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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yes, single models frequently destroying entire armies of their own was incredibly fun to play.

/irony

This guy gets it.

Hero Hammer was awe full, the only reason people tend to get nostalgic is because they ran those incredibly broken heroes.

Also, if you think magic is bad now, try dealing with certain army books being able to churn out 20+ power dice.

JWhex wrote:
People leave every edition and some people leave when their army book is updated. However, many new gamers are born every year and there is a new cohort of every age group as well.

The problem there is the heavy start-up costs will put off a lot of people who might start it up. The price hikes and the emphasis on huge units is tolerable when you have an army and just need to expand it a bit with the new stuff. Not so much when you start adding up the costs of starting an army big enough to play "standard" (2-3000pts) from scratch.

 bbb wrote:
6th and 7th editions are considered by some to have been the best time to be playing Warhammer and since 8th edition many people have dropped out of the game.

Pff 6 and 7th sucked, Vampires dominated EVERYONE, Combat was always won by the hardest hitting troop and there was little to no way around it. The only thing 8 really needs is for cav to move much much more and steadfast be cancelled by flanking, done you are golden.

If by "Vampires" you mean Daemons, then you are right. And who wrote that turd of a book...

HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7th ed was terrible. Power armies Power characters NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!

7th was only "bad" because the army books were bad.

Ignore for a second the old army books, and look only at the current ones.

7th edition with the new 12 PD cap would work rather well with the new army books.

The last 2 editions both saw rules written specifically for selling more models which meant bigger games(among other factors on game size): Minimum rank bonus becoming 5 wide(which screwed up every cavalry box that was released during 6th edition, which is most of them) and Steadfast.


I remember a time when 2000 points was a full size game, and 3000 was crazy talk unless you had all day. But back then units of 20 was a reasonable size for say Empire infantry.

I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)

One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.

nkelsch wrote:
I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)

One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.

And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.

xxvaderxx wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)

One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.

And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.

Spending $50 to get rules for my models every 4-6 years is keeping me from playing the game right now. I'd probably spend more than $50 on models if the rules for them were free. Also, if the rules were regularly tweaked to fix balance issues that would lend itself to more purchases too.

One of the interviews with the old GW crew on realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co.uk summed it up perfectly. They created the rules for Warhammer and gave them away for free to sell more models. And it worked...

 bbb wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)

One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.

And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.

Spending $50 to get rules for my models every 4-6 years is keeping me from playing the game right now. I'd probably spend more than $50 on models if the rules for them were free. Also, if the rules were regularly tweaked to fix balance issues that would lend itself to more purchases too.

One of the interviews with the old GW crew on realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co.uk summed it up perfectly. They created the rules for Warhammer and gave them away for free to sell more models. And it worked...

WTF are you talking about, since first edition you had to buy the rules and supplements?

 bbb wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I think GW should investigate a 'living rule book' edition for Fantasy as that allows re-balances to happen constantly and can possibly give them a fresh take on a seemingly dying game as well as possibly bring new players in with the expectation of 'living rule book' (free rules)

One of the reasons Bloodbowl survived so long when on its own was the community supported LRB. I think such a concept could allow them to fix broken rules and bring the game back.

And stop selling overpriced army lists? are you mad?.

Spending $50 to get rules for my models every 4-6 years is keeping me from playing the game right now. I'd probably spend more than $50 on models if the rules for them were free. Also, if the rules were regularly tweaked to fix balance issues that would lend itself to more purchases too.

One of the interviews with the old GW crew on realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co.uk summed it up perfectly. They created the rules for Warhammer and gave them away for free to sell more models. And it worked...

Yeah, it draws people in and potentially solves balance issues with nimble re-addressing *ALL* rules with every update which makes a better game which then draws people in.

If the alternative is "Living rulebook" or "dead franchise" I would hope the LRB would be tried before just killing fantasy all together.

xxvaderxx wrote:
The only thing 8 really needs is for cav to move much much more and steadfast be cancelled by flanking, done you are golden.

I still don't understand why tournies don't just errata that flanking cancels steadfast. I ran into 2 guys at a local store last week that still thought it did

It just makes so much sense, and could even be required that you need to have 2 ranks in the flank like I believe it was in 7th... and it would fix things immeasurably!

You know, a year ago, I'd murder a hobo for them to dump 8th and go back to a 6th/7th hybrid... but after a year of playing Kings of War, it's easy to see just how flawed of a ruleset Warhammer is. Kings of War is just so much better as a mass-combat game. Now, don't get me wrong, Warhammer 6/7 is still great, and I'm still using the rules for skirmish games, but it's not good for much more than that.

 Aerethan wrote:
7th was only "bad" because the army books were bad.

Ignore for a second the old army books, and look only at the current ones.

7th edition with the new 12 PD cap would work rather well with the new army books.

The last 2 editions both saw rules written specifically for selling more models which meant bigger games(among other factors on game size): Minimum rank bonus becoming 5 wide(which screwed up every cavalry box that was released during 6th edition, which is most of them) and Steadfast.


I remember a time when 2000 points was a full size game, and 3000 was crazy talk unless you had all day. But back then units of 20 was a reasonable size for say Empire infantry.

Yeah, but the reason 20 was a reasonable size was because it was a waste of points to go any bigger when a unit of knights could just charge in, kill the front rank denying attacks back, break the unit and run it down and on into the next one in a single turn.

Steadfast not being removable (other than the old fashioned method of killing things) is a pain in the ass but it's better than losing the game in the deployment step or because your cavalry was better than mine.

Orktavius wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
7th was only "bad" because the army books were bad.

Ignore for a second the old army books, and look only at the current ones.

7th edition with the new 12 PD cap would work rather well with the new army books.

The last 2 editions both saw rules written specifically for selling more models which meant bigger games(among other factors on game size): Minimum rank bonus becoming 5 wide(which screwed up every cavalry box that was released during 6th edition, which is most of them) and Steadfast.


I remember a time when 2000 points was a full size game, and 3000 was crazy talk unless you had all day. But back then units of 20 was a reasonable size for say Empire infantry.

Yeah, but the reason 20 was a reasonable size was because it was a waste of points to go any bigger when a unit of knights could just charge in, kill the front rank denying attacks back, break the unit and run it down and on into the next one in a single turn.

Steadfast not being removable (other than the old fashioned method of killing things) is a pain in the ass but it's better than losing the game in the deployment step or because your cavalry was better than mine.

Which is why you pepper in some of the newer rules, like stepping up, supporting attacks etc.

Our group of 5 here started playing with 8th (one came back basically). I didn´t like 6th/7th, very much liked the changes in 8th. The startup costs are a problem nowadays, but we regularly play smaller games and still enjoy it immensely as long as you don´t go stupid on characters or the like. So I sincerely hope that they´ll get all or at least most off the books done before 9th so that our little circle can stay with 8th if we don´t like 9th.

8th edition is the only Fantasy edition I've ever enjoyed playing. Which is odd because I've almost completely stopped enjoying 40K as soon as 6th edition came out. IMHO the two systems need to be different games, and really should share as few mechanics as possible.

Having more fun with 8th than I did with 6/7th. There were more problems with 6/7th than there are with 8th. When I hear people talk about how 6/7th was more "tactical", they always seem to refer to how being able to guess your unit was 1/8th too far away from his. Guessing ranges is not a tabletop game skill, it's a carpentry skill.

But still, there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people dropped 8th. It is still healthy in my area, but that appears to be the exception, not the norm.

It's too late for me, 8th edition soured me on Fantasy badly enough to never want to play it again, no matter the edition.

I love 8th edition, I'd never go back!

All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.

They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.

 Grot 6 wrote:
All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.

They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.

5th and 6th were quite different. You might be thinking of 4th and 5th which were 'hero hammer' with large powerful characters, wizards with army-destroying spells, giant deathstars of troops - basically what 8th edition is now. 6th edition was the 'reset button' Warhammer, invalidating all previous army books and rules, came with the Ravening Hordes army book that brought every army into line and removed all overpowered everything. 2000-2005, from the release of Warhammer 6th, through Warhammer Skirmish, the 2002,2003,2004 annuals, Lustria, Albion, and Storm of Chaos campaigns, and the General's Compendium, was the Golden Age of Warhammer, with balanced army books and a solid ruleset; never before seen and never to be seen again.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.

They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.

5th and 6th were quite different. You might be thinking of 4th and 5th which were 'hero hammer' with large powerful characters, wizards with army-destroying spells, giant deathstars of troops - basically what 8th edition is now. 6th edition was the 'reset button' Warhammer, invalidating all previous army books and rules, came with the Ravening Hordes army book that brought every army into line and removed all overpowered everything. 2000-2005, from the release of Warhammer 6th, through Warhammer Skirmish, the 2002,2003,2004 annuals, Lustria, Albion, and Storm of Chaos campaigns, and the General's Compendium, was the Golden Age of Warhammer, with balanced army books and a solid ruleset; never before seen and never to be seen again.

I agree, 6th was the golden age of WFB. Don't forget Warbands came out during that time as a means of getting players started with smaller armies, and to promote painting as you go across several units. Warbands was the perfect way of getting new players in at a lower price point, as 2 basic boxes and the army book(which at the time was $22) was all you needed.

The best thing GW could do with 9th is to replace the extra stuff they removed from the 6th ed rule book going into 7th - seige, skirmish, those sorts of rules.

Personally, I'm not a HUGE fan of 8th, but I think WFB suffers more from the cost of an army for a "full sized" game. If I want a different play style in games, I'd buy a different army rather than have random dice rolls added to the core mechanics.

7th had Daemons

so no thank you

 judgedoug wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
All I'd like them to do is add in a Mordhiem supplement like the old Empire in Flames supplement.

They made it a point to overstep the game, theres no getting the love back after beating the public as much as they have with the gak that was 5th and 6th edition.

5th and 6th were quite different. You might be thinking of 4th and 5th which were 'hero hammer' with large powerful characters, wizards with army-destroying spells, giant deathstars of troops - basically what 8th edition is now. 6th edition was the 'reset button' Warhammer, invalidating all previous army books and rules, came with the Ravening Hordes army book that brought every army into line and removed all overpowered everything. 2000-2005, from the release of Warhammer 6th, through Warhammer Skirmish, the 2002,2003,2004 annuals, Lustria, Albion, and Storm of Chaos campaigns, and the General's Compendium, was the Golden Age of Warhammer, with balanced army books and a solid ruleset; never before seen and never to be seen again.

It might have been, I distinctly remember the bad vibes and ill will, along with the double whammy price increase, and the realignment that had everyone going. Might have been the end of 4th, early 5th.
There was a lot going on that year, along with that too, Fantasy took a serious hit at that time, iirc.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yes, single models frequently destroying entire armies of their own was incredibly fun to play.

/irony

Exactly! That was my the greatest issue with 7th, the one thing that turned me off the game. 8th was what got me back, and in a big way. It's not without it's flaws, but I'd never go back to 7th. Frankly, if GW went back to 7th, I'd either quit or continue using 8th.

~Tim?

 kenshin620 wrote:
7th had Daemons

so no thank you

8th has demons as an army as well.......

TBH theres always got to be a top army for the edition, only the name of the army changes.

Personally when playing WFB, I'll probably use 8th ed rules with whatever army book I have in the cupboard regardless of edition (bought loads of them until they asked £25 a go) with scenario based games and chosen forces to fit the story/scenario in play.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

TBH theres always got to be a top army for the edition, only the name of the army changes.

Maybe I'm just getting rose-tinted glasses, but what army was top/overpowered in 6th edition?

 judgedoug wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

TBH theres always got to be a top army for the edition, only the name of the army changes.

Maybe I'm just getting rose-tinted glasses, but what army was top/overpowered in 6th edition?

Skaven were the top cheese lists back in 6th. Not great by todays standards of power, but back then it was pretty damn rough.

MSU Wood Elves before they got a proper book were also quite nasty.

Still, it was a far more balanced game overall than what we've had since 7th edition.