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.

You know, some people would walk away when met with belligerence. I, however, don't roll over and show my tummy at the first sign of aggression. I'm a soldier. I fight back.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Because the thread starts with an assumption people are tempted to answer with 'because'.

Reread the start of the thread. The question pertains to why the player base thinned out so bad during 8th, bad enough for GW to go Scorched Earth with the system and move forward with AOS.

Rethink your reply. This was peak Kirby, GW was on the ropes due to poor management choices and poorer pricing.

Yeah? And? That point doesn't invalidate the OP's question, nor does it somehow invalidate the answers thus far. Except you neglected poor design and nonexistent oversight by the whomever headed up the rules division.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

The respondents to this thread are giving their anecdotal evidence as to why they stopped 8th, or in some cases how they didn't as there is a total absence of a consensus within the player base that left. Just because "For me personally" isn't at the beginning of every post does NOT mean it should not be inferred. In fact, I'd say it's obvious that it SHOULD be inferred.

You hate 8th, we got that years ago. Move on.

Yet I have never dissuaded anyone from playing it. I've made it quite clear that there were several rules introduced in 8th or pre-6th rules reintroduced in 8th that I find quite dissatisfying to play. I've never treated anyone who chooses to play them in any way that leads someone to think I'm accusing them of "wrongplay" or "wronggame". You, however, do exactly that. Oh, while we're at it...

You hate 6th, we got that years ago. Move on.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

You are incorrect about transferring Stubborn or Hatred to a unit, though. COMPLETELY incorrect. The only time Stubborn is brought on to a unit by a character is when there is a special rule that specifies such. Hammerers are the best example. However, I sincerely doubt anyone would consider that unit a cheap Horde unit, so kind of doesn't back up your claim.

You vehemently prove my point with gusto. Thank you.
The problem with 6th and rules like Stubborn that not only were they overpowered, but they were not universal. Steadfast meant you could get stubborn anywhere, prior to Steadfast you were either privileged to get broken rules or you were not.
As for Hatred. I concede that it was 5th and earlier.

Your point was that elite rules were reserved for expensive elites for a reason? That blanket Stubborn was as stupid as things like blanket Hatred? That the crux of your argument was that a "broken" rule, one which was easily countered during play, was bad because you didn't have it willy nilly on all your units?

Not a good look, and DEFINITELY not a good argument. The main problem with rules form 7th on was too many people getting to have their cake and eat it, too.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Also, 6th WAS moved on from for a reason: current edition bias. At least by the fanbase. It was moved on from the studio because in typical GW fashion the excesses of a few writers created army book problems that were fixed by amending the main rules rather than replacing the army books. GW has always been the type that has a problem with creating a 'solution trying to find a problem'.

That is GW in a nutshell, but you misread the cause. GW changes rules editions to sell more books. It was never intended to be fixed.

The article in White Dwarf that summed up the 7th Ed. launch stated that it was EXPRESSLY done to tighten up the ruleset and fix things they thought needed fixing. Granted that they didn't simply do it with the glue in errata that they used through all of 6th, but rather compelled the players to buy a new book. If anything I'd say the motivation was 50/50. Nobody would buy a product that was made worse than the previous version. I'd infer that may have been part of the reason sales tanked, but I wouldn't say it was the ONLY reason. Goldswords pricing had quite a bit more to do with it, I'd wager.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Green Fire, if you actually manage to get it for your randomly generated spells, is cast on a 9+ and causes the unit affected to fight itself. So unless you are fortunate enough to cast it on a unit with strength improving weapons, a 20 man unit statistically scores 10 hits and wounds 5. Saves from there. Damn. I can see how this is comparable to Purple Sun. For the sake of argument, we run the same scenario with halberds or great weapons. Wounds go from 5 to 7 or 9 depending on weapon statistically. Still not the unit killer you advertise. Also, pretty sure that'd draw out scrolls or a disproportionate amount of dispel dice depending on what magic you have on top of that.

Magic heavy armies can reliably get any spell in a single lore. It is not guaranteed but likely if you chase it. Tzeentch, doubly so. Also you choose the target so yes you will target a unit with great weapons and in all likelihood 2+ it off the table.

Good. Go magic heavy in 6th with an army where you build 4 characters that cost more than half your points allotment. You couldn't do enough magic damage to keep even the WORST army's balanced Take All Comers list from rolling that army up.

And yes, you still have to manage to get the spell AND get it cast. You avoided that. Also even if the unit was armed with great weapons the wound output would still be 7 to 8 models. Still not wiping the unit out.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Flames of the Phoenix hits every model. Absolutely. At St. 3, which means half the unit wounded for anything T3. Still get saves, so if you're lucky you'll get 10 dead, but probably not. Closer to 6. Now hit Saurus, Chaos Warriors, Orcs, or Dwarfs. Totally different outcome. That's ALSO assuming that the person gets the spell if they didn't pay for Seer AND that you make the casting roll of 11+. Remember that you can't 6 dice spells in 6th like you can spells in 8th.

Then its S4 next magic phase, then S5. In reality the opponent doesn't get a magic phase after Flames of the Phoenix, because they mass dice dispel it. If they fail that then the targeted unit is as good as dead.

You cant 6 dice spells in 6th, but you are also uncapped in magic dice accumulation. Tzeentch and Vampire armies with 20 magic dice were not uncommon. Like I said, selectively broken, as the eight regular winds of magic were very lacklustre.

Yep. It can be bad. It also has to be randomly selected OR you have to pay points for the privilege of selecting your spells. THEN it has to be successfully cast (which doesn't always happen) without drawing out a dispel scroll, which EVERY army has access to (or Runes, just in case you're inclined to play that card...), or enough dispel dice to quash it from the get-go. Meanwhile, if it DOES get through, you tie up a wizard's casting unless they roll lucky enough to destroy the unit, which isn't typical to say the least.

Once again there are too many variables to guarantee its success thanks to all that randomness that you modern GW gamers seem to love so much nowadays.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
People complain at 8th for having broken magic, when 6th was doubly broken because access to extreme damaging spells was lobsided. Most lores of magic in 6th struggled to do much.

Even those spells you listed didn't do much. 6th was all about psychology and unit pressure, casualties were light from EVERY direction. People complain about the 8th system being broken because it WAS. When something is universally exploited from every documented game result currently available to read/watch online, it shifts from fluke to design.

Casualties were again selectively light. Let us take shooting as an example. Most shooting was a fart in the wind, until two ranks fire was introduced. The odd exceptions that were not were magnified because of it. 8th volley guns were as broken as 6th volley guns, but 8th had alternate means of effective shooting.
Also single rank close combat favoured single rank monsterous units. Fight in extra ranks made infantry more viable, it went too far the other way, characters became less important and thus overpriced.

With magic, and there were a select few other mass death spells, but only a few. Lobsided access was as much of a problem.
As for people complaining 8th was broken, you mean you, it is not a universal sentiment. 8th remains popular, there are YouTube channels doing 8th edition battle reports.
All WHFB was broken, but 8th was not especially broken or 6th especially stable.

Shooting wasn't ever MEANT to be substantive damage; it was meant to thin units out so that they had less standing combat resolution once they got into base to base. The problem there is that you got people who expected 40K damage levels in WFB when they weren't there. Lucky for all of those people Thorpe and Ward were more than happy to throw it in.

And once again you show your edition bias. There are MORE than enough posts across social media platforms stating that people felt 8th WAS indeed especially broken, and that people found 6th Edition to be especially stable.

As for people complaining6th was broken, you mean you. It is not a universal sentiment. 6th remains popular; there are YouTube channels doing 6th Edition battle reports.

Wow. It's almost like this is an argument of preference. Funny, that...

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As for bloat. 6th did give us Ravening Hordes which was very streamlined, but that was never intended to stay.

One thing we agree upon, and hopefully will be the same case for The Old World.

Hopefully not. Ravening hordes was moderately balanced because it too thin to feth up.

If being "thin" prevents army book creep from the onset and writer/army book bias, then I'll take thin any day of the week.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This thread needs some honesty.

You're right, because I couldn't find it earlier in this post...

Grow up please.

You first.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Truth be told WHFB was and is a flawed system and the flaws run deep. We just enjoy it nonetheless. Everyone here has nostalgia goggles firmly in place, its a matter of which ones, 6th, 8th, early T9A. Its a hobby so there is no problem with that. The real problem is that too many don't realise they are wearing them and think their own assessments to be objective.

Nostalgia goggles, eh? What about those people who play said editions and are new to Warhammer completely?

I would certainly not say 'start with 6th'. Go to AoS, Kings of War or T9A, then walk back.

Nor would I. I would say research whatever suits your playstyle. I've said that EXACT THING on here and other places. However, if the keeper of gates here is any indication, I've been completely wrong to encourage people to come to their own conclusions.

Also, if someone is wanting to play ranked fantasy on the tabletop reminiscent of TW:W, why the hell would you recommend AOS? You might as well recommend 40K; the playstyle is pretty much identical. And before you think you have some sort of "gotcha" moment, I said playstyle, not rules.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

There are quite a few of those popping up thanks to TWW, and they are landing on pretty much every one of the popular editions evenly. It could be, would you possibly agree, that people simply have preferences that aren't definitively right or wrong, and that one's personal preference doesn't invalidate someone else's?

That would be a wiser comment if only you applied it to yourself.

I do. I don't dissuade people from playing any edition or competing system. I don't try to swoop in to affect opinion if someone likes something I like. I don't even post on threads regarding editions or systems I don't play. Well, until someone posts something that is flat-out false. Once that happens I'll chime in because I'm not a fan of misinformation, especially when used for gatekeeping.

 Just Tony wrote:
You know, some people would walk away when met with belligerence. I, however, don't roll over and show my tummy at the first sign of aggression. I'm a soldier. I fight back.

No you are not fighting, you are trolling.
This was not about you. Then you accused me of dishonesty...

 Orlanth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Because the thread starts with an assumption people are tempted to answer with 'because'.

Reread the start of the thread. The question pertains to why the player base thinned out so bad during 8th, bad enough for GW to go Scorched Earth with the system and move forward with AOS.

Rethink your reply. This was peak Kirby, GW was on the ropes due to poor management choices and poorer pricing.

Yeah? And? That point doesn't invalidate the OP's question, nor does it somehow invalidate the answers thus far. Except you neglected poor design and nonexistent oversight by the whomever headed up the rules division.

On the gatekeeping thing: I goddamn challenge you to find posts where I am in 8th Ed. threads badmouthing the editions and shilling for 6th. I shill for 6th when asked preferences, that I won't deny, but you won't catch me in threads not dealing with that and shilling for it. AOS threads? I don't go into them or their subforum, unless there's a frontpaged article that I have a contribution for. Such as one pertaining to The Old World. But I don't edit my posts (Well, except for updating the classichammer batreps links, especially since we got the guest viewing permissions fixed.) at all, so it'll be easy for you to find said trolling if it exists.

Spoiler alert: it doesn't.

On the next to last paragraph you wrote: You responded to my post as if it only pertained to you and this one post. It didn't. It applies anytime the "5 Knights kills everything on the charge" fallacy or any of the other complete falsehoods about 6th.

It's not all about you.

Cut that BS right now, for your own good. You need that venom in your head no more than cancer.



Oh, that reminds me: you responded to me using two of your exact quotes back at you, and in responding you call out the tone or message of the response. Specifically this with a little paraphrasing "And once again you show your edition bias. There are MORE than enough posts across social media platforms stating that people felt 8th WAS indeed especially broken, and that people found 6th Edition to be especially stable." and this as a direct quote with the editions swapped "As for people complaining 6th was broken, you mean you. It is not a universal sentiment. 6th remains popular; there are YouTube channels doing 6th Edition battle reports."

As for why I'd question recommending AOS to people coming from TW:W looking for regimental combat tabletop games? It's because AOS is NOT one. At all. It's 40K with bows. I already put that in the above response.


At any rate, I'll await whatever you bring back as I'm sure you'll find a wealth of links to posts with my anti-8th trolling...

Or a Tzeetch list with only six models to begin with that will melt your army off the table.

I am interested in hearing more about this, and how much of that is hyperbole vs a real list that could be made in 6th edition.

Four characters marked Tzeentch and six chariots marked the same. The characters would be riding on the chariots.

 Just Tony wrote:
Four characters marked Tzeentch and six chariots marked the same. The characters would be riding on the chariots.

Interesting. I really only have context of WHFB 8th edition, but the Tzeentch lore doesn't look like it would be strong enough with magic to do the work to clear out an enemy army. It seems it would ride down to being strong in melee with light early game magic support. But I also don't know what the lores of Fire or Shadow do, which Sorcerers appear to have access to.

Was this a bogeyman list like the Chaos Knight spam or is it just a theorycraft "look at this silly thing I can do"? It doesn't match my impression of WHFB6 at all.

There were a lot of lists like this that seem to be some sort of monumental unopposable Juggernaut on paper but once the dice hit the table it wasn't nearly as impressive. These netlist things have been repeated now for 20 years, and I have yet to find examples where these things actually hold up statistically.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Four characters marked Tzeentch and six chariots marked the same. The characters would be riding on the chariots.

Interesting. I really only have context of WHFB 8th edition, but the Tzeentch lore doesn't look like it would be strong enough with magic to do the work to clear out an enemy army. It seems it would ride down to being strong in melee with light early game magic support. But I also don't know what the lores of Fire or Shadow do, which Sorcerers appear to have access to.

Was this a bogeyman list like the Chaos Knight spam or is it just a theorycraft "look at this silly thing I can do"? It doesn't match my impression of WHFB6 at all.

I did this once! (Though I think I dropped one hero and had a unit of horrors or something.) Just because I thought it was funny, not because I saw it recommended online or something. I can't really say whether it's overpowered or not; I was a bit intemperate with my power dice and it was one of those days where every roll goes against you (for both of us, actually; I think we each had more miscasts in that game than in all our games to that point put together).

antia wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Four characters marked Tzeentch and six chariots marked the same. The characters would be riding on the chariots.

Interesting. I really only have context of WHFB 8th edition, but the Tzeentch lore doesn't look like it would be strong enough with magic to do the work to clear out an enemy army. It seems it would ride down to being strong in melee with light early game magic support. But I also don't know what the lores of Fire or Shadow do, which Sorcerers appear to have access to.

Was this a bogeyman list like the Chaos Knight spam or is it just a theorycraft "look at this silly thing I can do"? It doesn't match my impression of WHFB6 at all.

I did this once! (Though I think I dropped one hero and had a unit of horrors or something.) Just because I thought it was funny, not because I saw it recommended online or something. I can't really say whether it's overpowered or not; I was a bit intemperate with my power dice and it was one of those days where every roll goes against you (for both of us, actually; I think we each had more miscasts in that game than in all our games to that point put together).

You could swap out one chariot for a Lord of Change or Tzeentch Daemon prince.
And yes, this list did work, it isnt a paper list.

In fact as I am writing right now I have a friend over who ran a Tzeentch list with 23 power dice, it was not a chariot list, had a moderately higher model count but worked the same. He used a Daemon prince with Staff of Change, chosen with banners and pink horrors. It was a long time ago and he cant remember much more on short notice. He was a staffer at the time so had lots of armies, and knew the meta..

I had time at work while the machine was running to do a little math on this.

Lord of Change - 665 points
Daemon Prince with Mark of Tzeentch and Staff of Change - 515 points
Chaos Lord with Mark of Tzeentch and no other gear/magic items - 450 points

Exalted Daemon with Mark of Tzeentch - 300 points
Exalted Champion with Mark of Tzeentch - 170 points
Aspiring Champion with Mark of Tzeentch - 150 points
Wargor with Mark of Tzeentch - 130 points

I'll skip prices on Doombulls and Beastlords as we're leaning on the unbeatable Mortals list and as such would make Mortal units not be Core in the list. Also worth noting is that the Daemon Prince takes up a Lord AND a Hero slot while the Exalted Daemon takes up two Hero slots.

I also priced these guys naked with the exception of the staff you specifically mentioned as I have no idea what individual load outs will be.

Taking 4 characters from that list will net you 10 Power Dice plus the 2 for being an army for a total of 12 before getting units. The problem? These characters now tie up half the points or more for your entire army. You could save by running some regular Level 2 wizards from the different lists but you'd miss out on the game ending Tzeentch spells. NOW the hard choice is how to get units that give you Power Dice.

For the sake of cheapness we'll go with the smallest and barely equipped units possible. Specific load outs of those Chosen would change things, especially since the Chosen also add a ton of points to the totals.

Mortal
10 Chaos Warriors with Mark of Tzeentch - 160 points
5 Knights with Mark of Tzeentch - 185 points
Chariot with Mark of Tzeentch - 140 points

Beast
10 Bestigors with Mark of Tzeentch - 140 points
3 Minotaurs with Mark of Tzeentch - 140 points

Daemon
10 Horrors - 150 points

This last one is trickier as the unit is able to cast bound spells and generate no Power Dice.

The OTHER units each add 1 Power Die to the pool per turn. Once again, looks great on paper until you have to fit everything in and sacrifice either Power Dice to fit your wizards, a Wizard or two, or any sort of Combat Resolution.

I can only speak for my own, tiny corner of the world (southern New England), but we didn't stop playing 8th Edition until GW killed off the game and the setting. Some of us still play 8th edition on a regular basis.

Some players, of course, were turned off by the new rules, especially the randomness in the magic phase. I don't think balance was a big factor; if anything, 8th was more balanced than 7th because of the better balance between Army Books. People say cost was a factor, which I find difficult to believe as an army in 8th didn't contain many more models than an army in 7th. It was the changes to many core rules, along with the explosive magic phase, that was the big deterrent.

However, interest definitely spiked during the release of the End Times books, even if we realized the content of those books was generally poorly balanced rubbish. I played more games during that period than any other period of 8th, usually to try the new rules out and then never use them again!

I generally agree with the OP that that period (6th/7th 40K, 8th WHFB) was a low point for GW: lows in customer relations, lows in creative vision, lows in cohesive rules writing. I don't think many of the rules were even bad, as 8th is perfectly serviceable rules set I've been playing for 12+ years. But the feeling was off, as GW had lost its direction and the players knew it. And then, the deluge of AoS and all that followed.

When it comes to cost, I think that for many people, 8th edition favoring large blocks of very expensive elite infantry made it "seem" expensive.

As always, I say that no game is expensive if you're having a great time, while games you don't enjoy get expensive very fast.

 Polonius wrote:
When it comes to cost, I think that for many people, 8th edition favoring large blocks of very expensive elite infantry made it "seem" expensive.

As always, I say that no game is expensive if you're having a great time, while games you don't enjoy get expensive very fast.

It does make for a very high cost of entry, which makes it hard to attract new players.

The point is, if you really like a game the cost is not a big issue

But if you need to spend a lot of money to check if you like it, cost is an issue

And to buy a rulebook, an army book and a force just to test if you like it is a very high entry cost

and low point games without army rules don't tell you a lot about those kind of games
Hence why for example the free KoW rules pdf comes with 2 pre-made army lists and because of no need for single models you can test the game without investing anything but time

Waarmonger wrote:
This isn't a thread about why GW shut down WHFB. It's a thread for trying to figure out why so many people abandoned the game within a few years of the 8th edition release (2010). In the local area, we used to have quite a lot of people playing. The scene dried up way before End Times

I wasn't involved with WHFB scene in any significant capacity while it was still alive here, but according to some phrases I've heard at the time not insignificant portion of the playerbase indeed bounced hard off the 8th edition. Seemingly a lot of people hated new scenarios and army books, not sure about the core rules overall. At least on one occasion a player described later addons produced by GW as "meaningless, overcosted, unbalanced garbage". A lot of people tried to move over to KoW, but I think it's also pretty much dead now.

the sort of open secret about WFB is that, even by 6th edition, it was a creaky, old fashioned game. By 8th edition, which was just iteration of 6th edition, the core game was pretty horrible, so when the changes weren't well received, the bottom fell out kind of fast.

I played a bit in 6th edition, and a few years back stumbled across a high elf army for pretty cheap. I got really excited, and then started watching 6th edition battle reports... and lost interest pretty fast. The models are great, the lore is good, but the game is a relic of the 80s, last overhauled in the late 90s. I think it takes a lot of momentum to stay into it.

 Polonius wrote:
the sort of open secret about WFB is that, even by 6th edition, it was a creaky, old fashioned game. By 8th edition, which was just iteration of 6th edition, the core game was pretty horrible, so when the changes weren't well received, the bottom fell out kind of fast.

I played a bit in 6th edition, and a few years back stumbled across a high elf army for pretty cheap. I got really excited, and then started watching 6th edition battle reports... and lost interest pretty fast. The models are great, the lore is good, but the game is a relic of the 80s, last overhauled in the late 90s. I think it takes a lot of momentum to stay into it.

That's interesting because I find the old school elements of WHFB to be what makes it superior to more modern games. Or, if not superior, at least good in a different way.

I think one of the biggest issues was 8th magic was designed around countering 7th deathstars that ported over into 8th (until they got updated army books) but once everything (or practically everything sorry Skaven, Brets, and Beastmen) was updated magic was never brought down. That was needed to make the game not so swingy. Also cannons.

Polonius wrote:the sort of open secret about WFB is that, even by 6th edition, it was a creaky, old fashioned game. By 8th edition, which was just iteration of 6th edition, the core game was pretty horrible, so when the changes weren't well received, the bottom fell out kind of fast.

I played a bit in 6th edition, and a few years back stumbled across a high elf army for pretty cheap. I got really excited, and then started watching 6th edition battle reports... and lost interest pretty fast. The models are great, the lore is good, but the game is a relic of the 80s, last overhauled in the late 90s. I think it takes a lot of momentum to stay into it.

I disagree with the comment in bold. The 8th edition was a completely different set of core rules. The only way to do this cleanly was to do what they did at the 6th rollout and set everyone to ravening hordes. 7th edition was an iteration of 6th edition. As far as the rules being a relic of the 80's, they had a massive re-write between the 3rd to the 4th, so much that it really was not all that recognizable from one edition to the next. This re-write happened in the early 90's. While the re-write from 5th to 6th was significant, it was not as big of a change as this one. They cut out characteristics, removed whole formations, and of course massive change the core rules. It was very much similar to the re-write that happened for the 8th edition.

nathan2004 wrote:I think one of the biggest issues was 8th magic was designed around countering 7th deathstars that ported over into 8th (until they got updated army books) but once everything (or practically everything sorry Skaven, Brets, and Beastmen) was updated magic was never brought down. That was needed to make the game not so swingy. Also cannons.

I tend to agree with this statement to a point. The core rule changes seemed to counter the deathstars that people could make in the 7th somewhat.

My take on what happened in the 8th was that the core rules either evolved or were purposefully changed to make them react to a completely different game than what a usual game entailed of WFB for at lesat 15 years if not longer. The whole premise as I see WFB was that you had an army(or wing) of an army that you were battling out on the table. I tend to think of the units as company(or the size of a Roman Century) level of troops, and they maneuver throughout the table.

That changed with the 8th edition a bit. You already had some units that were too potent for the above scenario mentioned by Nathan, so they allowed all units to counter that by being more absorbent to the kills that could be dished out. As large blocks of infantry were that much larger, you had other elements escalate in their potency, like magic. Similarly they made certain units hold no tactical value in the form of neutering charges too much, and disposed of facings. This morphed what was a class of a bunch of 100 men units with auxiliary units who won from maneuvering as much as raw power, to large blob like blocks that rarely moved anything different than forward, and won by how much power that you brought to the table. It reminded me as if you were playing Warmaster, but more myopic in that you only had really one stand that represents a battalion or cohort level of troops and they jacked up the wounds to 10 times what they said in Warmaster. I left early in the 8th as it was not a game that interested me and became rather boring. The 7th edition needed fixes, mainly in the form of nerfing some armies or combinations, but instead they powered up everyone else with general rules.

TinyLegions wrote:

Polonius wrote:the sort of open secret about WFB is that, even by 6th edition, it was a creaky, old fashioned game. By 8th edition, which was just iteration of 6th edition, the core game was pretty horrible, so when the changes weren't well received, the bottom fell out kind of fast.

I played a bit in 6th edition, and a few years back stumbled across a high elf army for pretty cheap. I got really excited, and then started watching 6th edition battle reports... and lost interest pretty fast. The models are great, the lore is good, but the game is a relic of the 80s, last overhauled in the late 90s. I think it takes a lot of momentum to stay into it.

I disagree with the comment in bold. The 8th edition was a completely different set of core rules. The only way to do this cleanly was to do what they did at the 6th rollout and set everyone to ravening hordes. 7th edition was an iteration of 6th edition. As far as the rules being a relic of the 80's, they had a massive re-write between the 3rd to the 4th, so much that it really was not all that recognizable from one edition to the next. This re-write happened in the early 90's. While the re-write from 5th to 6th was significant, it was not as big of a change as this one. They cut out characteristics, removed whole formations, and of course massive change the core rules. It was very much similar to the re-write that happened for the 8th edition.

You say you disagree, but I dont' think our posts really conflict with each other, other than you liked the 6th edition engine, and I did not.

Yes, WFB had several big changes, notbably 3rd to 4th and 5th to 6th. 6th though 8th all shared a common army book enviornment, and while there were huge changes how the game was played due to some of 8th editions design, you could take two armies from early 6th editioin and play a game of 8th.

When I say the game was basically the same, I'm talking down to the bones. Chart based successes. Hit/wound/save processes. complete I go, you go. Ranks and flanks with combat resolution. Psychology, but no command and control elements. Individual models as wound markers. I can't think of a ranks and flanks game played on a large scale (aside from direct WFB successors) that keeps these elements, because they're old, man. Conquest throws out I go, you go. Kings of War doesn't have psychology or individual models. Does any modern game have the combat res of WFB?

That all said, I don't think 8th edition was doomed. I think you can package those old and creaky rules into something modern and interesting, they just failed to do so in 8th. Notably, they created a ranks and flanks game that eliminated flanks (and also sort of ranks), which eliminates maneuver and shock, and means games become grinds.

 Polonius wrote:


You say you disagree, but I dont' think our posts really conflict with each other, other than you liked the 6th edition engine, and I did not.

Yes, WFB had several big changes, notbably 3rd to 4th and 5th to 6th. 6th though 8th all shared a common army book enviornment, and while there were huge changes how the game was played due to some of 8th editions design, you could take two armies from early 6th editioin and play a game of 8th.

When I say the game was basically the same, I'm talking down to the bones. Chart based successes. Hit/wound/save processes. complete I go, you go. Ranks and flanks with combat resolution. Psychology, but no command and control elements. Individual models as wound markers. I can't think of a ranks and flanks game played on a large scale (aside from direct WFB successors) that keeps these elements, because they're old, man. Conquest throws out I go, you go. Kings of War doesn't have psychology or individual models. Does any modern game have the combat res of WFB?

That all said, I don't think 8th edition was doomed. I think you can package those old and creaky rules into something modern and interesting, they just failed to do so in 8th. Notably, they created a ranks and flanks game that eliminated flanks (and also sort of ranks), which eliminates maneuver and shock, and means games become grinds.

You know I am not sure how you would have watched any battle reports of the 6th edition. Youtube was created on February 15th 2005 apparently. By June 2006 the 6th edition was no longer supported. Someone needed to have a very extensive video setup in order to record, edit, and upload a game back then. I just did not see it on places like Warseer until around 2009 or so, and those were really just slide shows. To be honest I would like to know what you were watching. I admit that I am not fond of the 8th and prefer the 6th edition of WFB more, as my signature provides. I don't know your experiences, I can only answer to my own. What I know that I was a player ranging from occasional to regular depending on what else was going on in my life from 1994 until the 8th edition came out. I did my due diligence on the new edition, played some games, and decided that this was not the kind of game that I wanted to play.

Sure, you could have used an pair of old 6th edition armybooks in the 8th edition to an extent, assuming that those armybooks did not have any maximum limits for their respective units. Reading down further down my post, you see what I think are the differences between the 8th and prior editions. The core rules changed how the game played in a significant manner that the 8th edition was not distinguishable from any edition prior, or using your term, games became grinds. I believe those core rule changes mentioned above are a lot more important than whether I could play with an unsupported prior edition army book, or not.

As far as the bones of the game that you refer to you call them old and creeky; but what you call old and creeky, I would call signature GW mechanics. There were games back in the 80's that had the elements mentioned above that were different from WFB. Other games back then did hits, wounds and save differently, same with turn vs activation, psychology, etc. To be honest rank and flank games in themselves are technically old and creeky, as the new hotness is skirmish games like AOS or Frostgrave. From your posts I get the impression that, you have the assumption that just because something is new that it is better, I am not so sure that it is better, nor am I sure that it really is new.

LOL, I watched 6th edition battle reports in 2022, not back in 6th edition. I meant that actually seeing the game played again reminded me of what I didn't enjoy.

I don't think new games are necessarily better, but I think that games mechanics have evolved dramatically from the 1980s, and the tool kit is wider. I would look at D20, which IMO isn't a great system, but has been modernized to make the most of it. Things like eliminating THAC0 and creating target numbers has helped.

And while no Rank and flank game has completely filled the void left behind by WFB, the success of Kings of War, Conquest, and ASOIF show that there is a market for this stuff, and there are some interesting new ways to look at it.

Polonius wrote:When it comes to cost, I think that for many people, 8th edition favoring large blocks of very expensive elite infantry made it "seem" expensive.

As always, I say that no game is expensive if you're having a great time, while games you don't enjoy get expensive very fast.

Only if you have the money. To someone less fortunate, or someone who's still busy with their education there's only so much to spend on games.
More so for those in countries with a currency that is weak compared to £ sterling or US$.

Vulcan wrote:It does make for a very high cost of entry, which makes it hard to attract new players.

Also this.

The reason I never started Warhammer of any edition was the barrier to entry.
I ended playing historical ancients in 15mm for my first 10 years as a wargamer. Which was far more affordable and accessible for someone in high school.
Admittedly, a group of wargamers that included me happened for hsitorical, but never WHFB.

The cost of a Warhammer rulebook compared to an entire 15mm army was enough to stop the idea in it's tracks.

Even when I started earning money, I then considered that the cost of the books would be followed by the cost and time required to get a Warhammer army on the table. AFTER which I would have to figure out what was going on in the rules and/or convince someone to teach a newbie (again; WHFB players didn't seem interested in growing their community).

Say what you will about AoS, being able to grab/download a rules pamphlet and a few models got me playing.
After which I ended up sending double the number that put me off (after I was earning money).

I realised that the way GW does things and treats their games and the players of those games was intentional (i.e. not likely to change) after my first 40K edition change and don't play GW games anymore though.

SgtBANZAI wrote: A lot of people tried to move over to KoW, but I think it's also pretty much dead now.

Nope. KoW is going strong. In edition 3.5 and about to release a new army (reworked warhammer refugee list and a line of new models).
Not sure if there's a community where you are though.

 Polonius wrote:
When it comes to cost, I think that for many people, 8th edition favoring large blocks of very expensive elite infantry made it "seem" expensive.

As always, I say that no game is expensive if you're having a great time, while games you don't enjoy get expensive very fast.

Whilest the later is true, the problem was due to balance you were intenciviced to actually buy some units to have a decent working army, the type of army that actually is fun to play because it doesn't just fold. Even if you weren't full on comp, you still required for many armies such a big block of elites or similar expensive models.

In the german sphere we called f.e. Zweihänder Goldhänder due to price, because how else than them being made out of best GW gold would justify their absurd price for points. And an Imperium army kinda required a big block of them as a center atleast 50 at that. And it wasn't an exception.

So if you wanted to build a competent (not competitve but not memey list) things still got expensive fast, which lead with the often high points for "normal" matches to WHFB being a significantly more expensive game than 40k.

Effect of course as was brought up, was a lack of new blood and with the normal player attrition it was a fait acompli.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkBlack wrote:


The reason I never started Warhammer of any edition was the barrier to entry.
I ended playing historical ancients in 15mm for my first 10 years as a wargamer. Which was far more affordable and accessible for someone in high school.
Admittedly, a group of wargamers that included me happened for hsitorical, but never WHFB.

The cost of a Warhammer rulebook compared to an entire 15mm army was enough to stop the idea in it's tracks.

Even when I started earning money, I then considered that the cost of the books would be followed by the cost and time required to get a Warhammer army on the table. AFTER which I would have to figure out what was going on in the rules and/or convince someone to teach a newbie (again; WHFB players didn't seem interested in growing their community).

Say what you will about AoS, being able to grab/download a rules pamphlet and a few models got me playing.
After which I ended up sending double the number that put me off (after I was earning money).

I realised that the way GW does things and treats their games and the players of those games was intentional (i.e. not likely to change) after my first 40K edition change and don't play GW games anymore though.

I disagree, people were actually very supportive locally of new blood, but at the same time the points "normal" going up from 2000 to 2500 to 3000 ontop of certain new sculpts being absurdly pricy was bound to even with the most welcoming community not work. Again f.e. standard Imperium army required a big block of Zwei's , atleast 50. That block alone cost at the time 5 x 42.50 € or a measly 212.50€ / about 250 CHF due to conversion rate (and that is a moderate one there were times were euros were far more worth and so was the pound compared to it) and ammounted to about what 500-600 pts? Ontop of painting and building time. And you Still lack core and Heros /lords. Which the later alone you can expect another 75-100 CHF.

Also this was the age were GW shafted access for local gaming stores to some elite units, forcing you to order directly, f.e. Bestigors.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Whilest the later is true, the problem was due to balance you were intenciviced to actually buy some units to have a decent working army, the type of army that actually is fun to play because it doesn't just fold. Even if you weren't full on comp, you still required for many armies such a big block of elites or similar expensive models.

In the german sphere we called f.e. Zweihänder Goldhänder due to price, because how else than them being made out of best GW gold would justify their absurd price for points. And an Imperium army kinda required a big block of them as a center atleast 50 at that. And it wasn't an exception.

So if you wanted to build a competent (not competitve but not memey list) things still got expensive fast, which lead with the often high points for "normal" matches to WHFB being a significantly more expensive game than 40k.

New prospective Empire players being told they should start with say 4 boxes of Halberdiers to have one unit was unsurprisingly not attractive - and an outright crazy proposition versus "here's a box of tactical marines, have fun."

I feel its worth saying that you can play 8th with smaller units - but once your meta has people running 50 Grave Guard/White Lions, 100 Skaven Slaves etc, it felt like you had to join them to have a chance.

Which I think is an often unmentioned reason why lots of people bounced off 8th edition. A reasonable number of people had Cavalry-focused armies that were tailored to 6th and 7th edition. They weren't "collections" put together by semi-randomly buying this unit and that unit. When it became clear this sort of force was much worse in 8th, and it was clear you'd need to buy "50 Great-weapon infantry" to compete, the reaction from several was just "nah, this edition sucks, I'm out".

This was coupled with GW's glacial release cycle and complete indifference to imbalance. Its not like late 7th was an especially healthy time - with Daemons, VC and Dark Elves. Admittedly this wasn't anything new, but I think it just wasn't credible by the 2010s. Things like Warmahordes and X-Wing ripped through communities which could do something new rather than hope GW might give them a new army book in 5-10 years time.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Nope. KoW is going strong. In edition 3.5 and about to release a new army (reworked warhammer refugee list and a line of new models).
Not sure if there's a community where you are though.

I meant locally, I don't doubt KoW is still alive as a system.

So many people say cost was a barrier to entry with WHFB that there may be some truth to it, but I have great difficulty believing that when 40K and AoS must be about as expensive today as WHFB was back in 8th. Warhammer is a luxury hobby with luxury prices and there's nothing wrong with that; a beautiful board with beautiful armies is not a cheap thing to come by, but the spectacle makes it worthwhile.

(Not all miniature games are pure luxuries; ASOIAF, for example, can be played for about $150. But Warhammer definitely is, as is traditional historical gaming.)

Perhaps the specific issue was, as others have pointed out, that GW's prices were rising sharply during that period and we hadn't gotten used to it yet. Greatswords/Witch Elves/etc were/are absurdly expensive, but the overall cost of a WHFB army wasn't any higher than today's Warhammer games.

 Saber wrote:
So many people say cost was a barrier to entry with WHFB that there may be some truth to it, but I have great difficulty believing that when 40K and AoS must be about as expensive today as WHFB was back in 8th. Warhammer is a luxury hobby with luxury prices and there's nothing wrong with that; a beautiful board with beautiful armies is not a cheap thing to come by, but the spectacle makes it worthwhile.

Barrier to entry isn't the cost of a full army unless a new player needs a full army to play.
Which was the case with WHFB, or at least appeared to be to someone looking in from the outside.

Barrier to entry is the money and effort it takes to go from thinking something looks interesting to participating.
Once someone is playing and engaged, they'll probably put more time in money in.

Also: there are posts on this thread straight up saying that barrier to entry stopped us from playing WHFB.

Not all miniature games are pure luxuries ... Warhammer definitely is, as is traditional historical gaming.

What kind of historical gaming are you talking about?
Historical is generally cheaper in my experience. I come from 15mm ancients though.
The sight of a 6ft tablecoverd in 15mm armies is quite the spectacle to boot.

 Saber wrote:
.
(Not all miniature games are pure luxuries; ASOIAF, for example, can be played for about $150. But Warhammer definitely is, as is traditional historical gaming.).

those times are long gone, classic historicals are now seen as the budget game next to GW games
Even a full metal Napoleonic army is around 300€, a plastic one 150-200

By now the luxury is really just Warhammer

 Saber wrote:
as is traditional historical gaming.)

Historicals are often very cheap in comparison to other genres, especially IP based games. I know that Fallout Wasteland Warfare and MCP are pretty expensive in terms of cost/model, and when Halo Ground Combat released, it had completely baffling pricing, something along 40$ for a single 15 mm scale tank if I remember correctly?

In my experience, historical wargaming, even the most pricey variety, nowadays pales in comparison not only to Warhammer, but also to pretty much any more or less recognizable fantasy or sci-fi. Especially if the manufacturer still uses metal or resin. I was really impressed in the worst possible sense of the word with Warmachine's pricing, especially considering their abolutely godawful sculpting quality. Until they repackaged their Incarnate Sentinels (trio of medium sized monsters) into plastic, Parabellum listed resin variants at 150$ or something similarly insane.