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 completely agree that many did not like 8th.
Random charge range was quite different. But guessing a range was not fair either (is genetics more than practice) and secretely measuring tricks had nothing to do with quality wargaming.

Change is never good for many players. I play 40k since 1st and WHFB since 3rd/4th and there has not been an edition or codex/armybook without complaining.
But change was definately not good combined with the fact that the game had become WAY too expensive for newcomers.
A mistake by GW, but the sales were going down for some time before 8th, a reason why many switched from WHFB to 40k, where you could play with less models.

For me 8th was the best edition yet (except for spells nr. 6) and the first time that i thought that WHFB was finally becoming something i liked.
Because i like building and painting WHFB miniatures, but never liked the herohammer combined with "1st round of combat decides all" aspect in the game.
All a matter of taste off course.

The cost of a completely new WHFB army though, that became too steep even for me and that was the final nail in the coffin.

I completely agree with Kilkrazy: a game system should be able to reach maturity. Not perfection, but maturity.
If the models had cost half or less, maybe WHFB might still exist.

hobojebus wrote:GW greed sunk wfb stop blaming the players they didn't make the game pay to win.

That certainly wasn't the only reason, but I agree blaming the players is a bit silly in any case.

It's the developing company's job to make the game appealing to players, not the players' job to prop up a game with purchases they don't want to make.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:I never quit WFB, in spite of selling off most of my armies and only keeping two. I just slowly stopped playing as 8th wasn't............fun. Used to think "I could have played something else in this time" so ended up doing just that. Couple of times the random rules made things get silly and ruined the game.

Played 5th edition a while back and that was great fun. Now playing same setting, same models different rules - non GW.

Yeah, you can spend all day arguing which edition is "best" and it's all subjective, but there's a huge swathe of people for whom 8th just ceased being fun.

A lot of what I enjoyed in previous editions was lost to me with the change to 8th.

I preferred non-random charge distance probably because most my armies made use of varying movement rates to play the game on my terms. For the most part I didn't get involved in the stand offs or guessing games that people describe because I tried to make use of different move rates and supporting troops as much as possible. Rarely did I play a game where 2 armies made up of 4" move troops had a stand off (which I often heard as a complaint necessitating the random charge distance). Win or lose I seemed to be very good at removing the option for letting troops just stand there doing nothing (for both me and my opponent)

For Fantasy to still exist it needed, IMO, 1. Cheaper models. 2. Better scaling to smaller point games so people can have fun games on their way to a larger army instead of feeling like they have a wall of models to get through before they can really participate.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
, you can spend all day arguing which edition is "best" and it's all subjective, but there's a huge swathe of people for whom 8th just ceased being fun.

A lot of what I enjoyed in previous editions was lost to me with the change to 8th.

I preferred non-random charge distance probably because most my armies made use of varying movement rates to play the game on my terms. For the most part I didn't get involved in the stand offs or guessing games that people describe because I tried to make use of different move rates and supporting troops as much as possible. did I play a game where 2 armies made up of 4" move troops had a stand off (which I often heard as a complaint necessitating the random charge distance)

And how does random charge distance remove that aspect? You just exchange a skill that has nothing to do with tactics (range guessing) for a risk assessment (so I put this unit exactly a 11'' charge away from your unit, etc) which in the end is what strategy games are about.

Also it was not just the 1/2 inch shuffle, it was also that range guessing was something that lent itself to rules abuse (declare impossible charges just to be able to measure, leaving parts of your body, templates, etc between units to allow for better measuring, etc. Every group and tournament had their share of that, and it was extremely unpleasant to watch (especially if you were on the receiving end).

Plus, I hear a lot of peole complaining about 8th edition magic being too powerful but if anything magic was even worse in 7th with their infinity power dice lists and, very especially, charging in the magic phase. A purple sun is tame by comparison.

Random charges made the game feel like it played itself. No point lining up or moving into a position for multiple charging as you just wang dice across the table and hope for a big score.

The "rule abuse" you describe..............well, get better friends who ain't prone to taking toy pew pew so seriously so as to cheat.

Random elements can be good, but not when they dictate the flow and movement of the game. 8th was all out of whack in lots of places. Change for change sake, a lot of it. Some good elements, but stopped clock twice a day and all that.

I liked the risk assessment part of random charges more so than i liked the static charge distances always succeeding.

Always succeeding was very boring to me after a while.

Also the games tended to play out the same over and over. Which is why I quit for a few years before. All my games seemed to be almost the same as each other with slight differences.

Granted the beginning of 8th was largely the same too. Giant unit slamming into giant unit in the center of the table belly slapping until one broke and ended the game.

Vermis, Fenrir et al: I see a lot of snideness toward people who want a supported game from you guys. I reckon that's a little unfair. It's great for you that you have the situation where you have a group that are willing to try out multiple games.

Personally, I have moved around a lot in the last six years and I don't have a group any more. Work and other commitments mean that it is just not possible for me to form a group time wise. It's not a lack of effort on my part - previously I was the sort to start wargaming clubs, organise tournaments and conventions, the whole lot. But right now I just don't have time to do that.

So if a game is not supported or the current edition sucks, it does reduce my chances of getting to play it significantly, which devalues my investment in the game. I think this a legitimate reason to decide that the stuff you have sitting around isn't worth the hassle any more (I mean, moving a large collection of minis regularly is expensive and disheartening when a lot of them break for example).

I think you are lacking a bit of empathy for people who are in a situation that isn't quite as good as yours, and it's somewhat similar to the "I'm alright Jack" attitude displayed by some AoS proponents about the annihilation of the easy PUG due to points being removed.

I like both you guys and enjoy reading your posts, so don't take that to hard. But I think it needs to be pointed out that not everyone is looking for the same things from games, and "support" is not something you need to scorn at. People who prefer games with support are not some breed of lesser gamers, and the hobby being more accessible is a good thing for all of us.

auticus wrote:


Also the games tended to play out the same over and over. Which is why I quit for a few years before. All my games seemed to be almost the same as each other with slight differences.

This is where scenario, scene building and a bit of pre game work "building the game" comes in. Just lining up opposite and moving across a sparse table is going to wear thin very quickly.

I don't find the concept of "unsupported/supported" to be anything of note. I just find the "Not supported any more?? ITS UNPLAYABLE BIN IT BIN IT NOW" attitude worthy of mockery. Especially when its supported with a "GW Forced Me To!" statement.

The hobby isn't reliant on being sold things. Which is partially what got WFB into the state it was in.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Random charges made the game feel like it played itself. No point lining up or moving into a position for multiple charging as you just wang dice across the table and hope for a big score.

If all charges had an equal chance of success you would have a point.

auticus wrote:Granted the beginning of 8th was largely the same too. Giant unit slamming into giant unit in the center of the table belly slapping until one broke and ended the game.

Which really lasted for the first 3 armybook releases or so. Then people (good players at least) realised those big unwieldy deathstars were only for point-denial and gimmick lists.

jouso wrote:

auticus wrote:Granted the beginning of 8th was largely the same too. Giant unit slamming into giant unit in the center of the table belly slapping until one broke and ended the game.

Which really lasted for the first 3 armybook releases or so. Then people (good players at least) realised those big unwieldy deathstars were only for point-denial and gimmick lists.

AoS is thought to have the same problem, good to know the cause and timeframe!

jouso wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Random charges made the game feel like it played itself. No point lining up or moving into a position for multiple charging as you just wang dice across the table and hope for a big score.

If all charges had an equal chance of success you would have a point.

And your own point is?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Random charges made the game feel like it played itself. No point lining up or moving into a position for multiple charging as you just wang dice across the table and hope for a big score.

If all charges had an equal chance of success you would have a point.

And your own point is?

That random charges make for a more tactical game.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

auticus wrote:


Also the games tended to play out the same over and over. Which is why I quit for a few years before. All my games seemed to be almost the same as each other with slight differences.

This is where scenario, scene building and a bit of pre game work "building the game" comes in. Just lining up opposite and moving across a sparse table is going to wear thin very quickly.

I don't find the concept of "unsupported/supported" to be anything of note. I just find the "Not supported any more?? ITS UNPLAYABLE BIN IT BIN IT NOW" attitude worthy of mockery. Especially when its supported with a "GW Forced Me To!" statement.

The hobby isn't reliant on being sold things. Which is partially what got WFB into the state it was in.

I agree. Unfortunately getting people to deviate from battleline was virtually impossible because that was the standard, and people don't like to deviate from what is standard. This is one reason I am Pro_AOS... the scenarios. I also like games like Infinity for the same reason - a multitude of scenarios.

jouso wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
, you can spend all day arguing which edition is "best" and it's all subjective, but there's a huge swathe of people for whom 8th just ceased being fun.

A lot of what I enjoyed in previous editions was lost to me with the change to 8th.

I preferred non-random charge distance probably because most my armies made use of varying movement rates to play the game on my terms. For the most part I didn't get involved in the stand offs or guessing games that people describe because I tried to make use of different move rates and supporting troops as much as possible. did I play a game where 2 armies made up of 4" move troops had a stand off (which I often heard as a complaint necessitating the random charge distance)

And how does random charge distance remove that aspect? You just exchange a skill that has nothing to do with tactics (range guessing) for a risk assessment (so I put this unit exactly a 11'' charge away from your unit, etc) which in the end is what strategy games are about.

Also it was not just the 1/2 inch shuffle, it was also that range guessing was something that lent itself to rules abuse (declare impossible charges just to be able to measure, leaving parts of your body, templates, etc between units to allow for better measuring, etc. Every group and tournament had their share of that, and it was extremely unpleasant to watch (especially if you were on the receiving end).

I just never saw range guessing as a problem simply because most people knew the ranges. You could have allowed measuring and it wouldn't have changed much because most people I played with knew how far things were apart anyway. Deployment zones were a specified distance apart and you paid attention to how far away from that your opponent deployed and how far you deployed. So you knew how far things were apart from the beginning.

On the times you needed to guess something, why on earth were your groups leaving templates and parts of their body on the table? Models are mounted on bases that are either 20mm or 25mm, 25mm = 1". A 4 wide unit on 25mm bases = 4" wide and a 5 wide unit on 20mm bases = 4". If you can't "guess" a 4" move or 8" charge to within a half inch when you have 4 models lined up on 1" bases then you aren't doing a very good job. If you were guessing an 8" charge to a unit that was 7.8" away, then you were just taking a gamble.

Given that, the non-random charge distances turned it more in to a chess type situation.

I understand the idea of having a % chance of failure and success and weighing up the options, but for me, and I know many other people, charge distance was not somewhere we wanted the chance to randomly fail or succeed because being smart and tactical to get yourself in a 90% chance of success situation and failing, leaving your unit standing around holding their balls, or likewise when a flippant opponent succeeds on a 5% charge is not what many of us find enjoyable.

But anyway, we're going off on a tangent. As I said earlier we can argue the merits of 8th until we're blue in the face, enough people didn't like it to quit and it made the game even more unappealing to newcomers to the point it was a significant blow to WHFB's profitability.

That's the fact. As much as people may have enjoyed 8th, it was enough of a turkey that it sank the game and got it cancelled.

Range guessing was what made you feel that you "grew up" as a player. It was something you developed with time, especially with stuff like cannons etc.

They introduced with 8th rules that were bad for newcomers AND for veterans.

The "dumbing down" like random charges was disliked by many veterans (not all, a dwarf player friend of mine appreciated )

But in the meantime, they scaled up the size of the game with huge units. When I started, I could play efficently with 8 chaos warriors (2 ranks, ranks of 4 minis not 5!). 12 was a big unit. From 6th, 15-16 chaos warriors was my maximuum, a deathstar (albeit I was forced by the edition to play more cavalry than anything). Goblins or skaven were 20-25 models per unit back then. It was the extreme end of the spectrum. Many friends had elite elf units of 10-12 models just as support. You could have sold these as single plastic box back then, not so much in 8th.

How in heaven they thought that these two moves combined (ignore veterans and set the bar high for newcomers) would have resulted in something other than a disaster? They had to just FIX THE ARMY BOOKS so people played something different than Vampires demons and Dark elf. But no, the problem was that there were not big chariots and monsters, very difficult to carry in order to go to play somewhere.

But apparently is the players' fault

No-one forces the players to do anything.

I don't think, given the choice, that I will ever play a game with non-static charges ever again. That stuff killed me in 7th (not that I didn't know how to guess range, that it just always worked and made my games feel samey game in game out)

I guess I'm not a player looking for a chess translation in my wargaming

auticus wrote:
I don't think, given the choice, that I will ever play a game with non-static charges ever again. That stuff killed me in 7th (not that I didn't know how to guess range, that it just always worked and made my games feel samey game in game out)

I guess I'm not a player looking for a chess translation in my wargaming

I prefer the Warlord system, where the movement is set, but theres a chance of the unit not actually taking the command from HQ.

Keep in mind though, some random guy dumping a large amount of models for a weirdly low amount of money might mean he's selling you some stolen models (not necessarily ofc).

It's sad to see all the people who hated 8th.

IMO 8th was the by far the best edition of the game.

All the reasons I love it were the reasons people didn't. It was huge and epic with tonnes of models.

It's sad that people only want small skirmish type games.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
It's sad to see all the people who hated 8th.

IMO 8th was the by far the best edition of the game.

All the reasons I love it were the reasons people didn't. It was huge and epic with tonnes of models.

It's sad that people only want small skirmish type games.

I wouldn't exactly call 7th Edition a "small skirmish" game. Quite the opposite.

7th wasn't skirmish. But it certainly wasn't as good as 8th.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
7th wasn't skirmish. But it certainly wasn't as good as 8th.

To you, surely.

I wouldn't qualify any of the FB editions I got to play as "skirmish".

What killed it for me, was playing a very nicely painting Vampire Counts army against a High Elf army. His rule steadfast made loosing combat not a problem, while crumble tore me apart.

One time I assault some elves with a skeleton hoard and a badass vampire count by himself along with a few corpse carts. Because I lost a few to skeletons to crumble all my other stuff took the same amount of crumble even though they were different units. The unit I was attacking could not possible wound my Vampire Count, but the broke ass crumble rule killed him. I spent a long time constructing and painting this army. However after a few games like this, I gave up and sold my army. What a waste of time.

Wish I could offload this Tomb King army.

It wasn't just that WHFB ceased to be a supported game...it was that many people were well and truly sick of 8th edition by the time it was done.

By the time the End Times books started the metagame was a bit of a mess. The end-of-edition power creep was in full swing, and the HE and DE books were running roughshod over most other armies. Some players, with armies like Orcs or TK, had been struggling with gakky army books for half a decade. Other books had been shoehorned into a handful of competitive builds which got rather tiring after a while. If you wanted to try something new you were looking at $600+ to get into a new army (which many players still did).

So by the time AoS hit a lot of us were **REALLY** looking forward to the change. And then the change came, and nobody liked it, so...we were faced with the choice to look forward (at something we didn't like), look backward (at something we were sick of), or...quit. So we quit.

Of course there are still people playing and enjoying 8th Ed, and I don't fault them for that. But I, for one, am not really interested. I was pretty bored with it, and it needed to be shaken up. I'm watching 9th Age with some hope, but honestly not really liking the direction they're taking it.

I wouldn't qualify any of the FB editions I got to play as "skirmish".

You're right. I wouldn't either. I was speaking mostly of other games that have become popular in fantasy's place including AOS.

The whole scaling down thing was something I never understood. I had plenty of 500 point games that were really awesome because you had to make decisions when building your list that had much more of an opportunity cost than higher points levels. The games felt more intense. To me anyway.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
It's sad to see all the people who hated 8th.

IMO 8th was the by far the best edition of the game.

All the reasons I love it were the reasons people didn't. It was huge and epic with tonnes of models.

It's sad that people only want small skirmish type games.

Errr, I play napoleonics 28mm with hundreds of models per side. WFB 8 was a football team in comparison and took longer to play!

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
It's sad to see all the people who hated 8th.

IMO 8th was the by far the best edition of the game.

All the reasons I love it were the reasons people didn't. It was huge and epic with tonnes of models.

It's sad that people only want small skirmish type games.

9th age and KoW seem to be gaining a lot of attention. It isn't that people hate mass battle games. It's that they don't like mass battle with skirmish-esque rules.