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.

 Just Tony wrote:

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.

I think that the game that gets army building right the most is KoW, with basic units unlocking elite slots. Simple and elegant yet allowing for many different options.

It seems a common thread is the prohibative model count required by 8. That really resonated with me. I had a massive, fully painted Orc and Goblin army. I tried to play a game of 8th a couple of times. Laboriously set up my gigantic units of goblins which took ages and look across at mostly unpainted units of enemies. Turn 1, super spell wipes my giant units and I laboriously remove them. It just wasn't that fun for me. When the model count was such that 16 dudes was a decent sized unit, it was a lot easier to set up and play. You could also pick up a unit in one regiment box. Then they increased the price of the boxes, decreased the number of models in the box by halff and increased the number of models you needed by about 2.5. End result is you need to spend 5 times more for a unit and it just increases set up and teardown time for no appreciable improvement in gameplay.

If they had released an AoS in a broadly similar setting to WFB and with points values, rather than the really OTT setting they went for and the change in art style and particularly model scale that accompanied it, I would have been delighted. As it was, I look at some of the minis from time to time and then don't buy them because they are ridiculously over priced.

jouso wrote:

I think that the game that gets army building right the most is KoW, with basic units unlocking elite slots. Simple and elegant yet allowing for many different options.

KoW is doing a lot things right with their rules

It does seem nice, but there are 2 problems I have with it

1) The models aren't great.
2) Blocks don't lose models. I don't like how you don't whittle formations, you just remove them entirely after attacking them enough.

Its why I'm more interested in Conquest, where you do remove models from blocks

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

1) The models aren't great.

Your problem with the Kings of War rules is that you don't like Mantic models?

I will never understand that argument, for the same reason you can say you don't like Bolt Action game because you don't like Waffenkammers Resin tanks or your problem with Black Powder is that Napoleonic Austrians by Warlord are not historic correct

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

2) Blocks don't lose models. I don't like how you don't whittle formations, you just remove them entirely after attacking them enough.

for me this is a big advantage as I don't see much a reason to build and buy 30 Infantry models if half of them is removed and but aside before the unit see action
not able to change formation is also something I miss from time to time but than moving single models around because you don't have matching unit base for every single formation you are going to use (or to change the unit base each time you change formation) can be annoying too

and I find single model mechanics outside of skirmish games kind of stupid, but this is a different thing

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It does seem nice, but there are 2 problems I have with it

I used to have a beef with fixed charge distance, but it fits the older historic wargame style so I'm letting that pass now.

Casualty removal and general lack of customisation are the biggest qualms I have with KoW. Characters and units just seem too much like one another.

9th age feels more like a better version of warhammer to me. KoW feels much more like warmaster or DbA in 28mm (or hail caesar for that matter), which isn't bad in itself. Just not warhammer. I also get many more chances at a 9th age game than a KoW so there's that too.

Maybe it's silly, but a huge issue for me with KoW is not swinging back in melee or making armor saves. Doing absolutely nothing during the opponent's turns feels wrong to me, and not being able to get 'locked in' to melee does as well. I have other issues with it but that's the one that really kills it for me.

Kings of War is my region's fantasy game where most of the fantasy players went to. I have a love/hate relationship with it. Its just very very tournament streamlined to me and everything feels very samey. Also the guys not dying bothers me as well, since that breaks my immersion.

The game overall is fairly solid, just niggling things like that stop me from loving it.

 kodos wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

1) The models aren't great.

Your problem with the Kings of War rules is that you don't like Mantic models?

I will never understand that argument, for the same reason you can say you don't like Bolt Action game because you don't like Waffenkammers Resin tanks or your problem with Black Powder is that Napoleonic Austrians by Warlord are not historic correct

I like visual consistency. If I start a salamanders army to use my Lizardmen in, it will really bother me that the majority my army won't look like the models in the book. If they were closer, or if I had fewer models, then I could shrug it off, but they look nothing alike to me.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I like visual consistency. If I start a salamanders army to use my Lizardmen in, it will really bother me that the majority my army won't look like the models in the book. If they were closer, or if I had fewer models, then I could shrug it off, but they look nothing alike to me.

So also would have never made an edition change in Warhammer as you were not using your old models?

I just don't get it, the rules have nothing to do with the models from a company.
This was not even a thing in Warhammer, if you did not liked the models you used something else.

The only game I know, except for historical games, were rules and models are tied together is Warmachine/Hordes (even in X-Wing you can exchange models to your liking)

Doing absolutely nothing during the opponent's turns feels wrong to me.

This is one thing I like about it (and other games that use it) as having an opponent that was just taking his time in my turn and slowing things down was always annoying.
But I can understand that people like that interaction (I was just used to have none from other games before I started Warhammer)

Considering that an edition changed seldom completely altered how my army looks to such an extent as its unrecognizable...not really?
Saurus looked the same in 6ed to 8th ed. Ditto with skinks. And I have a bunch of those.

Even necrons look largely the same from 3rd to 8th ed.
The only complete redesign were wraiths, and even then there are enough similarities to get away with it. Tomb Spyders still look recognizable as tomb spyders and flayed ones are recognizable as flayed ones.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Saurus looked the same in 6ed to 8th ed. Ditto with skinks. And I have a bunch of those.

So yeah, the look the same no matter what rules do you use so I don't see your problem
(first I thought you talk about how the army lists looked like or the feeling of the army and there was a big change during editions, but just from the pure look of the models there is no difference if I use them for Warhammer, T9A, KoW, HotT, Frostgrave, SAGA, etc)

I actually prefered the old 5th edition Saurus for the overall look. These waddly crocodile men we have nowadays don't suit me at all.

I actually have some of those, along with the bow skinks. I don't use them; I just have them for collecting purposes.
I prefer the 6th ed saurus. Maybe its just nostalgia, idk. I will say though that its easier to rank up the 5th ed saurus, as they don't have protruding tails or arms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Saurus looked the same in 6ed to 8th ed. Ditto with skinks. And I have a bunch of those.

So yeah, the look the same no matter what rules do you use so I don't see your problem
(first I thought you talk about how the army lists looked like or the feeling of the army and there was a big change during editions, but just from the pure look of the models there is no difference if I use them for Warhammer, T9A, KoW, HotT, Frostgrave, SAGA, etc)

I guess its because I don't like counts as or proxies, unless they look like they could belong in the same system.
Its like...using a troll doll to represent an unit of trolls. I mean, you could do it, rules wise it doesn't matter. Its just that I personally wouldn't do it as it would be really weird for me.

Da Boss wrote:I actually prefered the old 5th edition Saurus for the overall look. These waddly crocodile men we have nowadays don't suit me at all.

If someone would make a sprue of add on arms that made Command and Spears for the old plastic Saurus, as well as an upgrade kit to make Temple Guard from them, I'd be one happy guy.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I guess its because I don't like counts as or proxies, unless they look like they could belong in the same system.
Its like...using a troll doll to represent an unit of trolls. I mean, you could do it, rules wise it doesn't matter. Its just that I personally wouldn't do it as it would be really weird for me.

Proxies is something different than using a Mantic Troll for Warhammer, a GW Troll for Kings of War and Trollbloods as Ogres in T9A.
I mean a proxy is like using Napeolonic French in Bolt Action, but not using Perry models in a game made by Warlord.

But maybe it is because I played too many historical games or started Warhammer in a time were Citadel did not provide all models needed for Warhammer (and the game were just the rules) that I don't see a close connection between Rules and Models just because they are made by the same company

jouso wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

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.

I think that the game that gets army building right the most is KoW, with basic units unlocking elite slots. Simple and elegant yet allowing for many different options.

Skaven in 6th had something like this with Clanrats unlocking other regiments, but you would get one of each regiment type for each Clanrat regiment. Not one UNIT per Clanrat, but one of each type. so you'd still have four different units based off that "anchor". Mainstay unit? Yeah, I think that's what they were called. They used to put restrictions in like "you can never have more X than Y", but for some reason those restrictions were thrown out wholesale.

Largely because as we got into the middle of the 2000s, gamer culture had swung towards "restrictions aren't fun".

I started playing fantasy a little after 3rd edition and I have to agree that if I didn't have already giant units of stuff 8th edition trying to keep up would have killed me.

Just looking at the Dark Elf army, one of the best units was the Witch elves.. they were sold in units of 10 and was one of the most expensive unit box sets
outside of knight models. So to get two good sized units of them, you would need to spend a ton of money and that is not including any champions, support
or monsters.

The other thing mentioned was getting new people started. There was no introduction game.. Shadowspire seems to be doing a great job of this and the miniatures for
it look great but I love the low magic of WHFB and currently can not afford to buy into another game. The only big problem right now is a lot of old timers just don't
care for AoS. If they wanted a system like 40k for fantasy, then make one system for both and allow cross over..

Also already mentioned I blame Kirby for most for it dying, His ego almost put GW in the grave, What they are doing now is amazing compared to what it was like just
a few years ago..

 auticus wrote:
Largely because as we got into the middle of the 2000s, gamer culture had swung towards "restrictions aren't fun".

Which is an asinine viewpoint when it comes to strategic games, as a large part of that is that you have to create a functional and effective force from a limited pool of resources and options.
Going "lol, Ima spam dinos" does not make for a strategic game.

 Genoside07 wrote:


Also already mentioned I blame Kirby for most for it dying, His ego almost put GW in the grave, What they are doing now is amazing compared to what it was like just
a few years ago..

It really cannot be mentioned enough that Fantasy was declared morbid and killed off at a time when GW was doing many things wrong from no social media to no previews to insane pricing.

The company's releases to share holders at the time were like a parody.

Would a better marketing and customer relations have changed things? Maybe. Probably.

Were there different ways to go, sure. But here we are.

The Olde Worlde is coming back with a new RPG and video games and there are plenty of rules and models out there for fans to look to so it maybe gone but it's far from forgotten.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Largely because as we got into the middle of the 2000s, gamer culture had swung towards "restrictions aren't fun".

Which is an asinine viewpoint when it comes to strategic games, as a large part of that is that you have to create a functional and effective force from a limited pool of resources and options.
Going "lol, Ima spam dinos" does not make for a strategic game.

I like the layered restrictions of AoS; battleline-if is a very good an fun system, as is allegiance for that matter, whereby the restriction itself is optional but comes with appropriate awards for doing so. I would not be unhappy to see a bit more restriction as a baseline though. Something like 'limited battleline' where only the first count is battleline and the 2nd, 3rd, etc are not would be good to see IMO. Because there are a decent chunk of generic battleline units that work well as one of an army's battleline but don't make sense (and don't work as well balance wise) when used for all of them. Stuff like mixed order armies using all skinks or arkanaut companies to fill battleline doesn't seem in the spirit of the game to me. Such units could be "Limited Battleline" but become full Battleline with the relevant allegiance.

Luckily the spirit of the old world/WHF can kind of live on in blood bowl. And as far as the near future goes that's about the best anyone can hope for. I'm not sure I want to see Mordheim come back, mostly because I question whether or not GW can support all of these specialist games long term.

GW seem to lean toward self contained "boxed games" rather than "hobby games" that need ongoing support. Honestly, I think there is a lot of merit in that approach.

 Da Boss wrote:
GW seem to lean toward self contained "boxed games" rather than "hobby games" that need ongoing support. Honestly, I think there is a lot of merit in that approach.

Yep, if there is any support it seems to be coming mostly from Forgeworld.

In my mind WHFB died in 7th edition and that's funnily enough when I stopped playing (only to come back to tabletop gaming a few months ago with 40k 8th ed, so hello everyone!)

6th was sort of a golden age for the game, you had full sized plastic regiment sets for all armies that ranged from £12-18 over the course of the edition and you also had the battallion sets which were really good deals too. You could build fairly large, legal and effective armies from this stuff no problem. The game was also really popular in my area, the local GW always had an equal mix of WHFB and 40k going on, with LOTR basically being dead. Seeing how things are in the area now it's kind of interesting that AoS is the system that is dead now. I see more people playing x-wing, bolt action and shadespire.

Then 7th edition hit and suddenly you could only get the rank bonus by having a width of 5 models. Suddenly boxes like Chaos Warriors, Dwarfs and Elves became substantially worse and every army across the board suddenly required you to be buying a lot more models to even have effective units. However armies like Greenskins and the Empire were shafted even harder. I remember wanting to make an Empire army for the new edition, only to see that the old state troops regiment set was replaced by a box of 10 models that practically cost the same. And this in an edition that was encouraging you to go at least 25 models for your infantry units. So I was looking at potentially £45 for a unit of core troops.

In that sort of situation it's no wonder that people decided to start leaving. Plenty of my friends slowly stopped playing in 7th too, not just because of the price-gouging but also the atrocious rules and army books.

I just can't take people seriously who say WHFB was always doomed to failure and was inherently a flawed system. It was massively successful in the 90's and early to mid 00's. It was killed by Kirby deliberately sabotaging it so he could sell GW off to Hasbro.

Bosskelot wrote:
It was killed by Kirby deliberately sabotaging it so he could sell GW off to Hasbro.

Wait, what? He didn't sell it off. He was a greedy, incompetent hack who shouldn't have been in charge of the company, but he didn't sell the company off.
But yeah, there was nothing inherently wrong with the game. It was still being played in my area, even in 8th ed. Its just that due to GW's poor handling of it, it was harder to build armies and get new players to play.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Bosskelot wrote:
It was killed by Kirby deliberately sabotaging it so he could sell GW off to Hasbro.

Wait, what? He didn't sell it off. He was a greedy, incompetent hack who shouldn't have been in charge of the company, but he didn't sell the company off.
But yeah, there was nothing inherently wrong with the game. It was still being played in my area, even in 8th ed. Its just that due to GW's poor handling of it, it was harder to build armies and get new players to play.

I didn't say it was sold off. The intention was he could sell it off to Hasbro but he was removed as CEO before it could happen.

Bosskelot wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Bosskelot wrote:
It was killed by Kirby deliberately sabotaging it so he could sell GW off to Hasbro.

Wait, what? He didn't sell it off. He was a greedy, incompetent hack who shouldn't have been in charge of the company, but he didn't sell the company off.
But yeah, there was nothing inherently wrong with the game. It was still being played in my area, even in 8th ed. Its just that due to GW's poor handling of it, it was harder to build armies and get new players to play.

I didn't say it was sold off. The intention was he could sell it off to Hasbro but he was removed as CEO before it could happen.

Oh wow, really? Its a good thing they kicked him then

Bosskelot wrote:

Then 7th edition hit and suddenly you could only get the rank bonus by having a width of 5 models. Suddenly boxes like Chaos Warriors, Dwarfs and Elves became substantially worse and every army across the board suddenly required you to be buying a lot more models to even have effective units. However armies like Greenskins and the Empire were shafted even harder. I remember wanting to make an Empire army for the new edition, only to see that the old state troops regiment set was replaced by a box of 10 models that practically cost the same. And this in an edition that was encouraging you to go at least 25 models for your infantry units. So I was looking at potentially £45 for a unit of core troops.

My mate and I were looking at starting WHFB just before the End Times kicked in. I really liked the look of Vampire Counts and even got as far as buying models for an army, but when I was doing the maths and discovered that a functional unit of 100 points of skeletons that would pretty much just exist to get in the way for a bit before dying (again ) was going to cost me £60 or so, I lost interest...