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 missed the good edition then, because I started WHFB just when 7th was released
7th had its problems, but it was still more enjoyable than 8th.

Whew, this is frankly a complicated issue played out over years. There is not one simple answer, but from my limited POV here is what I saw:

1) GW really screwed up with the army books for 7th edition. The competitive scene kind of went to crap.

2) this timeframe happened to coincide with GW going all Kirby and going out of there way to cut off all interactions with their customers aside from their online shopping carts.

3) 8th came out, which introduced some big changes. Unfortunately it happened to inevitably alienate some old timers while simultaneously raising the barrier to entry for new players. The game did NOT scale well, at all, even for a GW game. Not good.

4) rather than fix the course here, the first years of releases doubled down on everything that did this. An expansion for even more magic which no one played. Tapering off of army releases. Bretonnians.

5) towards the end of 8th, the general feeling was that the game needed a big overhaul to make it play faster, smoother, and above all make it easier to get into. End times happened. There was much stirring in the community, cautious optimism.

6) AoS happened. Regardless of how you currently feel about AoS or GW in general, this was a poorly handled release. Going back to point number 2, everything just felt awkward and poorly communicated. It felt like a complete disconnect. GW did not do a good job giving their old playerbase an easy time transitioning to a new ruleset.

7) on a positive note, i feel certain the way WHFB/AoS went down finally forced some positive changes at GW. It’s just a shame it took WHFB and the old community dying off before someone in Nottingham woke up. It was a cool setting and interesting if quirky game while it lasted.

 auticus wrote:
Depended on where you were.

We didn't have any MSU here, and our locals favored the massive blobs as well with the mandatory level 4, where both sides entire tactical game was "gotta six dice Irresistable Force the death spell first so I can win"

Curious to why is that. Over here big blocks dominated the meta until the Empire book or thereabouts.

The mid to tail end of 8th was something like this:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/525771.page



A single 20 warrior unit, the rest are all min-sized fast units or monsters/chariots/warmachines

Empire had their all-knight lists (ok, there was a knight bus with characters, but the rest were all min-sized, hurricanums, small units of DGK and Stanks). DE with pegasus lords, warlocks, dark riders, max bolt throwers and shades. SE being SE. VC with their blender lord in a black knight unit, double terrorgheist, double hexwraiths and core full of bats and wolves, etc.

Those were the lists dominating the late 8th edition tournament meta.

The only army that didn't really conform to that and still came up competitive was skaven, but that was mostly because the book was an inter-edition mess of 7th edition casting values for an 8th edition magic phase and all the other skaven crazy things (teleporting doomrocket, teleporting brass orb, abombs, doomwheels, etc.). Brets, TK, O&G, Beastmen who couldn't play that game properly were the lowest possible tier.

*edit*

Something went wrong. Can't figure out how to correct.

I know far more people who play LOTR and The Hobbit than who play fantasy. Its quite big here in canada.

Davor wrote:
*edit*

Something went wrong. Can't figure out how to correct.

You had a nonexistent doublepost most likely. It's something that has happened for years, and the "correction" method is simply to let it be and the server fixes itself.

I honestly really enjoyed Warhammer Fantasy. I was a big proponent of it in 8th. A common misconception that people have was that it was killed by Steadfast and hordes, however in practice this wasn't actually true. Steadfast made a big impact early in 8th edition when it was introduced, however as new books came out and Games Workshop started pushing larger box sets, the actual power lists had all mostly shifted to one or two big blocks in core, and Monsters + Chariots ruling the day. In comparison to large blocks of infantry, single powerful models brought a lot of advantages. For one they were significantly more maneuverable under the Fantasy ranked movement system. Being able to freely rotate and pivot made them flexible, and gave them a huge degree of flexibility. These models typically had a large number of high strength attacks, and were able to use thunder stomps or impact hits and in some cases both to add a significant number of attacks to grind infantry blobs.

Generally Warhammer was a matchup between Monsters, Chariots and Monstrous Cavalry with a few exceptions. Even Skaven, the quintessential horde army, really only leveraged its hordes to hold the enemy in place while the Helpit Abominations, Doom Wheels, and Warp Lightning Cannons did all the actual work.

Fantasy's problem as others have said was GW has always relied on its unique and awesome IP to sell models that cost significantly more than their competitors. Fantasy was a tough sell for GW classic models because a generic Orc or Knight is difficult to sell. Furthermore, some other companies make fantastic fantasy miniatures for a lower price point, and GW would have had to significantly reduce prices to compete with generic miniature manufacturers. Look at the price point of Bolt Action. You can't slap a copyright on a US Marine or Soviet Infantry unit. So Warlord prices their minis to compete on the broader scale of WW2 models. For GW to really push plastic ranges like Bretonnia need to compete with Perry Miniature Historical or Fireforge (https://fireforge-games.com/military-order/9-teutonic-knights.html )

This is why the rules began shifting away from more generic rank and file, and began favoring more unique kits, like the Arachnorak Spider, Doom Bells, and other massive models, where there are fewer modeling competitors, especially competitors with similar war gear options! It was only a matter of time until GW needed to make its infantry especially unique as well, and thus the new AoS army groups were born. My Knights of Bretonnia are gone, surviving only in the legacy of The 9th Age. My Greenskin Orcs are holding on by a thread.

The short of it is Fantasy was doomed to die because of GW's miniature selling strategy. Create unique rules and units with protected IP and sell those at high prices. The models look nice, the models look unique, and because of how unique everything is it is more difficult for third party competitors to move in.

It happened here mainly because large mega blob units were easy mode and our local meta wasn't countering those properly. You were either running mega blob or you were trying to do a combined arms army that looked like an army and were getting roflstomped for it.

Chariots were a big thing, but monsters I never saw because cannonballs could one shot them. The only time we saw monsters was during a massive all day battle ending our tamurkhan campaign in 2013, where someone brought tamurkhan. Tamurkhan was blasted in turn 1 by 2 cannons and died. Ending why we never saw monsters n 8th edition lol.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Davor wrote:
*edit*

Something went wrong. Can't figure out how to correct.

You had a nonexistent doublepost most likely. It's something that has happened for years, and the "correction" method is simply to let it be and the server fixes itself.

It's a reasonably accurate answer to the question posed by the thread title though.

I'm sorry Akaen but I do not believe you. Monsters could't do the dmg to a horde to kill it due to ranks.

And then there were (dwarven) cannons.

Skaven did use their hordes as you described.
Elves did not. They simply placed Allarielle or another lvl 4 mage in the middle of blob, probably with the banner of the world dragon. (Note that thing would eat your skaven army. The game was not meant for 2+ ward saves)

 Earth127 wrote:
I'm sorry Akaen but I do not believe you. Monsters could't do the dmg to a horde to kill it due to ranks.

And then there were (dwarven) cannons.

Skaven did use their hordes as you described.
Elves did not. They simply placed Allarielle or another lvl 4 mage in the middle of blob, probably with the banner of the world dragon. (Note that thing would eat your skaven army. The game was not meant for 2+ ward saves)

Alarielle wasn't a particularly good caster, it was just the 5+ for mundane attacks that you wanted her for. And then you wanted to take high magic for the stacking ward save, but high magic lacked a 6th spell in the dwellers league, meaning if the other guy had it Alarielle would die half the time.

Other than a few gimmick lists (that Khalida list with a zillion archers) or maybe a single unit hordes were very much gone from top tier at the end of 8th edition.

No idea. WHFB was almost too much high-fantasy for me, AoS killed any trace of immersion. I play W40K now, but i still think WHFB 8ed was far superior to any of the large scale games they run now. (Albeit WHFB 8ed also suffered from GWs OCD on large models - and a few spells that were very broken against certain enemies.)

Maybe LotR would have been just my thing, but i dont know of anyone playing it.

Oh right I forgot a thing: highlander. Fantasy had a minimum on troops pointswise and this didn't make it any easier to get into the game (especially higher points)

It's a minor thing. But I really believe lack of sales killed WHFB. And that the main cause was lack of new blood (players).

We had regular new blood in our WHFB events. But none of them paid retail costs ever. THey all got their armies second hand or through vastly cheaper 3rd party alternates like Perry miniatures.

 Earth127 wrote:
Oh right I forgot a thing: highlander. Fantasy had a minimum on troops pointswise and this didn't make it any easier to get into the game (especially higher points)

Curiously most people complained about core units being a drag, and that they should be able to spend all their points on elites (which were generally more expensive per mini, especially stuff like witch elves, at 4,5 euro a single plastic mini).

Core units were also the easiest to find 2nd hand for cheap, and with a few exceptions with plenty of cheaper 3rd party support.

Thats true. Complaining about having to take normal core guys has always been a thing since 6th brought it back. AOS basically did away with that for the most part too.

Many battleline units are also elite anyway now.

Which is something I disagree with.
I like having rank and file troops in my armies. Seeing nothing but elite troops feels off to me.
That's something that happens a lot in Total War, and nothing is more annoying than seeing the AI field stacks of 20 Praetorian cohorts. I mean, legions weren't built like that.

I don't mind battleline/rank and file receiving certain bonuses, I do mind it not being a choice or borderline OP. And I do very much think the overreliance on basic core was a factor in making recruitment harder.

Especially pre-end times, you have to discount any chances it brought if you want to know what killed fantasy because at that point it was (for GW) already dead.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Is this post supposed to be ironic? If so, it fell flat to be honest. If it was meant to be serious, then you should be made aware of the irony of a vitriol laden toxic post trash talking people who didn't dive straight into AOS like you. This CAAC vs. WAAC war is not only dumb, but it's catching all the midline players in its crosshairs.

It's not CAAC vs WAAC, it's neckbeards versus anyone who actually was open to trying anything new. There were (and still are) very vocal people who refused to do anything with AoS because "IT ISN'T MY GAME!".

The sets were NOT selling fine, this is the reason they did the GH in the first place.

Prove it. The AoS main starter set actually went out of stock a few times before the GHB came out.

And as far as Battalions being available at the same time? Those functioned fine as AOS forces, but they weren't effective in the 8th meta, which is why kudos mentions them. Had GW not aimed its sights on the $100 regiment, things would have most assuredly ran different. 7th Ed. introduced rules bloat and price gouging, 8th chose to "fix" those things by doubling down on both. Rather than removing the special rules that were destroying the efficiency of the game, and rather than make sets viable straight out the box, they introduced rules to counter the rules that were set to counter the problem special rules, which then forced people to buy more of the expensive small boxed sets to be competitive. THAT was the failing with 7th and 8th. AOS wasn't a fix for that. AOS was an attempt to "unify" the products of both games to both cater to what was already working (40K), test how far they could oversimplify their FLAGSHIP title without losing customers (40K), and create a safety net to roll the newer AOS stuff into 40K if the game system itself was failing but they wanted a ROI on their molding and design work (Think along the lines of WarmaHordes).

And this is just gobbledygook.

AOS is doing well because GW is reintroducing structure, composition, and customer opinion/feedback. Not because it was perfect out the box

AoS is doing well now because the neckbeards who were so vitriolically opposed to things have moved on or shut up for the most part. It really wasn't that hard to have "structure" or "composition" before the GHB. It's just those people who wanted to whine latched onto that as a reason to badmouth every little thing. You had people constantly talking about crap like having "an army of Nagashes" or multiple Archaons and other garbage.

Someone has an axe to grind and a grudge to go with it I see. Did a neckbeard burn your models or something?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is something I disagree with.
I like having rank and file troops in my armies. Seeing nothing but elite troops feels off to me.
That's something that happens a lot in Total War, and nothing is more annoying than seeing the AI field stacks of 20 Praetorian cohorts. I mean, legions weren't built like that.

I agree with you and feel the same way though in this day and age... "normal troops aren't fun" is probably in the vast majority of public gamers.

I loved my troops in every army I played. There were more interesting things in other slots but troops were still cool and fun to have.

 auticus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is something I disagree with.
I like having rank and file troops in my armies. Seeing nothing but elite troops feels off to me.
That's something that happens a lot in Total War, and nothing is more annoying than seeing the AI field stacks of 20 Praetorian cohorts. I mean, legions weren't built like that.

I agree with you and feel the same way though in this day and age... "normal troops aren't fun" is probably in the vast majority of public gamers.

Anecdotal data point to support this:

I've got really enthusiastic about starting up in this game after seeing Kurnoth Hunters models and getting excited about running an army of mostly those and treelords!

My anecdotal data is simply years of running events and listening to swathes of players gripe about core tax and how no one should have to use garbage normal troops except in historical games.

Yeah, because GW also saw those units as garbage people pay as a tax to get the good stuff
and if there was finally a good core unit it was nerfed.

but actually every army should mainly consists out of the core units and they should be good for their points

(looking back in dood memory to my 5th Edi Grey Hunters 40k army)

You don't get to decide what others people's armies are built like within reason for balance. I paint what I want to paint , and that is what drives the buissnes of GW and fantasy didn't .

If you want to play core heavy more's the power to you.

Everyone (that includes all of us) has to make some concession for balance.

 auticus wrote:
My anecdotal data is simply years of running events and listening to swathes of players gripe about core tax and how no one should have to use garbage normal troops except in historical games.

I like when core/battleline are not garbage but also generic within the context of the army; they can't do much effectively beyond being basic troopers that hold objectives/take it to the face/kill chaff. Take for example orc boyz. They fight, they are numerous, they can take some damage. They are great to fill out a core of the army specifically because they don't cost extra points to be particularly good at something.

A more specific example could be Arkanaut Company for Kharadron. Yeah they shoot, but not amazingly well, they get a bonus against heroes/monsters but lack the punch to do a lot on their own, and they are competent in melee but again serve better as support. Essentially they serve well on the battlefield but wouldn't be effective at winning battles on their own; equal points company vs mixed units and the company would lose. What's interesting here is that what makes for a generic unit for Overlords would be considered a particularly specialized unit in many other armies.

Overall I find AoS does a good job of this. While some units often can be battleline that wouldn't normally be considered 'core' (like, say, squig hoppers) we usually don't see them being used to fill out battleline entirely on their own because they work better when there is a battleline to support them and/or be supported. Now there are a handful of units that have no business being battleline *cough*stormfiends*cough* but I find those are only a small fraction overall. Additionally some units that don't work as specialists could see more use if they could fill battleline; going with Kharadron there are Skywardens. They aren't bad for the cost, but lose out to Endrinriggers because their role is sort of a hit-and-run melee unit with a few extra abilities while Endrinriggers cost more and lack as many support abilities but simply hit harder in melee (and respond better to the army's available buffs). This is a place where skyriggers could be a good battleline, since they would be terrible to take as all 3 battleline choices but would still fill 1 or 2 slots quite well. Since they are filling a required slot there is not as much pressure on them to get work done, and their support capacity can really shine.

Not sure how much sense that all makes, I'm having difficulty putting the concept into words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to answer the question of the OP: Kirby stabbed it in the back and let it bleed out before kicking the corpse into a gutter.

 Earth127 wrote:
I'm sorry Akaen but I do not believe you. Monsters could't do the dmg to a horde to kill it due to ranks.

And then there were (dwarven) cannons.

Skaven did use their hordes as you described.
Elves did not. They simply placed Allarielle or another lvl 4 mage in the middle of blob, probably with the banner of the world dragon. (Note that thing would eat your skaven army. The game was not meant for 2+ ward saves)

Cannons were devastating, but on a large scale they really primarily negated the presence of Characters on Monsters. Dragon Mounts and other awesome things were almost never seen because you paid for your expensive character, with his expensive magic items, and put him on your expensive mount. Then you got shot with a Cannon Ball, and lost your general and centerpiece model and everything went to hell because the leadership bubble from your General, and the reroll from the BSB where the most important lynchpins of your army.

Armies that had ready access to monsters, especially cheaper monsters, tended to be able to field them in enough numbers to overcome some of these shennanigans. Warriors of Chaos especially, with Chimeras with Wings, a Breath Weapon, and 4+ Regeneration were an absolute bear to deal with for all but Dwarf or Daemon flaming cannons. The fact that these were backed up by a core filled with Cheap chariots made them one of the more devastating armies out there. Vampire Counts were also absolutely obnoxious because the Terrorgheists were so fast, and could position themselves out of range of charge arcs while screaming into your squads with very little you could do about it. Cannons and other artillery helped, but the Terrorgheists were often fast enough that the cannons only realistically had one turn of shooting to stop them. Elves did run the giant block of Banner of the World Dragon White Lions. But that list was backed up with fast moving monsters like the Frost Pheonix, which was ridiculously fast, and incredibly tough.

Ranked infantry also tended to lose to monstrous infantry and monstrous cavalry quite spectacularly. Ogre Kingdoms could grind out an Orc Infantry horde in a matter of turns between high number of attacks per model, impact hits on the charge, and stomp attacks all from their basic models.


The top tournament lists were the ones spamming cheap fast monsters. They preformed exceptionally well against armies that lacked cannons. You didn't even have to worry about cannons vs Orcs, Vampires, Warriors of Chaos, Tomb Kings, Bretonnia, Elves of any stripe, etc. and even if you did face cannons, you could often either hide out of sight for them until your fast cavalry could disrupt them, or just brute force it with sheer numbers and regeneration and kill the cannon with flying monsters.

I would also put out that other companies came onto the scene and cheaper "better" games were made readily available and were better supported in FLGS.

pm713 wrote:I loved my troops in every army I played. There were more interesting things in other slots but troops were still cool and fun to have.

auticus wrote:My anecdotal data is simply years of running events and listening to swathes of players gripe about core tax and how no one should have to use garbage normal troops except in historical games.

It's funny, but ever since 6th Edition I've started every army list I wrote at 2,000 pts. with 4 Core regiments right off the bat, and did what I could to make sure that I didn't spend more on Specials and Rares than I did on Core. Didn't always happen that way, but it was a concerted effort. I may be the only person on the planet that was running Empire Spearmen consistently in 6th, and DEFINITELY in 7th.


People who look at Core as a "tax" either don't understand how military forces work, or are so... corrupted at the concept of overpowered stuff that they can't see value in ANYTHING other than the max output item. It'd be like if you introduced Nukes as a weapon in COD, you'd have someone who would spam nukes all day long just because it's a fast "I win" thing.

Yeah, like armies looking like armies too.
As I said, a force consisting of just elite units or a big dumb monster supported by 10 guys looks really bad to me.