy. In this case, you'd be wanting to have a rock-paper-scissors game where cannons (and archers, etc.) beat infantry, infantry beats cavalry, and cavalry beats cannons. If you take cavalry, who have the speed and maneuverability to get into a gunline and mess it up, AND the killing power to just run over large blocks of infantry, then the game would pretty quickly devolve into merely who had the best knights.

It can be tough to snipe out the General and BSB however. The general is probably a big nasty melee powerhouse or is insanely durable(or both) and the BSB won't be lacking protection either.

Characters get a LoS roll against artillery so it is hard to snipe them out first.

Not everyone has the ability to snipe out characters effectively either.

There's like 4 armies that can take cannons.

The only thing most people would have access to would be Death magic snipe spells, and those are variable in their effectiveness because its based on Ld. And Wizards tend to have lower Ld than the combat characters they are trying to fry.

 D6Damager wrote:
The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players. Sure, WoC and Ogres can get in with less expensive armies at a comparable cost to 40K, but good luck if you are interested in Skaven, Orcs & Goblins, or Vampire Counts etc.

I really think the price to build an army is what is keeping new blood from taking the plunge and causing veterans to pass when their armies get redone or there is a new rule edition and they need to readjust and buy more variety.
The new Dark Elves drive this point home with the new Witch Elves box at $60 for 10 core troops. $180-$240 just to get 1 playable unit that is maybe 1/6th of your total army points is really pushing the wallet hard despite the fact they are fantastic models.

When you can start for less than $100-$150 armies in Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, Dystopian Wars etc. Its not hard to see why younger gamers and college students are not playing this game like back in the day.

Fewer new people is what hits the hobby hardest.

I always disagree with this. the idea that the start up cost is too high.
Just play lower points to start with.
Most bttallion boxes will get you about 500pts. there are many ways to start at that same $150 price range
You as the player set the rules and how you play. Find someone interested and start small, the plastic crack will do the rest.
there is a thread around here that shows average cost for most armies and 2000pts runs about $300-$400US. You just have to invest if you want the fanciest of toys, but that applies to everything.
The other games...well no accounting for taste, but they aren't that much cheaper if at all.

The people that complained about it.