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.

It is much easier and infinitely better to play a tight ruleset built for competitive play casually than it will EVER be to try to play a game built for casual play competitively.

pm713 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
For creating a new game, 8th was the worst point to start at.
But than they just promised a more balanced 8th edition to get the ETC so needed to stick with it.

And I never liked Magic in 8th and preferred the 6th/7th Edition were it was good but optional
but for 9th I don't see magic as optional now as it is needed (some factions need it more than others), but you need that lvl 4 wizard if you want to make it worth.

What made 6/7 better? I only played 8th.

Quite a bit was touched on as why 6th/7th was better.

7th had some main rules that I thought did the game no favors, and the army books from the beginning were showing the book creep that Warhammer is famous for. By the time we got halfway, the books were simply out of control.

6th started out revamping the system from 5th, and coming up with a better way of organizing forces. They took percentages out entirely and focused on the slot system. Some bemoan that you can break the slot system by only taking the required min sized units at your points level, but savvy players knew that if someone decided to overload on their Specials, Rares, and Characters that almost any decent Core heavy army could still keep them at bay, if not win.

And that was the beauty of it. All through 6th, your standard bog simple foot troop unit had a chance. Blender Lords in 6th could kill about 6 models if they wound up rolling perfectly, which we know doesn't happen. Monster mounts also were not as game breaking.

The magic phase was supplementary. There were spells that could potentially have high output, but those were outliers. Typically 2Dd against one unit was the most egregious offensive spell. There were spells that had some open ended random, but for the most part that was the high end.

The only real issues I had with 6th were the ways that certain armies were able to abuse the composition/organization charts, with the modularity of Chaos. There were also some flat out imbalanced lists, but even those weren't unbeatable.

There were a few rules from 7th that my club wound up keeping for 6th: A wizard could only use dice they themselves generated, or dice from the community pool, a natural roll of two 1's passed any psychology test, and we're on the fence about needing 5 man front to have rank bonus.


But yeah, if you were looking for streamlined balanced play, 6th with RH was the way to go.

Orlanth wrote:The trouble with returning to 6th is that despite the better balance it misses many of the toys of later editions brought out after GW's massive investment in manufacturing technologies about a decade ago. You couldn't make a Mortis Engine back then, and a Mortis Engine and similar items are frankly too awesome to leave behind.
Hence while playing 6th has its advantages, I think it should include caveats, some rules pasted in by mutual agreement and later army book editions added.
However how do you agree on that?

That is why I have T9A 1.1 on pdf and printout, have bought all the 8th edition army books I ca find (though some are 7th - Skaven and Beastmen), and am buying up all the 6th edition army books I can find also, which includes the Bretonnians.
This way I can host the rulesets.
After what I have read of it, I will be unlikely to bother with 2.0

The great thing about 6th being a dead system is that it's easy enough to look at the rules that exist for other units that mirror or vaguely resemble those newer units, and port them over. The Classichammer community is pretty open to attaching new things to whatever edition they prefer, the problem is what your idea of "fair" or "balanced" is. Dwarfs 6.0 and Dwarfs 6.5 are good examples of that. If you look at Dwarfs 6.5 and think "Yeah, they got it pretty fair", then you will have a discord with me, since I thought they were fairly imbalanced. Now take that discord and apply it to committee rules writing. You'd about have to have a 3rd party do it for you.

Last weekend when my brother and I played a game of 6th Ed. WFB at the store, it generated excitement from the gamers there. Some had never seen that edition played, some were grognards who appreciated seeing a dead system in. Regardless, of all the games being played that day, ours was drawing the most attention.

Make of that what you will.

I personally agree, but it still comes to preference and what you want to get out of a gaming experience.

At the same time, the low damage count set some people off as there is a subset of gamers that want the most destructothon units on the planet.


6th is a game of maneuvering and finesse. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the kind of game people want to plan nowadays.

jouso wrote:

 kodos wrote:


There was a general bad attitude against T9A after the first edition did went into another beta test of the core rules instead of going to start working on the faction books.
Now with the core rules fixed for at least 3-4 years and work starting on the faction books this change and at least be an argument for those who asked for stability (if they stay to their promise)

They better do, there are intro boxes with rules coming:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1516875985/195172949?ref=3lt1q5&token=b882392b

Not-Brets vs not-TK, with the quickstart rules (meaning they're fully legal playable armies).

Sweet Asuryan's Teeth, those are the worst models I've seen in a long time. When MANTIC beats you out, it's time to stick a fork in it.