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.

 Aerethan wrote:


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.

I don't think I had many Skaven opponents in 6th, and I don't remember the WE book being overpowered... but it's still the same book used currently, right?

The run of 6th was probably the most balanced WHFB since 3rd... and I have little experience with 3rd, but I heard certain armies could be super-cheezed back then due to the open ended nature of army construction.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


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.

I don't think I had many Skaven opponents in 6th, and I don't remember the WE book being overpowered... but it's still the same book used currently, right?

The run of 6th was probably the most balanced WHFB since 3rd... and I have little experience with 3rd, but I heard certain armies could be super-cheezed back then due to the open ended nature of army construction.

Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).

Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.

 Aerethan wrote:
Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).

Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.

Ah yes! Actually, I think I only fielded a steam tank maybe once. I would rather have lots of extra pistoliers or some swordsmen regiments.

It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.

But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).

Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.

Ah yes! Actually, I think I only fielded a steam tank maybe once. I would rather have lots of extra pistoliers or some swordsmen regiments.

It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.

But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.

Cool story bro. No one here cares about Kings of War.

I think 8th is really fun. Don't have to worry about power dice levels that you can't possibly deal with. The new infantry rules make combat much more fun.

Absolutely not, but I do appreciate the weight of the poll.

8th for me has been the best edition, and I've played since 3rd. That being said I do miss the openness of rules, lists, and additional content that was added via annuals, regiments of renown, campaign packs WD, ect.

Does it need some tweeking, yes. Cannons need toned down a little(d3 wounds vs monsters maybe) steadfast needs tweeked, as well a nerfing the 6 spells from test or die, to test and take a wound no armour save. (of course then banner of the world dragon will need even more tweeking.) maybe something to improve fear/terror. But the whole of 8th is good.

Re: Daemons in 7th edition. I once got tabled and only killed 2 models by them.

Yes, VC and DE could compete... but 7th ed Daemons have got to be the most unbalanced book GW has ever put out... at least, imo, and since I've been playing GW games (going back to 3rd edition 40k).

 cincydooley wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.

But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.

Cool story bro. No one here cares about Kings of War.

I think 8th is really fun. Don't have to worry about power dice levels that you can't possibly deal with. The new infantry rules make combat much more fun.

Oh, no worries!

I also think 8th is really a fun children's game. Don't have to worry about tactics when you can just roll a few dice that decide the whole game. The new spell and movement rules and infantry deathstars make the game easy-peasy since you don't have to use your brain.

8th edition is a turd, and you can polish it all you want and spray as much perfume on it as you please and dress it up in pretty bows... but it's still just a sad, sad lump of fecal matter. That may just be your sort of thing, though, so who am I to judge?

Oh, hey, that reminds me - a couple weeks ago a couple of us in our gaming group were bored after a game, and we invented a quick dice rolling game. One person starts it off by rolling a single die, and whatever gets rolled is everyone's target number. Then the other people, each with six dice, try to roll that same number on all six dice. If you do roll that number on some of the dice, set the die or dice aside and roll the rest, and repeat. Whoever gets all six of their dice to match the target number wins! It's really simple, takes no skill, and is entirely reliant upon total luck. I feel it's the next logical progression in Warhammer rules, so I believe I'll submit it to GW for 9th edition consideration.

 judgedoug wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.

But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.

Cool story bro. No one here cares about Kings of War.

I think 8th is really fun. Don't have to worry about power dice levels that you can't possibly deal with. The new infantry rules make combat much more fun.

Oh, no worries!

I also think 8th is really a fun children's game. Don't have to worry about tactics when you can just roll a few dice that decide the whole game. The new spell and movement rules and infantry deathstars make the game easy-peasy since you don't have to use your brain.

8th edition is a turd, and you can polish it all you want and spray as much perfume on it as you please and dress it up in pretty bows... but it's still just a sad, sad lump of fecal matter. That may just be your sort of thing, though, so who am I to judge?

Oh, hey, that reminds me - a couple weeks ago a couple of us in our gaming group were bored after a game, and we invented a quick dice rolling game. One person starts it off by rolling a single die, and whatever gets rolled is everyone's target number. Then the other people, each with six dice, try to roll that same number on all six dice. If you do roll that number on some of the dice, set the die or dice aside and roll the rest, and repeat. Whoever gets all six of their dice to match the target number wins! It's really simple, takes no skill, and is entirely reliant upon total luck. I feel it's the next logical progression in Warhammer rules, so I believe I'll submit it to GW for 9th edition consideration.

Seriously, go take your KoW rantings to a thread that has anything to do with that set of rules. This one doesnt. At all.

That's really delightful that you enjoy those rules. Really. I've never seen anyone play them, personally. 8E, however, has seen a pretty significant rise in players, with three of the local LGS having leagues for it.

But feel free to submit your idea. It's really a great one. Good thing there isn't any dice rolling in KoW!

 judgedoug wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
Wood Elves from Ravenous Hordes or the Annual 2002(or was it 2003) were the nasty ones. Even with the newer book, Dryads could rip apart a steam tank in 1 turn(which was a common tactic used locally to deal with them).

Steam Tanks were also OP back then if you didn't have some form of S10 or gimmick to deal with them.

Ah yes! Actually, I think I only fielded a steam tank maybe once. I would rather have lots of extra pistoliers or some swordsmen regiments.

It says a lot about 6th edition that we're trying our hardest to find examples of OP. That was all blown out of the water with 7th's codex creep and then 8th's random-dice-rolling-wins-you-the-game.

But that's why our group switched to Kings of War, though I'm busting out a 6th Skirmish campaign in August or so.

What do you like about Kings of War? Would you say you prefer it over all previous Warhammer versions, or just 8th? Do you use your existing Warhammer figures for it? How many people in your group switched over?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So for anyone not interested in 7th edition due to overpowered army books, the idea I was originally putting out there was a "living" rule set based on 7th edition and with yearly updates to balance everything out, so the idea of overpowered armies would ideally be eliminated with every list getting revisions to eliminate game breaking imbalances.

I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.

 cincydooley wrote:
Seriously, go take your KoW rantings to a thread that has anything to do with that set of rules. This one doesnt. At all.

KoW is a popular alternative for WHFB players who dislike the current WHFB edition. For that reason, and moreover given that Alessio worked on earlier editions of WHFB, I don't see how mentioning KoW is off-topic.

 bbb wrote:


I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.

Thing is, there never seems to be a consensus on what edition objectively was the 'best'. I have talked to people who swear blind that 3rd was a golden age, whereas I have a particular fondness for 4th since that was the edition that got me into wargaming as a whole.

I posted a similar poll a while back about 40k when 6th dropped as I wasn't particularly enthralled by the new changes and a similar result occurred there; a wide range of preferences ranging from Rogue Trader through to 6th and all points in between. I mean, I have fond memories of 3rd and still play that now but I am under no illusions that it doesn't stand up to other editions as being particularly good or balanced.

 filbert wrote:

 bbb wrote:


I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.

Thing is, there never seems to be a consensus on what edition objectively was the 'best'. I have talked to people who swear blind that 3rd was a golden age, whereas I have a particular fondness for 4th since that was the edition that got me into wargaming as a whole.

I posted a similar poll a while back about 40k when 6th dropped as I wasn't particularly enthralled by the new changes and a similar result occurred there; a wide range of preferences ranging from Rogue Trader through to 6th and all points in between. I mean, I have fond memories of 3rd and still play that now but I am under no illusions that it doesn't stand up to other editions as being particularly good or balanced.

I'd say that objectively, even if 6th wasn't the best core book, it was the best supported edition. Every army got a book, and we had supplements coming out our ears.

6th edition was the last time GW gave WFB any real attention, since then it's been playing second fiddle.

 filbert wrote:

 bbb wrote:


I just picked 7th edition since there seems to be such visceral response to the change to 8th that I don't remember going from 6th to 7th.

Thing is, there never seems to be a consensus on what edition objectively was the 'best'. I have talked to people who swear blind that 3rd was a golden age, whereas I have a particular fondness for 4th since that was the edition that got me into wargaming as a whole.

I posted a similar poll a while back about 40k when 6th dropped as I wasn't particularly enthralled by the new changes and a similar result occurred there; a wide range of preferences ranging from Rogue Trader through to 6th and all points in between. I mean, I have fond memories of 3rd and still play that now but I am under no illusions that it doesn't stand up to other editions as being particularly good or balanced.

Yeah, I started in 5th edition, so I have fond memories of Beastmen with 2 wounds, Pink Horrors that split into Blue Horrors, ranks being 4 wide, etc. But even with fond memories I know that 6th and 7th are better games.

I do miss ranks of 4, especially for Cavalry.

For me, late 6th early 7th was the best time to be playing Fantasy. They ruined 7th with some terrible books towards the end, but it was a pretty good edition apart from that. I started playing in 5th, and I think it was okay, but massively dominated by herohammer.

If they brought back 7th edition with revisions to the broken books that came out (Vampires, Dark Elves, Undead) and balanced everything a little better, I'd be very happy to play it. As is, KOW is the same sort of game and it's rules are free.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Seriously, go take your KoW rantings to a thread that has anything to do with that set of rules. This one doesnt. At all.

KoW is a popular alternative for WHFB players who dislike the current WHFB edition. For that reason, and moreover given that Alessio worked on earlier editions of WHFB, I don't see how mentioning KoW is off-topic.

We'll have to agree to disagree on it being a "popular" alternative.

Though to be fair, they did have a bitchin team tournament at Adepticon this year. Oh wait... no. That was WHFB. Silly me.

But you know, they did have a tournament at the juggernaught miniatures festival that is Origins this year, so I guess I concede your point about popularity. An Origins Kings of War tournament certainly dwarfs Buckeye Battles.

I didn't claim KoW is more popular than WHFB. :/

Personally I find 8th to be a better ruleset in many ways. however hampered by several major flaws. Steadfast should be negated by being disrupted or getting flank charge or *something*, cannons need to be made a bit less "sniper"-ey, and above all, Magic needs to be fixed for multiple reasons already mentioned. Having powerful magic is one thing, but that magic is a mandatory must have (an army can make do without shooting, some armies can make do without much in the way of CC, but Magic is a must-have, if for no other reason than defense) is an issue, especially when it can be finagled to be nigh-uncounterable. As others noted, 1,1 being an overriding miscast would help things.

If Games Workshop were to re-release the 7th edition of WHFB would you play again?

No. I barely have enough time to paint, model, and play Warhammer 40k.

My group isn't interested in Fantasy, and I'd rather not play pick up games at an FLGS.

So no Fantasy for me.

 Manchu wrote:
I didn't claim KoW is more popular than WHFB. :/

You're absolutely right. I'm just being pissy. My apologies.

It just gets irritating, to me, when people come into a conversation about one system and espouse why another system is better.

My bad!

I know next to nothing about KoW except:
(1) Alessio wrote it and he used to work on WHFB
(2) some folks who don't care for 8E like KoW
(3) I'm not personally excited about it

So, while I wouldn't say 9E should be KoW or anything, KoW might be a good example of why OP's topic exists in the first place -- namely, general dissatisfaction with 8E.

Of course, I guess it also means that folks who like 8E may not find KoW very appealing, either.

For me, the setting is far more important than the most current ruleset. Like I said earlier, my main opponent is my wife, so if we don't like a rule then we ignore it, or come up with a new rule we feel should exist.

I play WFB because I love the world it portrays, and the models in general are attractive.

So regardless of how bad GW might make the game, I'll still play it, even if that means using 6th edition kitbashed rules.

Now as far as pick up games, I'd rather play 6th than 8th for about 90% of the rules.

3rd edition and 6th edition were the best.

I really enjoyed 6th, great set of rules, reasonably balanced books.

Also, lol at how someone casually mentioning KoW in a single offhand line about what their club plays (while stating that warhammer 6th is still played in the same sentence) attracts a multi-paragraph GW fan rage post. :p

I don't play 8th because there's too many damn rules, games take 4-5 hours and are largely randomly determined, and all the new army books revolve around buff/combo-stacking, uber-magic and giant monsters, along with the mandatory 3 giant blocks of infantry to put the mandatory bsb and general in.

 bbb wrote:

What do you like about Kings of War? Would you say you prefer it over all previous Warhammer versions, or just 8th? Do you use your existing Warhammer figures for it? How many people in your group switched over?

Well, I got into Warhammer in 4th edition, and had fun - but it was a pretty bad system with spells that could wipe out units, giant LD 10 stubborn infantry deathstars, uber characters flying all over the place (which is one of the many, many reasons I hate 8th; 8th is just 4th with TWICE the SUPER MEGA POWER). I played it because it was basically the only thing around at the time, and I was a teenager and didn't know better. I kinda stopped playing after 5th... but then 6th came out.

6th was just so good, and it had such a wealth of stuff, every White Dwarf had new scenarios or conversion projects, we had good solid army books and a new worldwide campaign every year. Plus the rules are _tight_. I loved playing 300 point skirmishes, 1500 point games, 2000 point games, 2500 point games...

But just like with every edition of Warhammer, it bogs down with larger games. No matter how well you knew the rules, it'd take 4+ hours for a very large game. Warhammer has so much micro detail and granularity that it works best at smaller games. And 6th was the best in terms of rules balance because there were so few "single die rolls" where the entire game could be won or lost based on the outcome of a single die or 2d6 (another reason I hate 8th).

Kings of War is kind of the opposite. It shines at the huge game level. (This is another strike against 8th - the pseudo-move to 'larger' games basically failed by forcing you to take larger units, but at it's core, it's still the tired old Warhammer ruleset)

Kings of War is almost the opposite. It doesn't work as well for smaller games, but it absolutely _shines_ at larger games. And by larger, I mean two to three times the model count of a 2000 point Warhammer army. It plays in half the time with double the models, so you never feel the long-game-drag like many large Warhammer games will have. Because of the streamlined rules, you tend to be more confident in your movements and tactical positioning. I have never lost a game of Kings of War and gone, "man if that stupid cheesy spell hadn't wiped out my unit of Greatswords"... I can point to specific tactical blunders that cost me the game. I win or lose based on my tactical decisions, not random happenstance.

I once read that Warhammer has progressed that way from 6th through 8th, adding the more random stuff like charge ranges, random unit-destroying spells, random auto-deaths, etc, to move away from tournament play, so that even younger kids can have fun and not be punished for poor tactical decisions. For me, however, those elements when they started showing up in 7th, and definitely through 8th, just ruined it for me. If I want the game to be decided on the roll of a single die , let's just roll a die before the game and not waste time setting up models. When the ruleset is polished enough that I can lose horribly and not feel like I was cheated, that I can learn from a tactical mistake and not because someone rolled a '6' somewhere along the way, that is a success, and that is fun for me, even if it was a crushing defeat.

So to go back to your original questions, I'm not entirely sure I prefer KoW to 6th...(it's definitely superior to 8th, as it does everything 8th is trying to do, but way better) as it's just different. Kings of War succeeds in playing huge massive games in a way that Warhammer never could. But I still love 6th, and the Warhammer rules really shine in smaller games, which is why I am running a Warhammer 6th Skirmish campaign for some of my group's members in a few months. If GW for some reason dropped 8th in favor of going back to 6th and started supporting Warhammer like it used to, I'd probably play both actively.

I have several WHFB armies - a huge Empire army (since 4th edition), a huge Tomb Kings army, and a huge High Elf army. I am considering rebasing my Empire for KoW. I also have unit-based armies for Kings of War - a huge Orc army and a large Goblin army. I have also used my Hail Caesar Greek Hoplite army in Kings of War. Every single Warhammer player in our local group either stopped playing Warhammer after 8th came out or switched over. There's 6 active KoW players at our weekly gaming group, and a couple have entirely rebased their Warhammer armies onto unit-basing. I've also been asked to demo KoW at one of the three FLGS because Warhammer doesn't sell anymore.

Do you have to re-base your army to use it for KoW? Seems like you could just not remove any bases from the unit as models die and get the same result? (Or maybe there's a different unit width than the individual bases could achieve)

Regardless, I've kept an eye on KoW... there was a guy demoing it at our local store. But, I prefer fantasy atm and so I just hope they fix things with 9th edition... eventually

 Manchu wrote:
I know next to nothing about KoW except:
(1) Alessio wrote it and he used to work on WHFB
(2) some folks who don't care for 8E like KoW
(3) I'm not personally excited about it

Lemme know if you change your mind, I'd love to run a game for ya!

Oh, and for all the GW fanboys that are jumping down my throat, lemme offer to you that I've been playing and enjoying 40k 6th edition recently (I even bought some GW models, gasp!). I like to play games that are fun no matter what and have a good ruleset. WHFB 8th is just not one of those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
Do you have to re-base your army to use it for KoW? Seems like you could just not remove any bases from the unit as models die and get the same result? (Or maybe there's a different unit width than the individual bases could achieve)

Regardless, I've kept an eye on KoW... there was a guy demoing it at our local store. But, I prefer fantasy atm and so I just hope they fix things with 9th edition... eventually

Lordy no. But unit-basing is just easier for storage and transport. Since there's no individual casualty removal in KoW (it uses the concept of 'nerve', which is a combination of casualties and morale), a lot of players just unit-base their armies. My goblin and orc armies are all unit-based; the Helsvakt army I'm building using Red Box Games and Mierce figures are unit-based but on trays so I can remove models for skirmish gaming, and all my Warhammer armies are still individually based. One of my buddies rebased his entire Warhammer Goblin army so it's all mini-dioramas and such, but has kept is so that a couple figures in each unit could be removed for skirmish games.

Most KoW units are 5x2, 5x4, or 10x4, when dealing with 20mm bases.

Ahh. There's the fanboy word tossed out. Well played sir. That definitely makes your position a stronger one. Kudos to you on that brilliant maneuver.

 judgedoug wrote:

I also think 8th is really a fun children's game. Don't have to worry about tactics when you can just roll a few dice that decide the whole game. The new spell and movement rules and infantry deathstars make the game easy-peasy since you don't have to use your brain.

8th edition is a turd, and you can polish it all you want and spray as much perfume on it as you please and dress it up in pretty bows... but it's still just a sad, sad lump of fecal matter. That may just be your sort of thing, though, so who am I to judge?

Sorry, have to respond to this post as it illustrates the most ignorant view of 8th that was espoused by people in the first months of release. The people who would always say the game has no tactics were unable to adapt. It isn't that there aren't any tactics anymore, it's that your old tactics don't work anymore. The tactics changed. Bait and flee units were replaced by sacrificial units. Death stars were defeated by simply fleeing. They didn't have the units to ever catch those fleeing units.

Only reason I say this is because I heard the exact same arguments from a local Lizardman player. Problem he demonstrated he would call something childish and stupid because it wasn't something he was use to dealing with. When the 7th ed LM book came out, he claimed GW had nerfed LM to the ground and had become a bottom tier book. It wasn't because the book was weak, it was because his old run and gun skink army was not longer viable. The game changed and he didn't want to adapt to the changes.

Is the edition perfect? No, far from it. But as everyone has pointed out, every edition has had problems. People are just looking at the earlier ones with rose color glasses.

As for everyone who claimed 6th was the paragon of army balance, may I remind of this little broken bundle of joy:


Are we forgetting the Von Carstein army? First turn charging slayer armies? The Sea Guard army that could open fire on one unit and delete it before the game started? There was some pretty broken stuff in there.

@Manchu, I thought WarmarHordes was the popular alternative to WHFB?

silent25 wrote:
@Manchu, I thought WarmarHordes was the popular alternative to WHFB?

I dunno, WM/H doesn't feel anything like WHFB to me. Also, I think WM/H is not for people who dislike a specific edition of WHFB or 40k but for folks who want a much more competitive (not a synonym for tactical) game.