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 never played WHFB with the guessing mechanic in it but I have played 40k before premeasuring was in it and some BFG. I can tell you right now I am terrible with measurements and under 7th the whole 'whoever charges wins' combined with guessing charge ranges would have driven me strait out of it. I can't compare 8th to previous editions of fantasy but I LOVE it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I never played WHFB with the guessing mechanic in it but I have played 40k before premeasuring was in it and some BFG. I can tell you right now I am terrible with measurements and under 7th the whole 'whoever charges wins' combined with guessing charge ranges would have driven me strait out of it. I can't compare 8th to previous editions of fantasy but I LOVE it.

Ye, that's what GW aims for. Dumbing the game down for beginners by removing actual skill and replacing it with sheer luck. That being said, 8th can be fun. No argument here. It simply isn't competitive by a long shot.

Rocking a goblin army and yeah, it's fun (jesus, they are goblins! How could they NOT be fun?), but our comp scene just smiles when people mention WHFB tournaments.

I see where you are coming from but I wouldn't consider guessing distances a skill that should be in the game. Take it out and it might dumb the game down but at least what remains are actually skills that relates to a strategy game.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I see where you are coming from but I wouldn't consider guessing distances a skill that should be in the game. Take it out and it might dumb the game down but at least what remains are actually skills that relates to a strategy game.

...along with dumbing down movement as well that should be the core of a strategy game?

The thing is, replacing skill with luck doesn't make anything any more strategic. It makes it more random.

I guess it's all opinions at this point but I rather know the distance then decide if I want to risk rolling the charge than trying to guess the rage to begin with.

Yes, precisely.

For someone who is more into competitiveness, WHFB 8th was a mess and I feel disgusted by the changes.

For casual players or people who are new to the game, 8th was a good thing as it dumbed the game down by a lot.

...and seeing GW's recent decisions, they cater to the last group

WHFB is a fun game, not more, not less.

Considering that in 7th it was all based on army. (Didn't have VC, DE, or DoW? Good luck) Then it was skill.

7th had the superior movement phase, I will admit, 8ths changes to magic would've been nice, had it not been for the balance of the BRB lores. (Which some desperately do need some fixing) Course now it has skill in its randomness. Mitigation of it is still primarily a skill afterall.

Heavily agree with the magic thing. The new magic system itself is very good and a huge step-up from 20+ dice spam, but the BRB lores have major, game-breaking flaws that really pull the game down.

The game does work out nicely with a restriction system that exists on all tournaments I play e.g. max 4 dice per spell, LOS on 6th spells, max number of template weapons, max number of shooting units, forbidden items, limited choices etc. etc.

Someone said it before: let only 8th army books play vs. each other without BRB magic lores and you get a good game.

True enough on that last bit, as even the highest perceived army vs the lowest (Ogres, and tomb kings last I checked) even tomb kings can do very successful in a match against them.

It isn't like strike squad spam vs chaos daemons (40k) or something more akin to DoW vs Ogre kingdom (7th). It's actually quite fairer. If only they would balance out books after they've been released.

Yup. FAQ old army books in a edition and you get a good, balanced and fun game.

I do have that now with the restrictions we have at tournaments, but it shows that GW, sadly, does not care about balance....or not enough.

Sigvatr wrote:GW needs to start releasing updates between a new codex. That's the main reason why both systems tend to have big balance problems e.g. Lizardmen with 2 Slann going totally crazy because of the way magic works in 8th.

My main claim about 8th is the very weak internal balance. It shows of very little effort to actually balance the game. Deathstars are a main problem in GW's eyes because they required good unit movement to be countered. You had to tarpit and then outflank them in order to get them down. Certainly, that requires tactics, and thus, it was considered too hard for most players. In the end, GW decided that it needed a hard counter and there we go, we get ridiculously overpowered BRB lores. A blind monkey can be succesful as long as he got luck with the dice. Tournaments I took part in mostly boiled down to who could pull of the 6th the first and games have been forfeited usually after turn 3-4. Get a 6th off before your enemy, troll your way to the top.

Movement phase? Too hard. Let's remove most tactics out of it and replace it with randomness. Randomness is fun.

Guessing ranges? Too hard.

Playing WoC felt like mainly shoving your troops forward with the right hand while rolling for the 6th with your left. The sad thing is that this actually works.

I do agree with the latter point. If we only let 8th army books fight and did not look at the BRB lores, the game would be pretty darn well balanced.

WHFB 8th is not a competitive (GW) game. It's even, by far, less competitive than 40k. It's a 100% beer&pretzels fun game now...and that's fine for me.

Thank you. I think this is the first time I have seen someone who defends 8th ed point out the problems with it in a frank fashion, and admits that they like it in spite of those problems. You and I sir, can have honest discussions in the future about this matter. To me, increasing the random factor is not "fun." It places me on too even a playing field with those who have no skill. I want a game where I can clearly see where my tactics were winning or lacking, where even losses are worthwhile because I can learn from my mistakes and come back next time a better player. But to watch whole units evaporate to a roll of the dice with no amount of positioning, angling, target prioritization, or trade off is highly demoralizing and will not improve me as a player. I spend far too much money on this game to have my enjoyment level based solely on dice rolls.

At least with WM/H when I roll snake eyes 3 times in a row and watch a unit fail to secure a win when they by all rights should have, I KNOW it was my dice that failed, not my tactics. When I lose because I failed to get box cars, I know I was trusting too much to luck. In those games, you can compensate for the random factors with something else. 8e removes too much of the compensation, IMO. It certainly appears that 8e books compare excellently against one another, and I may start playing the game again when the Dwarves or Wood Elves get updated. Or if they decide for forget about Blood in the Badlands and put out a PROPER campaign book. I'd be alot happier with WHFB if they balanced not for tournies, but for campaign play. It's easier to compensate a player who gets lucky alot when all the other players are ganging up on him.

Speaking of dwarves, I think they'd be alot more fun to play if charging still got you "Strikes First" even with great weapons. I was so excited heading into 8th that I could actually CHARGE with my dwarves successfully. Then realized that by still striking last, I was much better off just giving myself another round of artillary fire into the enemy instead. >.<

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Guessing ranges? Too hard.

Yes because it's such a skill to guess ranges, it really only benefited those who have far superior depth perception. Friends who require glasses/contacts now can actually deal with such a thing.

Tactics? Manuver? Strategy? It's such a skill to use such things, and they really only benefit those who have far superior tactical reasoning.

I stand by my stance that it wasn't the core rules that were at fault in 7e, it was the armies that spit on them that caused the issue.

I think its important to say that some players of 7th ed did not have the "Skill" to guess ranges - they just cheated using a variety of methods............

but then I have always disliked the WFB movement system when compared to 40k. Also I watched a "tactical game of WFB where the Wood Elf player spent the entire game avoiding any form of combat with his opponent eexcept for his specifically tooled up general - it was apparently fun for one player - the other may as well have not bothered turning up and let his opponent move his figures for him. It would have been even worse in 7th as the charge distacnes were so specfic.

I do agree about the rdiculous poential of specific elements of the "I win you loose" magic

 Mr Morden wrote:
I think its important to say that some players of 7th ed did not have the "Skill" to guess ranges - they just cheated using a variety of methods............

but then I have always disliked the WFB movement system when compared to 40k. Also I watched a "tactical game of WFB where the Wood Elf player spent the entire game avoiding any form of combat with his opponent eexcept for his specifically tooled up general - it was apparently fun for one player - the other may as well have not bothered turning up and let his opponent move his figures for him. It would have been even worse in 7th as the charge distacnes were so specfic.

I do agree about the rdiculous poential of specific elements of the "I win you loose" magic

Exactly why I can't understand how 7th was fun, with set charge distances, removing from the front and charging giving ASF it seems like two players who were good at guessing ranges would just end in a stand off.

And some armies just had no chance at all. Daemons were an army you just sat on the table and pushed forward till you won.

Magic was actually more rediclious back then. Spells may not have been as individually powerful, but you could cast tons more of them.

Daemon and High Elf armies could get upwards fo 20+ power dice. If you were playing against them there was literally no point to your magic.

You could take as many dispel scrolls as you could purchase, hence the creation of the scroll caddy. A lvl1 wizard whose only purpose was to carry a dispel scroll. And you would have 3-4 of them as allowed by the rules.



There was few limits on characters. You could take a certain number of lords for your point level. Didn't matter if they were half your points.

You could satisfy the core requirement with 2-3 1o man units and then load up on awsome special, Rare, and characters.

I loved 6th, didn't play much of 7th. Played a few games of 8th but didn't like it very much; magic seems stupidly powerful (I guess it was even worse in 7th since it was basically the same except irresistible force didn't also make you miscast), and I've routinely won games by using The Dreaded 13th and, combined with a single Warp-Lightning Cannon shot in the shooting phase, wiping out my opponent's death star.

They seem to be adding giant monsters to most of the armies, but it seemed like they were far too vulnerable to magic and artillery, and in my games tended to die turn 1. It basically seems like the game is won or lost in the magic phase, and taking anything but gargantuan blocks of infantry is a waste of points.


or, to break it down with the points you bring up:
1) Is anything drastically overpowered or underpowered? This refers to individual units, entire armies, or specific strategies. Skaven seem to be extremely overpowered. Most other armies seem to be relatively balanced. The books they've released for 8th edition are all actually really nice, so maybe when they get around to updating all the other armies, it'll look much better.

2) What is the most valuable aspect of the gameplay? Meaning, do you think that any phase of a game is vastly more important (or less important) than others? Is magic, for instance, more important than anything else? In my experience, magic is the alpha and omega, but again, I play Skaven and Dreaded 13thing everything and its mother to death seemed to be the only thing I had to do to win.

3) What don't you like about the current rules or metagame? What would you like to see functioning differently, and how? That expensive giant models are so damn vulnerable. Magic in some of the 7th edition books is still broken so I'd like to see it toned down some.

4) Do you still really like the game and rules? Is there a previous edition of the game with aspects to its rules that you would prefer in some way? How would this affect balance, or how would the game be balanced around those rules changes/additions? I can't comment to the last two parts, but I did not particularly enjoy the (admittedly very few) 8th edition games I played.

5) What armies do you see played a lot? What armies do you almost never see on the table?Someone else will have to answer that; before I stopped playing, it seemed like everyone else locally stopped playing. In the end, there were maybe eight people still playing WHFB. In the 8-month period between 8th edition's release and the release of the first Army Book it seemed like the game just withered and died. Others' experience may vary. On the upside, everyone still playing had different armies, so there was a lot of variety.

6) What can be done to improve the game as a whole? IMO get the 8th edition books out a bit faster so everything can be properly balanced. From what I've seen, the 8th edition books are all pretty solid.

Skaven arn't overpowered, they just have a good counter to deathstars.

The fact the Dreaded 13th and your WLC could decimate another guys army is because of how he built his army.

If he had had a MSU style army I'll wager your spell and artillery wouldn't have been nearly as effective.


The key is adapting to your opponents and the changing metagame.


"New rules make artillery more effective and magic more powerful"

"OMGZ THE CANNONZ IZ BROKEN. MAGIC IZ OP..." is an easy reaction.

The smart person will just change his strategy to counter the magic and artillery. Having more, smaller, units is a good counter to magic that can delete full units.


8th edition made large blocks of infantry more powerful. yet they compensated with making artillery and spells capable of deleting units.

So its all about risk management. Sure, you can make the super powerful deathstar, but you might run into a Proton Torpedo spell.

Yeah, it's been a while since I played WHFB but i guess most people in my local didn't adapt terribly well except for the handful of tournament players (one of whom, if I'm not mistaken, has taken first a few times).

In any event, it wasn't very fun for me, because generally the only times I'd loose are when I blew myself up.

That is what I find to be the biggest reason for people crying cheese. They're just refusing to adapt to the changing meta, refusing to alter their tactics or style to reflect the new rules. And if they get caught in a bind and lose because of it they get all butt hurt.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I think its important to say that some players of 7th ed did not have the "Skill" to guess ranges - they just cheated using a variety of methods............

but then I have always disliked the WFB movement system when compared to 40k. Also I watched a "tactical game of WFB where the Wood Elf player spent the entire game avoiding any form of combat with his opponent eexcept for his specifically tooled up general - it was apparently fun for one player - the other may as well have not bothered turning up and let his opponent move his figures for him. It would have been even worse in 7th as the charge distacnes were so specfic.

That's my point. Doing so requires experience, good guessing and careful planning. That is how a competitive game would work.

WHFB 8th is not a competitive game. Hands down. It's been specifically designed to cater to new players while significantally reducing skill part. 8th solely relies on "hard counters" now. It's the easiest way to balance stuff but leads to very dull internal balance.

That being said...WHFB is still fun. GW wants it to be a pure beer&pretzels game so instead of endlessly hating on it (which leads to nothing anyway), I decided to embrace it. I play a 100% Goblin army that is mostly reliant on luck. It's one HELL of a fun army. It's purely random and it certainly doesn't take "skill", but it's a lot of fun and that's what WHFB is about imo, just having a fun time. I don't take part in tournaments of course (then again, we had 1 (one) proper non-GW tournament in all of 2012 compared to about 9-10 40k tournaments).

"Whatever floats your boat" fits best in such discussions. No side can "win" these...there's pros and cons for every system and WHFB caters to a different audience for a large part.

Jesus, it's like those DotA vs. LoL discussions sometimes, and we know where these end ;D

Lol what

Not a competitive game? I wholeheartedly disagree.

Well, it depends on your definition.

WHFB is mostly based on luck, even more so than other tabletop games, as in 8th, strategy became less important and luck became more important.

I sometimes call it "Yahtzee Premium" and while it certainly has some bitter humor in it, I also consider it kinda fitting. It's not negative at all, Yahtzee is fun too.

I am simply bitter because WHFB got dumbed down so hard. That's all

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I think its important to say that some players of 7th ed did not have the "Skill" to guess ranges - they just cheated using a variety of methods............

but then I have always disliked the WFB movement system when compared to 40k. Also I watched a "tactical game of WFB where the Wood Elf player spent the entire game avoiding any form of combat with his opponent eexcept for his specifically tooled up general - it was apparently fun for one player - the other may as well have not bothered turning up and let his opponent move his figures for him. It would have been even worse in 7th as the charge distacnes were so specfic.

I do agree about the rdiculous poential of specific elements of the "I win you loose" magic

Exactly why I can't understand how 7th was fun, with set charge distances, removing from the front and charging giving ASF it seems like two players who were good at guessing ranges would just end in a stand off.

Certain things about 7th (set charge distances, et al) have been in the game for many editions. Such things would not end in stand offs. Certain units and gear load outs would be more powerful receiving a charge than making one, and vice versa. It was then a problem of ensuring you had the right tools for the job, then adding in the random factor for the fight itself. God knows I've seen many games where I needed my summoned zombies to crumble at a particular moment, only to see them inexplicably kill three enemy models and run them down, while my Vamp Lord on Dragon died on a crumble after a flank charge. >.<

What you had to do was manuver yourself in such a way that your opponant could not avoid you (even when they were coming for you) and deploy in such a fashion that pitted your strengths against their weaknesses. The Deployment phase was such an important part of the game that similarly skilled opponants with similarly powerful armies could win or lose based on it. When getting people into the game, I would have new players and I set up our armies against each other, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the set up, then clear the board and try again.

WE beating you too much? (Wow, how long has it been since Wood Elves were over powered? Especially in 7th...) Then clearly you didn't understand the movement phase as well as your opponant, or your build/deployment was not strong enough to counter them. WE die in droves to normal shooting, warmachines, magic, and close combat. It was only by avoiding combat and getting in the alpha strike where they chose that they could compete. Find a way to restrict their movements or take apart their most powerful offensive tools and you could win. Certain armies forced you to think like them to win. Not play as they do (you'll have a hard time out manuvering WE or out shooting Dwarves or Empire, for instance) but to recognize their strengths and attack/neutralize them. Frustrated that your close combat army with no cav was never engaged by the WE? Yup, stop running in on foot. Frustrated that you kept getting out shot by gunlines? Get in there faster or bring protection. Don't get upset that the enemy refuses to play your game on your terms. It's guaranteed that whatever you are strongest at, they could never compete with. It should never surprise you that the Empire player is leery of charging his State Troops unsupported into your 20 strong block of Khorne Marked Warriors of Chaos with a 4+ armor save and 4 attacks each, especially since, if even 5 of those guys managed to weather the hell storm of shooting to get to the Imperial lines they would run roughshod over it.

What broke 7e were armies that DID NOT HAVE THIS WEAKNESS. Demons are the most obvious example, as they could do a little of everything and did it better than anyone else. VC also had this problem, but they DID have a weakness: their strength lay in the magic phase. Do they need to hurt you? Magic spell. Do they need better troops for the combat phase? Magic. Out manuver you? Magic. If you could neutralize their magic phase, you could beat the VC because they could not support a war of attrition. The trouble was, in a game where having 10 magic dice was alot, the VC player often had upwards of 14. HE have been lamented for having 20+ MD, but I never saw that, even in Teclis lists. The army was solid, but not overpowered, IMO. Demons, however, regularly had 20+ due to Tzeentch powers and certain units counting as wizards depending on their numbers. 14 dice, though, was still rough, especially with a few handy bound spells that no one wanted to see get off.

I don't think yopu read my post - at all sadly.

re Wood Elves - it was not me playing - I was watching. I watched one player run away from the others Chaos Warriors for the whole game apart from his uber general. IT was fun for the one player who was into how great he was at manuevering and all the little rules nuances that made his army work. It was obviously deathly boring for the other player who had brought a general army and just wanted a bit of a fight on his once a week game night.

But then thats often the difference in players - some like the mechanics of a game the subtle rules mechanics etc, others like things hitting each other with the first one to die loses. I don't think that EITHER one should be the way to play but the two play styles do not often coexist well............. IMO anyway

1) Yes. Skaven are overpowered, mindrazored Assassins are brutal (but in a good way), and Teclis-led White hordes can be pretty one-sided affairs as well. It's also really odd that Ogres have the best cannons and some of the best shooting but hey, Empire gets MC.

2) Combat is the most important phase. The decision might have been achieved before but usually everything revolves around and leads up to combat.

3) Don't like random movement, or rather the no charge reaction part. I also don't like the never-shrinking amount of shoddily written passages.

4) Still love the game.

5) Armies often seen: Empire, Skaven, HE, DE, Vamps, TK, WoC. Never seen: Daemons, Ogres, O & G, everything else sometimes.

6) The biggest improvement comes from talking to your opponent before the game, regardless of the setting. Other than that: Private Beta testers, like everyone else.

I wasn't aware Skaven could take Shadow magic.

There's more to something being overpowered than whether it can take Shadow magic or not. Skaven are generally agreed to be overpowered for a number of reasons, several of which go directly against their fluff, such as having some of the best leadership in the game and not being particularly unreliable.

They have excellent magic, and a variety of options of how to run it (double Seer and Seer on Bell are both strong choices, both can abuse the Power Scroll better than any other army). Their toys are all very good and work well together, and are not particularly expensive for the amount of damage they can do. They have 3 stand-out rare options that are all favourably costed, and all of which do well in the metagame.

They can also put together 2 very strong combat units, such as the Bell Deathstar and Furance unit.

Having played since 5th edition, I would have to say that I think 8th edition is a lot of fun. I think steadfast was needed (I used to feel guilty sometimes when my Brettonian lances just ran through units with no attacks back), although it could use a little cleaning up.

Like most I am better at complaining than giving praise, so the things that I dislike about 8th are as follows:
all armies seeing and moving through woods and other terrain pieces with no problems
"mysterious" terrain is lame
BSBs helping Ld checks vs. march blocking
skirmishers losing 360 degree movement & line of sight
Individual models ditto
MR being pointless (such an easy to fix rule too, let it work for the no ward save spells)
highly accurate cannons
and I cannot get myself to like random charge distances, but the dwarves sure do!

Complaining aside, I like many if not most of the changes. I like premeasuring, I like that the lores are pretty equal in power (remember the old lore of life? yuck!), I like step up, etc.

Pretty much my gaming crew have stopped playing 'stars (except the Tzeentch version), because of the killer spells and I think it makes the games more tactical and interesting.

There are professional gamblers. Lots of them. People who make their money playing cards against other people. Cards are more random than anything WHFB could ever dream of being. But you wouldn't say poker takes no skill. If you did, I'd gladly play you for money (pretend I'm actually good at poker).

Most games have a random aspect to them. But that doesn't mean they are luck. Greater knowledge of statistics and the rules will always win out. And that's skill.

Put another way, if someone had no concept of dice. Had no concept of units or their value or weaknesses, how well is that player going to do, even if they know basic movement? Or even if they know how to cast spells.

 Sigvatr wrote:
WHFB is a fun game, not more, not less.

GW games have never been more than fun games. I've played Warhammer since 3rd ed, 40K since 2nd, and Epic since Space Marine, and most of the second tier games as well (Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Blood Bowl etc). The only game that was completely lacking in tactical skill was 40k 3rd ed, which was just a horrible failure of design. The game that I think I'd describe as tactically sophisticated is Blood Bowl.

The myth of 7th ed's tactical complexity came from people who used to take VC, DE or DoC armies and romp the competition and pretended they were elite players through their skill, and not through having a broken army. They were just kidding themselves for the ego boost. When the same thing wasn't possible in 8th, thanks to a balancing of army lists and an increase in the randomness likely in each game, a lot of those players left the game.

The game now has the same level of tactical complexity that it had in 7th, which is a good amount for a beer and pretzels game, the kind that you should have just about mastered after a half a dozen games or so (from then on the only learning you should need is against armies you haven't played before).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nagashek wrote:
Speaking of dwarves, I think they'd be alot more fun to play if charging still got you "Strikes First" even with great weapons. I was so excited heading into 8th that I could actually CHARGE with my dwarves successfully. Then realized that by still striking last, I was much better off just giving myself another round of artillary fire into the enemy instead. >.<

That was an early observation many players had, but its since proven false. 8th is very much about buffs and hexes, and the player who gets the charge in gets the first chance to buff his combat unit and hex his enemy. I went from a solid position to a losing position on the weekend because my opponent charged and not me, allowing his Slann to buff his unit to buggery with the dreaded 3 Light spells in combination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And some armies just had no chance at all. Daemons were an army you just sat on the table and pushed forward till you won.

Magic was actually more rediclious back then. Spells may not have been as individually powerful, but you could cast tons more of them.

Daemon and High Elf armies could get upwards fo 20+ power dice. If you were playing against them there was literally no point to your magic.

Definitely. In 7th it was a case of either 'take so much magic you overwhelm your opponent utterly, and then hope you don't match up against someone with even more' or 'don't bother taking magic'.

There was few limits on characters. You could take a certain number of lords for your point level. Didn't matter if they were half your points.

You could satisfy the core requirement with 2-3 1o man units and then load up on awsome special, Rare, and characters.

And what worse was that there was little point in taking those troops at all. Any basic unit was just overwhelmed by combat res and driven from the field, hence the dominance of cavalry.

Steadfast cops a lot of complaints (and I think a slight limiting in its power would encourage mobile flanking units a little more), but it has meant big blocks of basic infantry are a useful thing now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Skaven arn't overpowered, they just have a good counter to deathstars.

The fact the Dreaded 13th and your WLC could decimate another guys army is because of how he built his army.

If he had had a MSU style army I'll wager your spell and artillery wouldn't have been nearly as effective.

Skaven are way overpowered. They have excellent counters to everything, not just deathstars, and they can field multiple counters for redundancy due to low point costs for nearly everything, which makes them even more reliable.

The WLC can kill heavily armoured models and it can kill numerous no-armour dudes. It can threaten hordes, or knights, or STanks, or Ethereals. 13th isn't much better or worse than some other spells but it can be powerful - and you can pick it at your leisure. Should some Brets show up, you just don't take it. Very reliable.

If someone adapts (or does he perhaps tailor?), then so does the opposition. You either need to judge one still picture, or make no judgement at all because everything flows.

I largely agree with the rest of your post though.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Doing so requires experience, good guessing and careful planning. That is how a competitive game would work.

Doing what? I understand he described a game of 8th. Experience and careful planning are still the very same foundations for a competetive game, now or in the past. Careful planning did in the past result in things like no infantry but missile units, small knight units, and 15+ PD magic phases. Wow. That's not even close to those vaunted tactics. That's simple listmaking. Good guessing is indeed mostly gone - and good riddance.

WHFB 8th is not a competitive game.

I do not really understand how you came to this conclusion. Yes, I read your claims but still...

"Whatever floats your boat" fits best in such discussions. No side can "win" these...there's pros and cons for every system and WHFB caters to a different audience for a large part.

Yes, of course.