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'll chime in that I dropped out at the beginning of 6th edition. I think it hadn't really ever been my thing. I think if you're doing that kind of rank-and-file game there's plenty of historicals that do it better, and I grew to dislike that kind of artificial block-vs-block all kludged together.

 Nurglitch wrote:
I'll chime in that I dropped out at the beginning of 6th edition. I think it hadn't really ever been my thing. I think if you're doing that kind of rank-and-file game there's plenty of historicals that do it better, and I grew to dislike that kind of artificial block-vs-block all kludged together.

Well that's obviously a matter of taste but since a battle in the middle age would resemble that (correct me if I'm wrong) I feel like it totally suits the fantasy setting. Furthermore this would demolish and make useless 40k as well, because they are many noGW games that use this kind of format ( understand: no strict formations) with better rules. In both cases the interest one could actually have is, I believe, the setting. So I doubt it played any role in the game dying out.

The stratospherical entry cost thay keeps being pointed out on the other hand definitly has to. I had interest in the game ( because of accidentaly aquired 6th army books) but since none of my mates were willing to give it a try I gave up, although i still consider trying someday of i get the chance. Useless and boring self display put aside nevertheless, if you did have to brong along 60 bicks for a single unit no wonder it went downhill.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
I'll chime in that I dropped out at the beginning of 6th edition. I think it hadn't really ever been my thing. I think if you're doing that kind of rank-and-file game there's plenty of historicals that do it better, and I grew to dislike that kind of artificial block-vs-block all kludged together.

Well that's obviously a matter of taste but since a battle in the middle age would resemble that (correct me if I'm wrong) I feel like it totally suits the fantasy setting. Furthermore this would demolish and make useless 40k as well, because they are many noGW games that use this kind of format ( understand: no strict formations) with better rules. In both cases the interest one could actually have is, I believe, the setting. So I doubt it played any role in the game dying out.

This was my first reaction to AoS. "If I wanted to play skirmish combo-stuff I'd have taken warmahordes".

I've grown to quite like it, but that's down to past investment in models and sort of familiarity with the setting. I wouldn't have touched AoS with a six-foot stick if it had been released by another company.

Yeah, similar here.
They turned AoS into a loose formation somewhat skirmish game (I say somewhat because to me, if you have more than 10 models its not really a skirmish).
Warhammer 40k is loose formation somewhat skirmish game.
I already play Wh40k. AoS is not distinct enough for me to get me truly interested.

The fact that you can shoot in and out of combat with no penalty and that there's a chance you have to wait for your opponent to have his turn again doesn't help matters.

Which is a pity, because they do bring out nice models. Its just the game they belong to isn't for me.
Now, if they moved to an alternate activation style (provided they keep double turns) with close order formations...maybe.

The loose formation thing annoyed me as well. I actually think 40k really needs to lose it's skirmish rules too and use unit leaders as the only meaningful marker for squad position/concealment/range/LoS/etc. Games that play at the size 40k does, and AoS seems to from what I have seen, should not be using skirmish mechanics.

 jonolikespie wrote:
The loose formation thing annoyed me as well. I actually think 40k really needs to lose it's skirmish rules too and use unit leaders as the only meaningful marker for squad position/concealment/range/LoS/etc. Games that play at the size 40k does, and AoS seems to from what I have seen, should not be using skirmish mechanics.

I hav'nt been introduced to any system that would play the way you describe (only squad leaders mattering or so) but that actually seems odd. Have you tried any? I'm curious.

In a way I believe that the large scale battle of Epic (if I remember well) would suit 40k good. The skirmish scale in my opinion is important also from a setting and immersion point of iew: you can't stick that good to the roll of general you play during a game, can't have that much fun with a single model showing outraging bravery and so on, which in my opinion is a prevailing in 40k, although I agree that purely rulewise, if any system works, maybe they should give it a go.

However they could try anything as long as the same team that failed at least 2 editions and has produced a seemingly controversial thrid one in a row, I don't have much faith. In fact I even don't rely on GW to produce satisfying rules any longer.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
The loose formation thing annoyed me as well. I actually think 40k really needs to lose it's skirmish rules too and use unit leaders as the only meaningful marker for squad position/concealment/range/LoS/etc. Games that play at the size 40k does, and AoS seems to from what I have seen, should not be using skirmish mechanics.

I hav'nt been introduced to any system that would play the way you describe (only squad leaders mattering or so) but that actually seems odd. Have you tried any? I'm curious.

In a way I believe that the large scale battle of Epic (if I remember well) would suit 40k good. The skirmish scale in my opinion is important also from a setting and immersion point of iew: you can't stick that good to the roll of general you play during a game, can't have that much fun with a single model showing outraging bravery and so on, which in my opinion is a prevailing in 40k, although I agree that purely rulewise, if any system works, maybe they should give it a go.

However they could try anything as long as the same team that failed at least 2 editions and has produced a seemingly controversial thrid one in a row, I don't have much faith. In fact I even don't rely on GW to produce satisfying rules any longer.

I've not tried any, it's just my approach to fixing what I see to be the main problem with 40k. I dislike that it has skirmish mechanics in it where the positioning of individual troops matters while playing at such a large scale. Using squad leaders and the rest as just wound counters is just an idea at a quick fix. I'd also suggest that Kings of War got WHFB right with the units being a single 'model' with a single statline rather than a collection of individual models, and so bringing that into 40k would help it. Hell, it would have been amazing in WHFB and maybe it'd have saved it. The game could have been much quicker and smoother.

I've actually been looking at KoW again now that the new edition and Total War 2 got me looking at AoS but hearing double turns are staying has me very hesitant to buy in...

Mantic Warpath uses such a rule and some others to get 40k sized games faster (and uses alternating unit activation)

Star Wars Legion although it is much smaller, uses the unit leader as the main point for measurement.

Why did fantasy die? The same reason any company ever drops one of its IPs - it was deemed to be not profitable enough.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why did fantasy die? The same reason any company ever drops one of its IPs - it was deemed to be not profitable enough.

And why was it not profitable enough?

Davor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why did fantasy die? The same reason any company ever drops one of its IPs - it was deemed to be not profitable enough.

And why was it not profitable enough?

Yup that's the actual question. But as far as this tread has gone it seems there is no major reason. It seems more like something at the crossraods, the addition of all factors combined, more then one decisive element. Prices, lack of players, second hand, bad rules, copyrights, tight fluff... All that made the unplayable and therefore unattractive. At the end GW deciced they were simply better off dishing it and starting from zero all over again.

Davor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why did fantasy die? The same reason any company ever drops one of its IPs - it was deemed to be not profitable enough.

And why was it not profitable enough?

Keep in mind that you're quoting the same poster who has spent multiple threads proclaiming we would never have plastic sisters because they aren't profitable.

Warhammer Fantasy died the same reason tons of things die.

Because many of the people that often pretend it was the greatest thing ever didn't actually play it or have anything invested in it. Just like Squats, Sisters, etc. It was big, clunky, over-complex, and if you went to any FLGS anywhere you'd see someone playing it once in a blue moon.

For perspective- I saw more people playing Necromunda, years after it was no longer supported, far more often than I saw anyone playing Warhammer Fantasy.

I say this and people can call me a jerk, but my first GW game was Warhammer Fantasy and I had a Chaos army I never got to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

Keep in mind that you're quoting the same poster who has spent multiple threads proclaiming we would never have plastic sisters because they aren't profitable.

Just like a good chunk of this forum thought the 'big space marines' that became Primaris Marines were some guy's third-party 'truescale' Space Marines.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Warhammer Fantasy died the same reason tons of things die.

Because many of the people that often pretend it was the greatest thing ever didn't actually play it or have anything invested in it. Just like Squats, Sisters, etc. It was big, clunky, over-complex, and if you went to any FLGS anywhere you'd see someone playing it once in a blue moon.

For perspective- I saw more people playing Necromunda, years after it was no longer supported, far more often than I saw anyone playing Warhammer Fantasy.

I say this and people can call me a jerk, but my first GW game was Warhammer Fantasy and I had a Chaos army I never got to play.

This definitely is dependent on area. Back in around... er... 2014 or so while End Times were going on and before Age of Sigmar dropped, Warhammer Fantasy was actually more popular than Warhammer 40K. I usually brought one of my Fantasy armies and one of my 40K armies in my car with me when I went out for a pick up game and more often then not I would be playing Fantasy. I also found Fantasy was pretty healthy out in Minneapolis when I used to live out there, as most of the people I played 40K with also had Fantasy armies as well. Furthermore, the 9th age is still pushing in Detroit area as well for legacy players.

Like anything, it depends on your area. Some areas have a lot of people into WFB. Some areas have a lot of people into Bolt Action. Its a circle. Games with nobody playing die, often because nobody is playing them.

 akaean wrote:
Like anything, it depends on your area. Some areas have a lot of people into WFB. Some areas have a lot of people into Bolt Action. Its a circle. Games with nobody playing die, often because nobody is playing them.

In major metropolitan cities, you could find people playing WFB easily. At the time, my job required me to travel quite a bit and at the very least, I would stick my head into various FLGS.

But far more so than anything, in the average everyday FLGS you would find in any place that carried GW products- the tables were covered in 40k models, and you'd see Fantasy minis marked down 15% to get them to move. Most of them were ancient and covered in dust.

Plus, it was a nightmare hauling around a Fantasy army compared to a small 40k army with a couple of tanks and a few squads.

Why did Fantasy die? Because 400 Skaven Slaves only cost 200 points, were unbreakable in combat, and had more wounds and attacks then most other armies, and that was only one unit- in a 2,500 point game.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Why did Fantasy die? Because 400 Skaven Slaves only cost 200 points, were unbreakable in combat, and had more wounds and attacks then most other armies, and that was only one unit- in a 2,500 point game.

Ah, yes. Skaven Slave armies. For people who don't really want to make friends at the FLGS.

I attempted to play WHFB during 7th, then again during 8th. Both times I quit early on because I couldn't find opponents who would play less than 2500 points. They weren't even really that interested in playing 2,000. This from a dwindling group of players who complained constantly that they wanted new blood (and that I never saw buying anything). The fantasy section of the store literally collected dust.

It is anecdotal, but that was my experience. I started playing AoS after the release of the GHB 2017 with 500 point games. I now regularly play games at 1,000 and 1,500 point levels, but have a pool of almost 3,000 points to draw from. AoS stock flies off the shelf and we have over a dozen regular players.

In all fairness, I loathe the new Sigmar lore but I love the models. But Holy Crap, they are -still- awful to transport. I don't even like carrying these things to the FLGS.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Why did Fantasy die? Because 400 Skaven Slaves only cost 200 points, were unbreakable in combat, and had more wounds and attacks then most other armies, and that was only one unit- in a 2,500 point game.

Yeah, that was the worst part of steadfast. Either you took a huge block of cheap infantry or you took a monster. There was no place for reasonably sized blocks of elite infantry.
In 7th it didn't matter if you have 400 slaves or 40, because you could reduce their leadership enough for them to autobreak. Can't do that in 8th. Took all of the tactics of the game and made it "hurr, I have more than you, I win!"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Why did Fantasy die? Because 400 Skaven Slaves only cost 200 points, were unbreakable in combat, and had more wounds and attacks then most other armies, and that was only one unit- in a 2,500 point game.

Yeah, that was the worst part of steadfast. Either you took a huge block of cheap infantry or you took a monster. There was no place for reasonably sized blocks of elite infantry.
In 7th it didn't matter if you have 400 slaves or 40, because you could reduce their leadership enough for them to autobreak. Can't do that in 8th. Took all of the tactics of the game and made it "hurr, I have more than you, I win!"

As far as your experienced, what was the best edition? Loks like 7th and 8th are utterly messed up...

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Why did Fantasy die? Because 400 Skaven Slaves only cost 200 points, were unbreakable in combat, and had more wounds and attacks then most other armies, and that was only one unit- in a 2,500 point game.

Yeah, that was the worst part of steadfast. Either you took a huge block of cheap infantry or you took a monster. There was no place for reasonably sized blocks of elite infantry.
In 7th it didn't matter if you have 400 slaves or 40, because you could reduce their leadership enough for them to autobreak. Can't do that in 8th. Took all of the tactics of the game and made it "hurr, I have more than you, I win!"

As far as your experienced, what was the best edition? Loks like 7th and 8th are utterly messed up...

I only started in 7th, so 7th is the best for me.
It had problems, but at least you could use flanking maneuvers instead of just steam rolling your opponent with a huge ass block of cheap infantry and magic.
Though by the sound of it, 6th edition was probably great.
I actually have the 6th ed Lizardmen army book, because I started when 7th ed dropped but before the Lizards got updated, and it that had a lot more content than later books. You had tactics articles, alternate army lists and a lot of customization.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

As far as your experienced, what was the best edition? Loks like 7th and 8th are utterly messed up...

More or less 6th edition with Ravening Hordes

7th would have been ok of the some of the core rule changes would not have been made or army books would have gotten an errata
eg there was the change from 4 to 5 models wide to gain a rank bonus, but GW refused to change the 6th edi Beastman skirmish rule wich was fixed 4 models wide to allow them to align 5 models wide for ranks

So with house rules I would call 7th the best, without it was 6th.

 kodos wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

As far as your experienced, what was the best edition? Loks like 7th and 8th are utterly messed up...

More or less 6th edition with Ravening Hordes

7th would have been ok of the some of the core rule changes would not have been made or army books would have gotten an errata
eg there was the change from 4 to 5 models wide to gain a rank bonus, but GW refused to change the 6th edi Beastman skirmish rule wich was fixed 4 models wide to allow them to align 5 models wide for ranks

So with house rules I would call 7th the best, without it was 6th.

The only part of 7th worth keeping were the Power Dice rules that dictated a wizard could only use community dice and the ones they themselves generated, instead of the Skink power batteries of 6th, the Insane Courage rule which basically meant natural snake eyes ALWAYS passed a LD test, and potentially the 5 wide rule for ranks.

Past that, as stated, 6th with Ravening Hordes is the most balanced WFB you will ever play.

I’m sure there is some serious nostalgia going on here, but I had so much damn fun playing Empire, Orcs, and Vampire Counts in 6th edition I’d say that was the best. The armies had real character in both their minis and rules, and seemed to match up against each other well power wise. The game had a great tournament scene at the time as well.

Some of the rules, notably regarding characters in general, were very fiddly but I had a lot of fun with the game back then.

Are you implying that GW once released a fairly decently balanced edition for anything?!

But interesting responses so far, looks like there's a great concensus around 6th.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Are you implying that GW once released a fairly decently balanced edition for anything?!

Yeah, this was the time when they really wanted to improve the game, had people who know what they were doing and the rules department was writing rules Independent from sales department.

This was before Kirby sunk money into the specialist games and turned everything around to get his investment back, leading to the "more profit" attitude that killed Lord of the Rings and than Warhammer Fantasy

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Davor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why did fantasy die? The same reason any company ever drops one of its IPs - it was deemed to be not profitable enough.

And why was it not profitable enough?

Yup that's the actual question. But as far as this tread has gone it seems there is no major reason. It seems more like something at the crossraods, the addition of all factors combined, more then one decisive element. Prices, lack of players, second hand, bad rules, copyrights, tight fluff... All that made the unplayable and therefore unattractive. At the end GW deciced they were simply better off dishing it and starting from zero all over again.

Half of those come from GW directly and the rest they heavily influence. Methinks there is a singular cause.

kodos wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Are you implying that GW once released a fairly decently balanced edition for anything?!

Yeah, this was the time when they really wanted to improve the game, had people who know what they were doing and the rules department was writing rules Independent from sales department.

This was before Kirby sunk money into the specialist games and turned everything around to get his investment back, leading to the "more profit" attitude that killed Lord of the Rings and than Warhammer Fantasy

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Why did Fantasy die? Because 400 Skaven Slaves only cost 200 points, were unbreakable in combat, and had more wounds and attacks then most other armies, and that was only one unit- in a 2,500 point game.

Yeah, that was the worst part of steadfast. Either you took a huge block of cheap infantry or you took a monster. There was no place for reasonably sized blocks of elite infantry.
In 7th it didn't matter if you have 400 slaves or 40, because you could reduce their leadership enough for them to autobreak. Can't do that in 8th. Took all of the tactics of the game and made it "hurr, I have more than you, I win!"

As far as your experienced, what was the best edition? Loks like 7th and 8th are utterly messed up...

Comped 8th edition.

Swedish or ETC. Your call.