Warhammer fantasy-what went wrong?

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.

**Fenrir Kitsune**

Harriticus wrote:
It's just a price issue, something GW never understands.

The world and factions are fine, the rules and gameplay is better than 40k.

If this were true, the game wouldn't have tanked hard. 8th is a bad edition, point blank.

As far as cost, I had 8 playable armies at one point, didn't really enjoy playing 8th that much so sold 6 of them. Now, I rarely play WFB becuase it's just not very good, so cost wasn't an issue. Other, more enjoyable, games were.

**Lanrak**

Back when I enjoyed playing Warhammer.
Each race/faction had a clear identity and play style.The rules were mainly historical with a cool fantasy veneer over the top.
(Ancients with some magic and mythical creatures to spice it up.)
So you could strongly identify with YOUR army.

Now is just weird and wacky nonsense that sounds cool,(to sell toy soldiers to kiddies,).But is vapid and chore to actually to play.

Most folks I know wanting massed fantasy battle game play K.o.W or A.o.A.(With their GW WHFB armies.)

What went wrong? GW plc stopped caring about game play , and focused on wallet raping the easiest to please*.
(*Collectors who just buy stuff because GW sell it.)

**Deadnight**

Lanrak wrote:
Back when I enjoyed playing Warhammer.
Each race/faction had a clear identity and play style.The rules were mainly historical with a cool fantasy veneer over the top.
(Ancients with some magic and mythical creatures to spice it up.)
So you could strongly identify with YOUR army.

Now is just weird and wacky nonsense that sounds cool,(to sell toy soldiers to kiddies,).But is vapid and chore to actually to play.

Most folks I know wanting massed fantasy battle game play K.o.W or A.o.A.(With their GW WHFB armies.)

Question: regarding identifying with your army; could it just be the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia speaking? You were probably a lot younger who you started playing I think. I'm sure there were folks back then saying exactly the same thing you are saying now (the game has devolved, now it's all about weird and wacky nonsense, selling toy soldiers to kids etc). Case in point: many 40k veterans said these exact same things when third ed. dropped. Those people who started with third (or rather, the few that remain...) are saying the same things now with the newer editions. I Doubt wfb is much different.

Who you are and what you want in a game changes as you get older. Could a lot of what we're seeing and commenting on in terms of a game's 'soul' (for want of a better word...) simply be related to this? in a nutshell, the game is, and always has been about weird and wacky nonsense, selling toys to kids etc), it's only with the benefit of a bit of age that we start to see things for what they are...

**Lanrak**

@Deadnight.
I am sure there is some nostalgia in there.

However, back in 3rd-4th ed WHFB, there was fewer better defined armies.And as these armies were more 'themed about a particular play style.'

And they tended to be stronger historical references to their play style.(I can remember talking to GW game devs back then, and how they saw the armies in terms of historical frameworks ,on which they hung the fantasy coolness on.(Holy Roman Empire, Huns and Vandals, Vikings and Norse,etc. )

Oh I totally agree gamers requirements change as they grow older/wiser.

Young people are great at soaking up data like a sponge.So games like top trumps where remembering all the data profiles off 100s of cards appeals to them.
They get better by remembering lots of data.

Older people generally want to make meaningful decisions in the games they play.So they play games like chess.They get better by working out how to make better in game decisions.

WHFB and 40k have always had heavy strategic loading , to appeal to younger gamers.

However, many meaningful in game tactical decisions have been replaced by 'randomness'.

As a war games rule set WHFB and 40k, are very poor.In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive play.

They are all style and very little substance.

**AllSeeingSkink**

I tend to think WHFB was going fine up until 8th. It might not have been as popular as 40k, but it didn't NEED to be as popular as 40k, it just needed to make more money than it cost to maintain and I reckon it probably did that fine.

8th edition buggered things up too much. It encourages stupidly large armies which puts off new players and many of the changes annoyed older players, so it lost out on both fronts.

The numbers point to WHFB actually being quite popular in Europe (according to figures given in another thread, apparently the USA is half the global sales of 40k, or was back in the CHS lawsuit numbers I think, but USA in itself is only 30% of the global market, so the most logical way to fill that gap is to assume WHFB is actually quite popular in Europe).

But overall I think 8th is to blame.

**Formosa**

Lanrak wrote:
@Deadnight.
I am sure there is some nostalgia in there.
However, back in 3rd-4th ed WHFB, there was fewer better defined armies.And as these armies were more 'themed about a particular play style.'

And they tended to be stronger historical references to their play style.(I can remember talking to GW game devs back then, and how they saw the armies in terms of historical frameworks ,on which they hung the fantasy coolness on.(Holy Roman Empire, Huns and Vandals, Vikings and Norse,etc. )

Oh I totally agree gamers requirements change as they grow older/wiser.

Young people are great at soaking up data like a sponge.So games like top trumps where remembering all the data profiles off 100s of cards appeals to them.
They get better by remembering lots of data.

Older people generally want to make meaningful decisions in the games they play.So they play games like chess.They get better by working out how to make better in game decisions.

WHFB and 40k have always had heavy strategic loading , to appeal to younger gamers.

However, many meaningful in game tactical decisions have been replaced by 'randomness'.

As a war games rule set WHFB and 40k, are very poor.In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive play.

They are all style and very little substance.

You can still see some of these real world historical elements, I used to be awful at this game and a very helpful person pointed out to me I should try to look at my army and it's real world analogues, so back in 6th I based my dwarfs on Romans, fairly good armour and elite troops backed up by auxiliary units (back when dwarf handguns could move and fire) and it worked wonders and I got a lot better at the game by using this mindset.

These days... They just don't work that way, it's all gunline dwarfs to be competitive and my combat dwarfs are not able to March up the field and compete, sad.

**Chad Warden**

Its funny people saying there are too many monsters

When in actual fact most monsters aren't seen as competitive thanks to overpowered cannons

A poor business choice to constantly make big monster kits and have them invalidated by S10 D6 wound cannons with laser accuracy

Funny that monsters are far more durable in 40K, you would think it would be the opposite way around. A 40K Greater Daemon can survive several hits of high tech weaponry, yet in WFB he can be squished by one primitive cannonball.

**Flashman**

Chad Warden wrote:
Funny that monsters are far more durable in 40K, you would think it would be the opposite way around. A 40K Greater Daemon can survive several hits of high tech weaponry, yet in WFB he can be squished by one primitive cannonball.

To be fair, being hit by a "primitive" cannonball would give most people (and monsters) a bit of a headache. But you're right in that cannon fire is no where as accurate as the rules make it out to be.

**kestral**

Haven't bought anything for fantasy since 8th. Unflankable blocks did it. No army I was interested in building and painting could deal with them, so done. At one time I considered fantasy rules far superior to 40K, but still played mostly 40K because the modeling side (counts, conversions, terrain) was more fun. Nowadays I'm struggling to motivate it play 40K, let alone fantasy. Book price is a major issue - I'll play for models because they will entrain me while I work on them even if I don't play. But I had codexes/armybooks I played only once or twice before a new edition appeared, and when the price of the books doubled (or in the case of 40K with data sheets figured in, tripled), and my income didn't, that was pretty much it. I wonder if GW is assuming anyone who can't justify the cost of their books is just downloading them from the internet. If so, they miscalculated in my case and lost a lot of my business.

**BeAfraid**

What?

**Wolflord Patrick**

To the original post here is my .02 -

Warhammer Fantasy suffers, because GW is GW. Meaning their biggest concern as a business is self preservation. Maintaining their IP while trying to please shareholders and make a profit. In a nut shell, these are the few issues I see them having that's had a tremendous effect on their games.

#1. Prices.... GW's prices have continued to go up causing their customer base to find alternative solutions. In 40k, there isn't much in the way of competition so gamers either pay GW's prices, or go to the black market and buy used items (eBay) or knock-offs (China). Fantasy on the other hand is a different animal. GW can't claim IP on a Dwarf or an Elf, so in addition to the alternate methods of eBay and China GW also has to compete with companies like Mantic and Avatars of War who make perfect substitue miniatures. If you compare the number of models needed to play WFB compared to other systems, getting the most bang for your buck is important when GW wants to charge you $40-$50 for 10 plastic models.

#2. Rules.... Usually it all comes down to costs and the changes in the rules are of no exception. The initial costs to play any GW game are expensive. When you consider $80 for a rulebook, $50 for an army book or codex, and another $500+ in models, paint, and accessories to build your army it adds up fast. The thing is once you've built your army, you're pretty much set and as long as you can find opponents to play, you can pretty much enjoy it forever. This is where GW scratches their head and trys to find a way to sell you more that you really don't need. Their solution is to turnover game editions. Now, if you go back a ways new editions were somewhat refreshing and welcoming to fix rules that were broken and improve upon the game. Today, GW pumps out new editions with the sole purpose of capturing sales to a market that otherwise wouldn't spend another dime. There's no intent to "Improve" on the game, only to pump in enough changes that force you to buy the new rules. The only motivation a player has to buy the new rules is because he/she believes that without migrating to them that they either won't find a game or won't be able to use a shiny new model. IMO- Most of the newer rules I see are over-bloated and so cumbersome to try and remember that they've began sacraficing the enjoyment of why you bothered to play in the first place.

#3 Balance and Competitive Play... Up until about 4-5 years ago, GW drove the tournament bus. They sponsored independent tournaments and they ran their own Grand Tournaments. While some complained about the type of gamers that competitive play created, the truth is that competition is healthy. Competition generates buzz, it generates markes sales, and competition establishes a meta level. When GW abandoned the bus they were driving and began publishing rules that offered very little in terms of balance, those that were riding on the bus lost interest and jumped off in the middle of nowhere.

In all fairness, I've drifted away from the hobby (Especially on the 40k side) for the last 2 years. I still enjoy Fantasy and I do like 8th edition, but the End Times books are putting a sour taste in my mouth about where the game is headed. I'm hopeful that if 9th edition turns out to be a bad egg that I can still find gamers willing to play older editions of the game to continue my enjoyment and entertainment.

**Vermis**

The Auld Grump: Creamed khorne.

Excellent.

Polonius wrote:Sure, they had oddball stuff like pegasi and flaggellants and even the helblaster

You mean the ribauldequin?

BeAfraid wrote:
I don't think anyone here has put the problem in a frame that illustrates so clearly what the problem as, as comparing it to a Michael Bay movie.

That pretty much nailed it: all style, no substance.

MB

Some of us might also compare it to a Peter Jackson film, for the same reasons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:

Young people are great at soaking up data like a sponge.So games like top trumps where remembering all the data profiles off 100s of cards appeals to them.
They get better by remembering lots of data.

Older people generally want to make meaningful decisions in the games they play.So they play games like chess.They get better by working out how to make better in game decisions.

WHFB and 40k have always had heavy strategic loading , to appeal to younger gamers.

However, many meaningful in game tactical decisions have been replaced by 'randomness'.

As a war games rule set WHFB and 40k, are very poor.In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive play.

They are all style and very little substance.

Oh yes. This is partly why I'm always pointing out other rules to WHFB vets. Most of them leave out the reams of special rules for more tactical general mechanics. A wee bit of a shakeup in wargaming expectations, a little paradigm shift (or paradigm nudge), but it can be so much more enjoyable. And quicker.

**BeAfraid**

Vermis wrote:
The Auld Grump: Creamed khorne. Excellent.

Polonius wrote:Sure, they had oddball stuff like pegasi and flaggellants and even the helblaster

You mean the ribauldequin?

BeAfraid wrote:
I don't think anyone here has put the problem in a frame that illustrates so clearly what the problem as, as comparing it to a Michael Bay movie.

That pretty much nailed it: all style, no substance.

MB

Some of us might also compare it to a Peter Jackson film, for the same reasons.

Like me, for instance.

I HATE! HATE! HATE! The Jackson films as long as they are referred to, even tangentially as "Tolkien."

They are great fantasy movies, if you like explosions in fantasy movies. They have some Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, and a Dragon... And even some other fantasy stuff.

But they are to Tolkien as are three guys in Black Robes handing out Beer and Pizza in an auditorium are to Communion in a Catholic Mass.

MB

**master of ordinance**

Personally, I found the massive, oversized, armies that the game was pushing towards, plus the over priced kits, plus the new meta - gunlines and massive monsters - something that I can no longer afford to keep up with has seen me put my poor Skaven on hold until things improve. That and the fact that everyone plays 40K in my area.

£94.00 for an effective unit of Jezzails? GW, are you having a laugh?

**BeAfraid**

Vermis wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

Young people are great at soaking up data like a sponge.So games like top trumps where remembering all the data profiles off 100s of cards appeals to them.
They get better by remembering lots of data.

Older people generally want to make meaningful decisions in the games they play.So they play games like chess.They get better by working out how to make better in game decisions.

WHFB and 40k have always had heavy strategic loading , to appeal to younger gamers.

However, many meaningful in game tactical decisions have been replaced by 'randomness'.

As a war games rule set WHFB and 40k, are very poor.In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive play.

They are all style and very little substance.

Oh yes. This is partly why I'm always pointing out other rules to WHFB vets. Most of them leave out the reams of special rules for more tactical general mechanics. A wee bit of a shakeup in wargaming expectations, a little paradigm shift (or paradigm nudge), but it can be so much more enjoyable. And quicker.

Ditto.

But I tend to go even further than the typical individually based figures ranked up in masses that have little reflection to actual formations of troops that fought as melee troops, and recommend rules that tend to be element based, and which use definitive scales (the whole trope of "there is no scale" for either figure-man representation, or ground scale is a monumentally delusional fiction) that allow a better representation of an abstraction of the combats that occurred (and present more convenience in storage, shipping/transportation, and play for the miniatures themselves).

I tend to lean toward DBA, HotT, Fields of Glory (for which there are Fantasy Rules in existence, even if they remain unofficial - if more people adopted them, then Slytherine might just make them official), and Hoplon (a game that is similar to a mix of DBA/DBM and Field of Glory).

All of these rules sets have Middle-earth and Hyboria army lists completed, and most of them have more generic fantasy lists as well. The Middle-earth lists are very well researched, and conform to Tolkien's books, primarily, but there are some lists for the Movie Versions of the armies as well.

And DBA/HotT both have WHFB styled army lists as well, which allow people with existing WHFB armies to play with those armies.

In fact, HotT (Hoards of the Things) has a very simple points system that allows for a broad variation in the available model selection, and play that is VASTLY more enjoyable than WHFB.

But if people wish to stick to the individually based miniature, and spend the time required fiddling with all of those figures, then there is still Kings of War.

I have NEVER understood the desire to leave miniatures individually based, even as early as 1979, when I first encountered playing Fantasy Miniature Wargames in Dallas.

I would look at the historical gamers, who had figures based multiply, and look at how much incredibly faster it was to play than it was with our individually based figures (I even took a stopwatch to about 20 - 30 games of each - Historical or Fantasy miniatures - to see what the time difference was, and discovered that multiply based requires less than half the time, usually, to deal with moving and dealing with casualties. And this includes the use of sabots for movement of the individually based figures).

The point

GW, with WHFB has no innovation, and has stuck with simple changes to a system for the sake of changes, rather than innovations that actually improve the rules. And they have stuck to what is essentially a 19th century style of miniatures gaming without recourse to the style and substance of that era.

MB

**Da Boss**

For me, keeping them individually based is purely so that I can use them in skirmish or mass battle, as I wish. I am planning on sorting out group bases (probably with magnets) for mass battle in the next while, but I am interested in playing skirmish and mass battle, so it just makes sense to keep the basing singular for the most part.

When I get around to doing my Pike and Shotte stuff, that's a period I am less interested in skirmish for, so I will probably multibase.

**Chute82**

1. The prices are just to high.
2. Does not appeal to the younger generations
3. Rules are bad and lack of balance in the game
4. No support in my local area need to travel to get a game in

**silent25**

Just to put this discussion in perspective, sales of WHFB peaked at the beginning of 6th and have been declining ever since. Even during the supposed "golden age" of WHFB, sales were dropping. Got this back in the summer of 2013 from the owner of my FLGS after he did a trip to Memphis and met with the top management of GW NA. His store does high 6 figure sales of GW product, so he was on very good terms with GW NA. The General's Compendium released during 6th was GW NA's attempt to improve sales. GW UK did not appreciate the "interference".

8th edition was GW UK's attempt to reverse the decline. The fact that after releasing 8th, they let the game languish for 18 months didn't help. Only releasing one army book and a supplement that emphasized the worst aspect of 8th during that time. No new material and no revised armies to address new imbalances made people lose interest.

**SoCxWarChief**

Pricing for one.

8th, I found, is very balanced, but there are some areas in the rules that could use a little more addressing ( especially in magic).

I believe in a " If you build it, they will come" frame of mind. In regards to that, I believe GW failed. I believe GW put more focus on 40K than Fantasy. I've always found that Fantasy players will come out of the wood work and from long distances to get involved in anything Fantasy oriented. GW didn't cater to their player base. This could have been accomplished with more frequent attention on up to date FAQ, addressing out of date army books ( Skaven and Bretonian at this point), etc. I think what they did with Storm of Chaos was great.

I think what they're doing, with the story line, the excitement, the models, etc, with End Times is a HUGE and GREAT start. That may be the right track that they needed to get on. how drastically they change rules, armies, etc, for 9th is the only concern at this point. But if they had this type of attention just without 9th in mind for Fantasy players, then that alone would have been worth it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as far as sales are concerned, I'd not be surprised if lowering product prices would help them even more. That's more players now starting another army, or expanding upon a current one.

**BeAfraid**

Da Boss wrote:
For me, keeping them individually based is purely so that I can use them in skirmish or mass battle, as I wish. I am planning on sorting out group bases (probably with magnets) for mass battle in the next while, but I am interested in playing skirmish and mass battle, so it just makes sense to keep the basing singular for the most part.

When I get around to doing my Pike and Shotte stuff, that's a period I am less interested in skirmish for, so I will probably multibase.

This is an issue that I sorta-kinda understand, but which I think ultimately is a socio-economic issue.

Namely, that some people can't afford to have two different sets of miniature, one for mass combat, and the other for Skirmish/RPG.

I totally get that.

But that doesn't express a preference, but a contingency (that all things being equal, the person would choose a set of rules that used element-basing, if they could afford to do so).

Yet I see people using this excuse who live in $500,000 houses, and buy a new BMW every year.

MB.

**PhantomViper**

Da Butcha wrote:
Oh, so, so, so many things:

Pricing: arguably the biggest offender, since it hit you THREE times. First, prices for models were ridiculous. Second, emphasis on huge units necessitated buying LOTS of ridiculously priced models. Third, Gigantic Monsters (offered up to combat huge units) were even more expensive. This was a huge problem, since it was bad by itself, and made two of the other problems so much worse.

Model Count: by rewriting the rules to reward huge units of infantry, GW damaged the game in many ways. It made playing prohibitively expensive. It made creating an army both expensive and hugely time consuming. It disconnected collecting from playing, since the person buying to paint and model needed 5-10 models, but the person creating a unit often wanted 30--but no one wants to assemble and paint 30 model of the same 5 sculpts. It reduced army diversity, since you were likely to field a smaller number of units, each of larger sizes. It discouraged the purchase of entire types of models, since they were so much less effective than huge blocks of infantry. It led to the development of 'mega-spells' which were devastating to small units.

Gigantic Models: In and of itself, this is not actually bad. In fact, I think it was badass. However, the prevalence of gigantic models, and their shoehorning into relatively small armies, led to a very poorly balanced game. While I think a game where the Skaven unleashed a towering abomination would be incredible, the fact that the skaven were rolling out massive monsters in every army (etc) made the games ridiculous. It disrupted both the design of the game, by focusing tactics on big individual models rather than small units, and it disrupted the setting. Why is anyone afraid of Chaos Warriors if all these giant Chaos beasties are roaming around? Who decides to invest time and effort into growing grapes when a 50" tall bull-man might roam into your area and kill everyone?

Army sameness: I know people are talking about rules bloat, and they aren't wrong, but hang with me here for a second. GW inserted the same types of units into every army. Orcs & Goblins had a big monster, then so did beastmen, then so did Empire. Daemons have monstrous cavalry, and so do Empire, and Ogres, etc. Elves have chariots, and now, so do Daemons, etc. With the extremely rare exception of the dwarves and Brets, GW stuck [box of models this size] into every army, without any thought to how it affected play, the background, or the feel of the army. Why is the Empire scared of Chaos monsters if they have Griffin Riders and barn size griffins? What distinguishes one army from another, when they all have the same types of units? Heck, I remember being disgusted by the changes in Ogre Kingdoms. I was SO excited to finally field an army of Ogres. A whole army, of OGRES! Then, of course, ogres got cavalry, and monstrous mounts, and cannons, etc. The actual OGRES of the army were not interesting any more.

Overwhelming magic: partly in response to the emphasis on huge units and big monsters, magic got dramatically buffed, and in a poorly thought out and unbalanced way. Not only was this damaging to game balance, it was extremely frustrating to the opponent. Why field a unit of, say, Ogres, if a single spell could easily wipe them off the board with one casting? It also was severely damaging to the fluff. If magic was this incredibly powerful, but astoundingly risky, how did wizards survive a single battle, much less develop their skills over years of study? Why were traditional military tactics ever developed, if amazing spells could shatter units in one go?

Maniac branding: Games Workshop has incredible economies of scale, which they could use to dominate the market for fantasy modeling, but their bull-headed insistence on a ham-handed, overwhelming 'Warhammer' look destroyed their ability to market to other hobbists. While having a distinctive look is an important sales driver, why in the world woudn't you make Fantasy buildings and monsters that anyone might buy for their game? Now, many different companies make nice, inexpensive (in some cases) fantasy buildings, terrain, and boards, but GW could have cornered and dominated this market if they had produced affordable, flexible options instead of SKULL PIT and GOTHIC stuff.

Disregarding Playstyle: the distinction between WFB and 40K was the emphasis on maneuvering and tactical positioning. Largely throwing that out the window meant that you lost audiences in two ways. People who wanted fantasy tactical battles moved to other games, and people who were happy with this less tactical style of play moved from Fantasy to 40K, where it was more fully realized and implemented.

Total Customer Disengagement: GW makes no effort to communicate anything to their fans other than what they should buy this week. They have eliminated all interaction with fans via social media, don't discuss plans or release sneak peeks, and have, UNDER OATH, derided and belittled the whole idea of market research. If people have NO IDEA what you are doing to the game, it makes it very difficult for them to decide to invest in a very large, very expensive, very complex game which requires a huge amount of time and money commitment. When other people tell you what their game is doing, for free, and it costs less, you experiment with them.

Fluff Violence The saddest thing for me to see is the irrevocable damage done to the Warhammer Fantasy world. I'm not just talking about the End Times, though they do exemplify the disregard or even hatred GW seems to show for their own background. Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights were widely feared in the Old World, for their incredible strength, violence, and savagery. Now you have tons of huge monsters, as well as ogre-sized chaos warriors. Why were Chaos Warriors feared so much? Chaos Knights were a source of terror, but now, they struggle to disrupt a single block of infantry. The Empire depends on Wizards in war, but mistrusts them, but now has all sorts of magical contraptions that roll into the battle. I LOVED the distinct post-medieval, 'Renaissance' flavored setting of WFB. I loved the grim, gritty realism of their dark low fantasy. Now everything is big monsters, big magic, and big contraptions. It's not plausible that people should think and behave in any sort of way that resembles medieval/Renaissance Europe when the fabric of the entire world is so dramatically changed. In addition, you can advance the storyline, without tearing it apart. If I wrote a political thriller where South America and Africa were both destroyed by a giant meteor, Canada invaded America, Americans fled as refugees to Europe, Spain, Italy, and Greece were destroyed by, oh, let's say anarchists, Russia was wiped out by a force from the Arctic, and Western Europe was fundamentally changed, while Britain sank, all in 10 years, people would call me a massive hack. If I also didn't mention anything at all about China, Japan, or India doing anything during this time, people would call me a racist or an even bigger, less talented hack. If the company doesn't care about the setting any longer, why should anyone else?.

This, 1.000 times this.

8th edition is what went wrong with Fantasy and if 9th edition rumours are even remotely true, they will just put the final nails in the coffin.

**heartserenade**

Long ago, WHFB was doing fine.

But everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.

That, and prices that put off new players, together with changes that put off old players.

**BeAfraid**

heartserenade wrote:
Long ago, WHFB was doing fine.

But everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.

That, and prices that put off new players, together with changes that put off old players.

Maybe Aang will come save us?

MB

**Big P**

Im so glad I never moved past 3rd Edition...

**master of ordinance**

BeAfraid wrote:
heartserenade wrote:
Long ago, WHFB was doing fine.

But everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.

That, and prices that put off new players, together with changes that put off old players.

Maybe Aang will come save us?

MB

But GW's Aang will be a 10ft tall warrior in fullplate with skulls engraved on it, wielding a rape sword and riding a skeleton Griffon with side mounted cannons.

**Azazelx**

A variety of issues. Price being the biggest one.

Poor rules affect veterans, who will go play something else.

Moving to niche locations means fewer new players and "walk-ins". As does a lack of feeder games.

And the key one. Prices affect everyone, from the vets that aren't willing to retool their armies again, while excluding new players and kids who will increasingly just go and buy an XBox or PlayStation instead. Which all of their friends are playing. Because "how much does this game cost to start?" is a real question.

**angelofvengeance**

I have yet to play a game of 8th ed. There's an awful lot of info to take in. Models are nice and all but I'd be more enthusiastic about playing it if the rules were easier to follow. Which is why I'm looking at KoW V1/V2

**Wayniac**

I played WHFB in 5th edition, which was the original version of "Herohammer" where you had one powerful character on a dragon or other beastie that ran around destroying everything.

What they did was they changed it to be more focused on troops, and like everything else they do they used it with a high price hike to get you to spend more, and engaged in similar nonsense to 40k with cutting the amount of figures in a box so you needed multiple boxes to get a single unit, which resulted in each unit being around a hundred bucks or more.

Couple that with what is generally a stagnant and uninteresting generic fantasy world, and there isn't much appeal. They move at a snail's pace. In Warmaster they had Araby as a faction, but never brought Araby to WHFB, or Cathay or whatever their version of China and Japan was. Even that is pretty much just nothing interesting.

Plus there's the fact that any good historical system can let you do similar to WHFB at a fraction of the cost.

**Rune Stonegrinder**

Not in any particular order

1) Rules that were too vague and were created with the power gamer in mind (who were most likly lobbying for those types of changes). There are so many things in the current rules that make no sense and muck up play, sure they add flavor but when they cause conflicts or even arguements. Why have them? All the while other items that worked well were eliminated.

2) It wasn't too many armies: it was too many special rules inside those books that caused conflicts with universal special rules and game play.

3) Many books had magic items that broke the game or made unfair play for certian armies....which leads into the next point

4) 'I like my army why can't they make it equal to all the other armies' people like what they liked and all the sudden they are left with an army that just could not compete with GW's golden few armies....which leads to next

5) I can't afford another army and mine sucks why bother playing.

6) Monsterous infantry.............Broke PERIOD! Alas, I'm guilty of playing them but I only keep it to 8 max. Take 18 with a 'Sargent' 55 attacks with strengh 4-6 against while a standard infantry of equal size and frontage gets 32 and only has one extra rank bonus, strngth 3-5 if your lucky ......but not for long.

7) Cannons became laser beams and gained the finger of death rule. Warmachines in general became too powerful and lost all the thing that kept them in check. Rate of fire vs number of crew, high tendancy to go haywire and blow up, etc.

8) remember that awesome center piece model you bought......yeah the Prince on dragon....Orc on wyvern ect.....Gone and dead. warmachines along with other exotic monsters and a few other choice things, made it useless to field one. why dump points into something that doen't work not that they were very powerful in past editions but were able to survive and at least participate in the game.

9) Terrain rules and skirmish breakdown.

the list goes on and on

10) FORGING A NARRATIVE.....................biggest excuse to produce half assed rules and not care about a quality product

**Antario**

The increased number of models in the current edition has been a major problem in our local gaming group. New players became discouraged by the time and money investment required by a full army and dropped out. This was made worse by some dumb long term veterans who use their much larger collections to counter build against players who can barely field one army, let alone rotate units. The two new regulars who stayed both use Ogres, this army seems suffers less from this problem. Natural attrition means the game is played less and less, and that results in fewer players taking up WFB.

It may just be a local thing but we are also losing veterans to historical gaming. The high fantasy style direction seems to be a big turn off for them.